- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2012,11:24) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2012,15:02) With regard to micelles, I've asked you whether you are ready for the chemistry involved in the next stage(s) of the model(s) of abiogenesis………….
If they are not truly an example of LIFE FORMS “livening” themselves out of non-life, then why bother? Because unless they are truly LIFE FORMS, then it wouldn't really answer my question, would it?
I answered that point.Did you read it?
Did you ignore it for the purposes of playing to the crowd?
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2012,11:29) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2012,15:14) Darwin predicted there would be found transitional fossils, and that is what was found
Prove that, Stu.Today we have tiny horses, medium sized horses, and large horses.
Do you suppose that evolutionists a million years from now will consider the medium horse to be the “link” between the other two?
ANY and EVERY fossil ever found could be the remains of a SEPARATE species that God created unique from all others. Just because you SAY the medium horse is the link between the other two doesn't mean that's the truth, does it?
We are talking about fossils that appear at one time, and disappear again some time later, after which there are similar fossils that have distinct morphological differences that follow clear patterns of change over vast periods of time.Your claim is for special and separate creations of each, but this is not possible, according to Genesis 2:1.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
My claim is based on the idea that life begets life, also a biblical idea I believe.
So, are you claiming it is reasonable to deny that the later set of fossils are from the descendents of the earlier set of fossils when there are no other more similar remains present? How would it a reasonable claim? Perhaps you could give some mechanisms for how special creation works.
By the way, I predict you will dishonestly ignore my point about Genesis, because it will be too much work for you to come up with a response.
Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 17 2012,03:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,03:40) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,22:06)
I can tell you with certainty that the bible's cosmology is wrong.No, you actually can't, WIT. Or at least you haven't shown me yet.
…
It seems to me that if you can't prove the universe is NOT in a dome, then you can't, with any CERTAINTY, make the claim about the “firmament” that you are trying to make.
When I first brought this issue up with Ed, I asked an open ended question. I let him (and later you) explain what happened on Day 2 of creation according to the bible. You and Ed both decided that the firmament in that passage was talking about the atmosphere/sky. When I challenged you to reconcile that explanation with the Day 4 account of the sun, moon, and stars being placed in the firmament, Ed changed the subject, and you suggested that the firmament is now possibly the entire universe!I proved to you that believers, including you and Ed, would naturally understand that the firmament in the creation myth is the sky and that only when challenged would try to reinterpret it to be something else. You have demonstrated quite perfectly that you can only accept the bible's view of certain things by refusing to believe what it is obviously saying.
Hi WIT,This is FALSE, I said from Earth we see the lights in the firmament; remember?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2012,07:41) My claim is based on the idea that life begets life, also a biblical idea I believe. Stuart
Hi Stuart,How is it you claim life begets life, if you say life began from non-life? …is this not a contradiction?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 16 2012,10:22) When I first brought this issue up with Ed, I asked an open ended question. I let him (and later you) explain what happened on Day 2 of creation according to the bible. You and Ed both decided that the firmament in that passage was talking about the atmosphere/sky. When I challenged you to reconcile that explanation with the Day 4 account of the sun, moon, and stars being placed in the firmament, Ed changed the subject, and you suggested that the firmament is now possibly the entire universe!
Whoa there partner! YOU didn't challenge me about day 4 at all, nor have I followed the discussion you were having with Ed.When you first asked me about the creation story, I gave the following answer, from page 28, 4th post, on Jan 10th:
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) The firmament (sky) is where we breathe above the waters of the sea and below the waters in the clouds, I guess.
I answered in haste and then logged off. But in the night it came to me that this couldn’t be right, although I wasn't sure why. So the next day I actually re-read the creation account in Genesis, and realized, WITHOUT any prompting from you, WHY it couldn't be right.I logged in on Jan 11th, and read this reply you made on the 10th, from page 28, 7th post:
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan 11, 2012) If we take your definition of firmament this is how Genesis 1:7 reads: “Thus God made the [sky], and divided the waters which were under the [sky] from the waters which were above the [sky]; and it was so.”
Do you not see a problem with that?
Do you see anywhere that you mentioned the stars, or day 4? I sure don't. Yet even so, my response to you, from page 29, 8th post was:Quote (mikeboll @ 64) I do see a problem with God placing lights in the firmament, and so my quick answer will not do. I will pray on it and let you know if something comes to me. So now, when you say………….
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 16 2012,10:22) I proved to you that believers, including you and Ed, would naturally understand that the firmament in the creation myth is the sky and that only when challenged would try to reinterpret it to be something else.
………..you are making an inaccurate statement – at least about me (I don't know what Ed said at this point).But after re-reading the Biblical creation account, I challenged YOU to prove that there is NOT water at the edge of the firmament (universe).
If you can't, then you are just blowing smoke, and trying your best to NOT believe scriptures, when you actually have no proof that the account is flawed.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2012,11:30) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2012,15:20) Here is an example, from horse evolution, of fossils of species that were going extinct being used to demonstrate the changes happening in the main line of descent: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional2.shtml
Stuart
It's funny that I mentioned horses for my example before even reading this post! But my argument remains the same no matter what your source says. Just because THEY think that this species shows a link of evolution between two other species is not to say that is the truth of the matter.
Do you agree?
No, it is an argument of someone who doesn't know about molecular data, wishes to deny that the reproductive methods we see in species today have always been their reproductive methods, and can't explain the appearance of the fossil record.The phylogenetic tree of which this horse sequence represents a tiny section is established beyond any doubt by the matching increases in base sequence differences in the genomes of increasingly distantly related extant species, as determined by fossil morphology. Either you have that, or you have a god that is creating away constantly, specifically inserting apparently random mutations into non-coding DNA (why would a “perfect creator” HAVE non-coding DNA??) in order to make it look like a stochastic process of change in DNA and usually a relatively smooth transition over time in phenotypes, matching environmental changes perfectly (well not perfectly because 99% of all the species that have ever existed have gone to extinction).
Also, you don't appear to have an explanation for the patterns present in endogenous retrovirus data.
The scientific theory that accounts for all this does exactly what it says it will do. It is entirely based on evidence alone, it infers the simplest explanation of animals begetting offspring as we see today, with modification from generation to generation, as we see today; it is contradicted by nothing factual; it makes predictions that turn out to be right; and it is falsifiable because there are many predictions it makes, that if confirmed could disprove it as a valid explanation.
And what do you put up against that?
Quote Just because THEY think that this species shows a link of evolution between two other species is not to say that is the truth of the matter. Moronic.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2012,12:41) Stu, you get bogged down in the finer details of things, and completely ignore the more weighty foundation and source of all things. If you do not know how everything started, then explaining things now as disproving a creator is ridiculous in the highest order.
Go for it t8.Tell us how life started. Give us the mechanisms that explain exactly how your creator god diddit.
I'm all ears.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 15 2012,21:26) Where was Jesus called wonderful counsellor accept when you force the verses to say it?
Isaiah 9:6 NIV
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2012,13:05) Evolution of the horse theory has many difficulties according to http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm. - The rib numbers first decrease, then increase suddenly, and then decrease again. Hyracotherium had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, Pliohippus had 19, the horse has 18.
- The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.
- In the Rattlesnake Formation of the John Day Country of northeastern Oregon, the three-toed horse Neohipparion is found with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus. (cf. Nevins, S., Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 196) No transitional forms between the two are found.
- Although evolutionists project the illusion that there is a slow gradual, well documented change from Hyracotherium to Equus, in fact no evolutionary intermediates exist. Each of the animals abruptly appears in the fossil record (punctuated), with no physical signs of transitional species. (Bowden, M., The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1982, p. 117)
- The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The arrangement of the evolution of horse is made by aligning various fossils found in India, South America, North America and Europe, in a series from the smallest to the largest. (Modern horses range from 17″ to 80″ in size)
- There is no consensus on horse ancestry. Instead of the single series that is depicted in textbooks, more than 20 different “horse bushes” have been invented, in order to desperately stretch the theory over conflicting evidence. This proves the bushes are guesswork and speculation. (cf. Bowden, M., The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1982, p. 117)
- Two modern-day horse species, equus nevadenis and equus occidentalis, have been found in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA as Eohippus proving that both lived at the same time. (cf. Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, Midland, Michigan, 1981, p. 455, see also Hitching)
- Cope's Rule, at the left, is to line up horses from smaller to larger. Yet the Fallabella horse of Argentina is fully grown at 43 centimeters (17 inches) high. This is about the same size as Hyracotherium. Horse size varies considerably from the tiny Fallabella to the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses. This proves that lining up the horse ancestors under the assumption of increasing size is wrong.
- The same disorder is seen in the teeth number of the imaginary ancestors of horse and the teeth number of the horse of our day.
The only types of teeth found for the horses have been either grazing or browsing types. No other types of teeth have been discovered. So, not even transitional teeth exist. (Moore, John, N., and Harold S. Slusher, Eds., Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p. 548)- “Moropus” that lived in the Miocene Age, is not included in the fossil series although it resembles a horse in great deal, just because it does not serve to the purpose of the evolutionists. It is thus expressed in the encyclopedia of Prehistoric Animals that Moropus of two metres height is larger in size than both Meryhippuston of the same age and the horse of today.
- Horse fossils are not found below one another in the rocks. On the contrary, bones of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) are often to be found at the surface, and the only reason for calling these strata 'Eocene' is that Hyracotherium fossils have been found in them!
Have you heard of the Gish Gallop?It is the dishonest technique of flooding a discussion with so many claims that it is impossible to give any one the treatment it requires. It's named after the creationist Duane Gish, someone notable for doing that in his public appearances.
So, what I would like you to do t8, to show “faith”, so to speak, is to pick the three claims from this list that you find most convincing and we should discuss those in turn first.
I don't mind which three you pick, but perhaps choose those which you find most convincing in support of the point you are making, whatever it is.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2012,15:03) Go for it t8. Tell us how life started.
We all already KNOW, Stu. God CREATED, that's how.Now, why don't YOU tell us how YOU know it started?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2012,08:01) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 16 2012,10:22) I proved to you that believers, including you and Ed, would naturally understand that the firmament in the creation myth is the sky and that only when challenged would try to reinterpret it to be something else.
………..you are making an inaccurate statement – at least about me (I don't know what Ed said at this point).
Hi Mike,I told WIT that the firmament was the atmosphere, not the sky.
It would seem that WIT does not pay attention to what others say.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2012,14:41) Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. By the way, I predict you will dishonestly ignore my point about Genesis, because it will be too much work for you to come up with a response.
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”I see no problem with Gen 2:1. God created everything and set it in motion once, a long time ago. But that is not to say that God stopped creating new things in heaven or on earth.
He created me, after all.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2012,07:05) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 15 2012,20:05) - The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The arrangement of the evolution of horse is made by aligning various fossils found in India, South America, North America and Europe, in a series from the smallest to the largest. (Modern horses range from 17″ to 80″ in size)
- Cope's Rule, at the left, is to line up horses from smaller to larger. Yet the Fallabella horse of Argentina is fully grown at 43 centimeters (17 inches) high. This is about the same size as Hyracotherium. Horse size varies considerably from the tiny Fallabella to the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses. This proves that lining up the horse ancestors under the assumption of increasing size is wrong.
So what I imagined evolutionists a million years from now might do is exactly what today's evolutionists have done? Interesting.Stu, how can you guys ignore the vast possibility that these “in between link fossils” are really a completely different species that once roamed the earth?
It's sad to think you guys claim that this large horse evolved from that smaller horse, when the truth is that both sizes of horse lived at the same time – much like the different sizes of horses that live today.
T8, thank you for that info.
You did better than t8, to just choose two claims. But your objections are easy to answer.The link fossils ARE different species. The definition of species is difficult, but in this case it is just two groups of animals unable to breed together.
Who says it is not legitimate to take fossils from different locations round the world? You couldn't possibly have a complete picture of primate evolution if you restricted yourself to one geographic location. The centre of the line of descent to one particular modern species does not have to remain in the same place, that would be a ridiculous claim to make.
Who says two different sizes of horse can't live at the same time? The claim about the Falabella (spelling in original source?) breed is dishonest; they have been selectively bred by humans to be small, from Criollo horses of conventional size.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2012,08:22) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2012,14:41) Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. By the way, I predict you will dishonestly ignore my point about Genesis, because it will be too much work for you to come up with a response.
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”I see no problem with Gen 2:1. God created everything and set it in motion once, a long time ago. But that is not to say that God stopped creating new things in heaven or on earth.
He created me, after all.
So, what of the word finished?And how do you reconcile the act performed by your parents (and mine) with this claim that your god made you? What extra mechanism are you claiming above the ones we know about from biology?
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2012,07:53) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2012,07:41) My claim is based on the idea that life begets life, also a biblical idea I believe. Stuart
Hi Stuart,How is it you claim life begets life, if you say life began from non-life? …is this not a contradiction?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Tell me what you think “life” means. Is a virus an example of life?Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2012,08:11) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2012,15:03) Go for it t8. Tell us how life started.
We all already KNOW, Stu. God CREATED, that's how.Now, why don't YOU tell us how YOU know it started?
Between the two of us, you are the only one claiming you KNOW how life began. I do not know. That is because we have no clear evidence for the exact circumstances, but only a range of models based on known chemistry.But you have not answered my request to t8. As usual, you have dishonestly ignored the part that was difficult for you, and as a result you are insulting my intelligence with a platitude.
Christianity: the religion for those satisfied with not knowing.
By the way, I am not satisfied with not knowing, but I acknowledge the question of the actual historical beginnings to life look to be intractable, for good reasons. I know some possible mechanisms, but I claim that I don't know the origins of life. Contrast that with your statement, which claims you do know, except that you cannot provide any mechanism.
Dishonest.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2012,03:01) ………..you are making an inaccurate statement – at least about me (I don't know what Ed said at this point). But after re-reading the Biblical creation account, I challenged YOU to prove that there is NOT water at the edge of the firmament (universe).
If you can't, then you are just blowing smoke, and trying your best to NOT believe scriptures, when you actually have no proof that the account is flawed.
peace,
mike
Are you saying that you now believe the firmament is the entire universe, and that God created it on the second day to “divide the waters” that are on earth from the water at the edge of the universe?Is that what you are now suggesting?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2012,15:43) Between the two of us, you are the only one claiming you KNOW how life began. I do not know.
Well then, hush up and listen to those of us who DO know, okay?The “mechanism” is much too advanced for even your great brain, and therefore was too advanced for Moses and his countrymen. So we are not really given the means by which God caused life to exist, only that He did.
The mechanism is “God created”.
Mike,
I also noticed that you ignored my challenge to you.
How has the bible uniquely been of practical benefit to humanity in terms of helping human progress in this world?
In the whole science vs the bible debate, I've given you a start on the case for science. What's your case for the bible? What practical thing that comes uniquely from the bible has it given us?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 16 2012,15:59) Are you saying that you now believe the firmament is the entire universe, and that God created it on the second day to “divide the waters” that are on earth from the water at the edge of the universe?
Tentatively, YES.Perhaps the planet earth, and the entire area we call “outer space”, was filled with water. And God then created a dry area surrounding the earth and moving in all directions away from the earth for an unspecified distance.
WIT, imagine a sponge suspended with wire in the exact middle of a 55 gallon drum. The drum is filled with water, and set inside a lake (water on the inside, water surrounding the outside).
Now imagine we use a vacuum pump and pump the water out of the inside of the drum, letting the sponge retain some water, but also drying out on the higher spots. Then imagine we placed Christmas lights inside the drum, and gave the sponge a spin, so that the little beings living on the sponge saw certain lights at certain times.
Now you have our little sponge planet, suspended in dry air, but the outside of the drum is nothing but water all around.
And the little sponge planet people haven't yet seen that outside water, because they have yet to produce a telescope capable of viewing the drum itself. They can get closer and closer looks at the Christmas lights, but can't yet see far enough to see the drum within which they live, or the vast lake of water beyond it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
