PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-09-22, 07:34:23
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]
Author Topic: The Reality of Evolution?  (Read 3790 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm

Miracle of Life

So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time...

Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.

    In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.

    ...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1

Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.

In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:

    The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3

Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:

    An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4

Mags

I wonder exactly how your !scientists! made there calculations?

Now lets look at it the correct way.

There is (that we know of so far) around one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Each galaxy has between 100 to 340 billion stars(suns).
Our milky way alone has over 100 billion planets.
So whats the chances now that life may start on one of those 10's of trillions of planets out there ?
The odds look pretty good now.  O0

So that is just idiotic guesses some ex-spurts took,without having much substance at all.
They calculate the odds of life starting on one planet,where it should be the odds of life starting on 1 of 10,000,000,000,000  + planets.

So now the odds are far better,and more in favour than a  super natural being mixing up some mud,and making man--oh,and everything other living thing that exists on our planet today.

So that is that one out.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
I really liked this one, especially the part about the frog in the blender. Genius.


https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/creation-of-life.htm

Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"

Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1

There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.

After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...

"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."

He stared at me with that look...

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"

He thought for only a second...

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."

In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!

Mags

And that is exactly the type of idiotic examples we can and do see from. creationists

Oddly enough,after the fist clay brick there came multiples of clay bricks.
Not long after that,the clay bricks formed sturdy building's.
A true account of the evolution of the clay brick  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
The reality of what creationists want us to believe.

The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there.

The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen  C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that.

Why is it that the creationists think such large changes are ok over a short period of time,and yet such small changes are a no go over an extremely long period of time-->!!millions of years!!

This is what we are being asked to believe  C.C


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein

Quote: The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Quote: the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289
The reality of what creationists want us to believe.

The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there.

The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen  C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that.

Why is it that the creationists think such large changes are ok over a short period of time,and yet such small changes are a no go over an extremely long period of time-->!!millions of years!!

This is what we are being asked to believe  C.C


Brad

"The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there."

This can be a factor of breeding. Nuff said


"The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen  C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that."

Oh goody! Cartoons! yay.  Great proof Brad. You win!  C.C    lol   But the one below is better than yours. ^-^

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289
As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein

Quote: The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Quote: the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion.


Brad

"As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein"

Milehigh has taught you well, and the dark side is powerful in you lord vader.  Lol. You use the term 'actual' as if your quotes are real and the others are not. Tricky lil twister.

Thats all for tonight.  Was up till 4am last night with all this and need sleep tonight. I have more for tomorrow. ;D

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
"The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there."

This can be a factor of breeding. Nuff said


"The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen  C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that."

Oh goody! Cartoons! yay.  Great proof Brad. You win!  C.C    lol   But the one below is better than yours. ^-^

Mags

Cartoons yes,but also a pictorial of reality.

You could always post some !real! pics of Noah's arc if you like,or perhapz of the mighty man him self :D.

Easy to criticize,but hard to deliver the real deal on your end aswell-yes?.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1472
Quote from: TinMan
I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,
and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than
a myth.

To be Scientifically most accurate in accordance with the Scientific
Method
one must say: "...of what I believe to be proof that..."

A True Scientist would argue that all which has been proven to date
is insufficient to prove the Origin of Life and especially Evolution.

He would say:
"Our Theory at this time still remains theory supported by speculation
and conjecture.

"Proof does not yet exist."



---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 483
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Cartoons yes,but also a pictorial of reality.

You could always post some !real! pics of Noah's arc if you like,or perhapz of the mighty man him self :D.

Easy to criticize,but hard to deliver the real deal on your end aswell-yes?.


Brad


Hi Brad,

I don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark.  Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen.  You can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative.  But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen.  Can you please explain why you think there is a connection?  I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that.  But even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth.  You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information.  Can you please post that again.  Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?

Respectfully,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289

Hi Brad,

I don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark.  Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen.  You can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative.  But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen.  Can you please explain why you think there is a connection?  I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that.  But even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth.  You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information.  Can you please post that again.  Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?

Respectfully,
Carroll

Because he thinks that if he can get others to believe what he says about the flood, then he can discredit the whole book. Just like he tried to discredit Einstein. And in all he discredited himself by making up a story that Death Ears was an aussie thing. ;)  It is a common tactic used by atheists.  But when the tables are turned, it gets nasty.

Ever watch Judge Judy?  If you lie to her once, she will no further believe anything else you say. ;)

Keep up the Good works Carrol. O0

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Because he thinks that if he can get others to believe what he says about the flood, then he can discredit the whole book. Just like he tried to discredit Einstein. And in all he discredited himself by making up a story that Death Ears was an aussie thing. ;)  It is a common tactic used by atheists.  But when the tables are turned, it gets nasty.

Ever watch Judge Judy?  If you lie to her once, she will no further believe anything else you say. ;)

Keep up the Good works Carrol. O0

Mags

What garbage Mags.

I have not got nasty in this thread,so it is you that is lying.

Nor did i try and discredit Einstein,i merely showed that because you are great in one area dose not mean you are great in another.
And isn't it odd that you insist that the theory of evolution is just some sort of guess,and yet Einsteins theories are rock solid proof he was a great man. So to you,some scientific theories are garbage,and some (when it suits you) are evidence of a great mind who knows all. This is the same as we always see from creationists,where you pick and choose as to when scientific theories are good or wrong.

So rather than try and discredit me with garbage i never did,try sticking to the truth.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289
No,but we know what couldn't of happened,and that is the sudden appearance of nearly 4 times the volume of water as existed back then.

The bible says that the water covered all the mountains and high hill's,so obviously the land was not flat.
And the ark is suppose to be atop a mountain in Ararat,so that mountain was obviously already there.
Todays science can also tell us how long the mountains have been about,and how they were formed.

So the great flood is one of the junk creationists sciences i am talking about.


Brad


Mount Ararat is number 48 out of the top 100 highest mountains.  And who is to say that it was even that tall before the floods, or even maybe the tallest at the time. If God said he opened up the fountains of the earth in order to create such a flood, we can only imagine that there were some very great disturbances in the earth in doing so at the time.

And I did not say the earth was flat at the time as you 'twist'. I said flatter!  Go back. Check it.  You present my words as something that I did not say to try and make my argument more out of touch than what I actually said. That is exaggeration and quite frankly dishonest. But that is how you argue here.  Im going to eat and then Ill post my next reply. It is part 2 to this post.   ^-^

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee

Mount Ararat is number 48 out of the top 100 highest mountains.  And who is to say that it was even that tall before the floods, or even maybe the tallest at the time. If God said he opened up the fountains of the earth in order to create such a flood, we can only imagine that there were some very great disturbances in the earth in doing so at the time.

And I did not say the earth was flat at the time as you 'twist'. I said flatter!  Go back. Check it.  You present my words as something that I did not say to try and make my argument more out of touch than what I actually said. That is exaggeration and quite frankly dishonest. But that is how you argue here.  Im going to eat and then Ill post my next reply. It is part 2 to this post.   ^-^

Mags

Well as i stated also,the bible said it rained until all the mountains and high hills were covered by water.

So lets say the highest mountain was say only 100 meters high.
That is very low im sure you'd agree.
Now,calculate how much excess water is required to cover our planet so as we have an extra 100 meters diameter.
Then explain as to where all that extra mass (water) went.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 289
Well as i stated also,the bible said it rained until all the mountains and high hills were covered by water.

So lets say the highest mountain was say only 100 meters high.
That is very low im sure you'd agree.
Now,calculate how much excess water is required to cover our planet so as we have an extra 100 meters diameter.
Then explain as to where all that extra mass (water) went.

Brad

On earth today, water covers near 71% vs land.  And at any time the average amount of water in the atmosphere is near 37.5 million billion gallons of water.  What is that, 37,500,000,000,000,000 gallons.  That is only enough to cover the earth about 20mm, oceans and land.

So as brad said about the rain cloud post I made, then the rain on the land drains back into the ocean, said here in post 256 "So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water. So the actual rise would be little more than 20mm. But nobody knows what was what back then. There is no other written account that the atheist has that can object to the Bibles account.  We have to agree that if after the flood that the first rainbow was seen by man, that the skys must have been so full of water(clouds) that there was no breaks in the clouds for sunlight to directly penetrate.  There may have been higher global temps back then, and possibly no glaciers.

Most days around the world, the skys are clear. Just look at sat images. Now if the atmosphere  were fully clouded, we could at least figure a minimum of total water in the fully clouded sky of that time before the flood.

Maybe the earth was 'flatter. Brad said in post 5  "As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible."


Just because the bible said that hills and mountains existed, that doesnt mean that there wasnt any new ones or even extrusions of existing hills and mountains due to earthquakes and plate shifts like even Carrol presented earlier as to how the water could have risen from and where it drained into when all was said and done. What?  Couldnt have happened??  Never has happened?  Does not happen today? Oh, could never be that much of it going on at the time????   As i said earlier, if God opened up the fountains of the earth, then the earth must have really shook. But for the atheist it is always cant happen, couldnt have happened, isnt possible, no way.  But they can believe in a magical happening of accidental life formation that could survive an environment that was barren(frog in a blender post), not even any vegetation and 'survived' and developed into every living thing on earth. lol, and all they have is theories and missing links but hold to their beliefs as strong or even more than religious people do. Like was said by someone earlier, mother nature is their god, science is their church and theory is their bible.  And they say the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by man. But their theorys, stories written by men, are truth.  Funny aint it? ^-^

But ya know, 'we' as christians and creationists dont really have to go through all this figuring out of what ifs and hows in the manner we are trying to. God did it. God is able to do whatever and anything. Why does there need to be a requirement for how much water is in or on or above the earth? He is God. He can make it appear just like he could perform a big bang! Why not? Why is it that atheists think God has limitations?? They give us all these scientific odds, numbers and theories that propose that even if there was a God, he was limited to say, the amount of water on earth in order to flood it, effectively saying 'Even God could not do it!'    lol   

We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...

1 God does not exist.

2 Prove the accidental creation of life

3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.


I wonder Brad. Which came first, the chicken or the eggplant??  It is amazing how your evolution created by your mother nature(imaginary being) did it all.  Well, yesterday you were going to show us proof. Well prove that God does not exist. If all you have is incomplete bits and pieces via theories, well thats not good enough.

Mags




« Last Edit: 2019-06-21, 07:02:54 by Magluvin »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
...
We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...

1 God does not exist.
Certainly not, you're reversing the burden of proof, it's a classical sophism or paralogism of the religious mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

God is defined only by the believer (and so badly, not operationally, that it is irrefutable in the Poper's sense). The believer is the only one with the burden of proof.

Quote
2 Prove the accidental creation of life
3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.
We don't have to prove it to reject God. God is rejected as explanation without proof. 'What is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof.' (Euclid).

And it's another fallacy: to make us believe that there would only be two possible choices.

Your demands are nonsense.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
On earth today, water covers near 71% vs land.  And at any time the average amount of water in the atmosphere is near 37.5 million billion gallons of water.  What is that, 37,500,000,000,000,000 gallons.  That is only enough to cover the earth about 20mm, oceans and land.

So as brad said about the rain cloud post I made, then the rain on the land drains back into the ocean, said here in post 256 "So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water. So the actual rise would be little more than 20mm. But nobody knows what was what back then. There is no other written account that the atheist has that can object to the Bibles account.  We have to agree that if after the flood that the first rainbow was seen by man, that the skys must have been so full of water(clouds) that there was no breaks in the clouds for sunlight to directly penetrate.  There may have been higher global temps back then, and possibly no glaciers.

Most days around the world, the skys are clear. Just look at sat images. Now if the atmosphere  were fully clouded, we could at least figure a minimum of total water in the fully clouded sky of that time before the flood.

Maybe the earth was 'flatter. Brad said in post 5  "As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible."


Just because the bible said that hills and mountains existed, that doesnt mean that there wasnt any new ones or even extrusions of existing hills and mountains due to earthquakes and plate shifts like even Carrol presented earlier as to how the water could have risen from and where it drained into when all was said and done. What?  Couldnt have happened??  Never has happened?  Does not happen today? Oh, could never be that much of it going on at the time????   As i said earlier, if God opened up the fountains of the earth, then the earth must have really shook. But for the atheist it is always cant happen, couldnt have happened, isnt possible, no way.  But they can believe in a magical happening of accidental life formation that could survive an environment that was barren(frog in a blender post), not even any vegetation and 'survived' and developed into every living thing on earth. lol, and all they have is theories and missing links but hold to their beliefs as strong or even more than religious people do. Like was said by someone earlier, mother nature is their god, science is their church and theory is their bible.  And they say the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by man. But their theorys, stories written by men, are truth.  Funny aint it? ^-^

But ya know, 'we' as christians and creationists dont really have to go through all this figuring out of what ifs and hows in the manner we are trying to. God did it. God is able to do whatever and anything. Why does there need to be a requirement for how much water is in or on or above the earth? He is God. He can make it appear just like he could perform a big bang! Why not? Why is it that atheists think God has limitations?? They give us all these scientific odds, numbers and theories that propose that even if there was a God, he was limited to say, the amount of water on earth in order to flood it, effectively saying 'Even God could not do it!'    lol   

We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...

1 God does not exist.

2 Prove the accidental creation of life




I wonder Brad. Which came first, the chicken or the eggplant??  It is amazing how your evolution created by your mother nature(imaginary being) did it all.  Well, yesterday you were going to show us proof. Well prove that God does not exist. If all you have is incomplete bits and pieces via theories, well that's not good enough.

Mags

Well as usual,you have it all ass about.
When making extraordinary claim's(such as the creationists do),then you have to back up those claims with evidence-->yes,it is up to you.

I do not have to prove the non existence of something that dose not exist--how stupid is that.
And you say mother nature is an imaginary being  C.C,which no one ever said mother nature was a being at all--it just is what it is-->life.
And even so,a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Mother nature is real,we live with her every day,we see her at work every day,and you call her imaginary,while trying to tell us all a super natural being made everything only 6000 years ago lol.

Quote
3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.

Funny you should say that.
I mean even the creationists have to admit to change over time-and they do.

Even though i have posted many video's and links to how life evolved over millions of years in this thread,i will do it again just for you.

But first--about your big flood

1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0J5WMmykEs
2-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MeHmWapM4Y
3-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA&t=586s
4-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc
5-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po
6-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B42dWY88Ir4
7-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&t=5s
8-https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
9-https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
10-https://www.livescience.com/44442-noahs-ark-true.html

I could keep going,and supply 100's of pages of evidence to show the great flood and Noah's ark an impossibility.

Now,evolution,and how it happens--again.

1- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
2- https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#790639e62d8d
3- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/?redirect=1
4- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
5- http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
6- https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
7- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
8- https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
9- https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
10- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-aGAX27SIo
11- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA&t=370s
12- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
13- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
14- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfKZlTRNjA

And so on and on and on.

Now,where is your scientific proof of the great flood,man and all animals were created only 6000 years ago, and of God's existence ?.
And i mean real science--not creationist garbage science that was banned from all schools in the USA.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee

Hi Brad,

 

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote
But even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth.  You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information.  Can you please post that again.  Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?

A false age old argument used by creationists all the time,but as always-totally incorrect.

1- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
2- https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#790639e62d8d
3- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/?redirect=1
4- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
5- http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
6- https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
7- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
8- https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
9- https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
10- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-aGAX27SIo
11- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA&t=370s
12- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
13- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
14- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfKZlTRNjA

And there is thousands more if you wish.

Quote
You can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative.

Of course i can and have proven the great flood never happened,along with Noah's ark.
But a few more,as it seems you cannot find the ones i have already posted,even though there are many in this thread  C.C

1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0J5WMmykEs
2-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MeHmWapM4Y
3-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA&t=586s
4-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc
5-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po
6-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B42dWY88Ir4
7-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&t=5s
8-https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
9-https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
10-https://www.livescience.com/44442-noahs-ark-true.html

So,solid proof of both of which you claim against.
There was no great flood that covered the world in water,and never ever could have been--it's just a physical scientific impossibility--and that's a fact.
Then there is also the engineering fact that a wooden boat that large would never be sea worthy nor possible,and built by a farmer and his sons makes it nothing more than a wild fantasy.

Quote
I don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark.  Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen.    But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen.  Can you please explain why you think there is a connection?  I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that.

It's much like detective work,where if you eliminate the impossible,then no matter how improbable,what remains must be truth.

Your argument against evolution is creation-is it not?
So what evidence do you have against evolution?
What scientific verifiable evidence can you  provide for creation ?
What actual pictures can you provide to show photographic proof of creation,such as i have provided for evolution,via the fossil records we have today?

And 1 more thing i would like from you.
If the great flood happened,then there should be millions of human fossils buried in that flood layer.
This would be whole cities of people killed all in one hit.
With those human fossil's will be every animal that has ever existed on earth,and this would include the dinosaurs.
So could you please provide any links to any web pages that show human fossils right alongside dinosaurs.
If the creationists are correct,and the great flood caused all the layers found,then mixed in all those layers should be fossils of all the animals that have ever walked the earth right alongside human fossils,and there should be no sorting of different types of animals in each layer,as they all died at the very same time.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Certainly not, you're reversing the burden of proof, it's a classical sophism or paralogism of the religious mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

God is defined only by the believer (and so badly, not operationally, that it is irrefutable in the Poper's sense). The believer is the only one with the burden of proof.
We don't have to prove it to reject God. God is rejected as explanation without proof. 'What is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof.' (Euclid).

And it's another fallacy: to make us believe that there would only be two possible choices.

Your demands are nonsense.

Indeed  O0


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Just like he tried to discredit Einstein.

Mags

And what was so good about Einstein?

Einstein had many discoveries, but he is perhaps best known for his theory of relativity and the equation E=MC2, which foreshadowed the development of atomic power and the atomic bomb

What dose Mags think about scientific theories?

Quote post 139: What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we.
 Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts.

So what is so good about Einstein Mag's,as all he had were theories,which according to you are not fact's  C.C

As i said,you choose to accept science when it suits you,and when it go's against your belief's,then you call it garbage.
How creationist's of you  C.C

So whether or not you like it,scientific theories are based on fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nny7Bd1Yhtc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uzsuCFUQ68

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And so on and so on--->

So,the !theory! of evolution is based around fact's,unlike creation,which is just pub talk theory.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 483
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Because of the emotionalism that has gotten interjected  in this thread and the possibility of friendships being hurt I am going to lock this thread.  I think everyone on both sides of the discussion have had plenty of time to share their thoughts.

I very much do appreciate those that have tried to be respectful in their replies.   I sincerely thank YOU!!!   O0


Take care all,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-09-22, 07:34:23