alwight
New member
It seems that your pathetic understanding of how bananas were actually domesticated by man is rather similar to that of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Hedshaker
New member
You really should watch the following video as it may help you to avoid using the "Straw Man" logical fallacy in future. But you wont will you? Hands over ears and sing lalalalala, I can't hear you. But for the benefit of others, enjoy:
| The "Straw Man" Fallacy | |
Lol. Well, there we have it folks. Michael gets all scientific at last......... :crackup:
:wave2: :dunce:
I took a look at the video and it discusses how the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be united into one theory. So what does this does this video have to do with evolution?
Dear hedshaker,
Your video just sounded like your usual rhetoric so I did not watch the entire thing, no. I did address it. I've told you already that I've seen the original London Bridge in Lake Havasu, AZ. It was quite nice to see. And the remainder of your videos, well they sounded like more of the same usual loco you blubber. You were shown a lot of evidence too. Even Einstein is not an atheist. Why don't you go to Knight's thread Evolution vs God, pg. 20, post 299 by FraterJoseph. You'll learn a lot there.
And every time I try to quit posting to you, you post two posts to me on the same thread to egg me on. So what do you expect?
God Help You Someday,
MichaelC
Your video just sounded like your usual rhetoric so I did not watch the entire thing, no. I did address it. I've told you already that I've seen the original London Bridge in Lake Havasu, AZ. It was quite nice to see. And the remainder of your videos, well they sounded like more of the same usual loco you blubber. You were shown a lot of evidence too. Even Einstein is not an atheist. Why don't you go to Knight's thread Evolution vs God, pg. 20, post 299 by FraterJoseph. You'll learn a lot there.
And every time I try to quit posting to you, you post two posts to me on the same thread to egg me on. So what do you expect?
God Help You Someday,
MichaelC
Dear distraff,
It goes to show you that Science very often is WRONG!! Do you deny that God created man?? And woman?? More than one time also. The fossil records show us human bones go back further than our own Adam and Eve. I've explained that, but you're probably going ask me to again, and I'm not going to. I'm tired of having to keep rewriting my posts to suit you atheists. Go to pg. 1 of this thread if you want to find out.
God Help You Too!
MichaelC
It goes to show you that Science very often is WRONG!! Do you deny that God created man?? And woman?? More than one time also. The fossil records show us human bones go back further than our own Adam and Eve. I've explained that, but you're probably going ask me to again, and I'm not going to. I'm tired of having to keep rewriting my posts to suit you atheists. Go to pg. 1 of this thread if you want to find out.
God Help You Too!
MichaelC
alwight
New member
Michael, science often thrives by being wrong and then by putting it right, but in this case, in that video, it was about unknowns, frontiers, where no conclusion have yet been reached, where problems had been identified. It wasn't even about being "WRONG!!", not, I suspect, that you would even want to know and understand anyway.
It is you who claims to know that the particular God you preach created man and then expect to be believed by nothing but evidence-free bald assertion. Not only that you attempt to force-fit a religious doctrine, away from its allegorical roots, to be supposed as a better explanation of what really happened than the proposed scientific one.
However science can demonstrably be shown to be wrong when it is while your un-falsifiable bald assertions are only that, just your assertions.
No one here has claimed to know that a god didn't create everything, only that the evidence does seem to offer a reasonable natural explanation of what actually did happen, regarding evolution of life on Earth at least.
If you do in fact know the real truth then produce your evidence because your bald assertions are tiresome and will continue to get you nowhere.
If posting to disbelievers, and indeed others, is such a problem for you, as it appears to be, then I suggest you stop.
Hedshaker
New member
I've told you three times now that that video has been rebutted. See Alwight's post in the same thread. You have ignored being linked to it twice already so here's a third time you can ignore it. Even FraterJoseph expressed some regret at having posted it, not that Alwight's rebuttal was addressed to him personally.
Regarding that last video posted for your benefit, I'm going to have to spell it out for you, aren't I? :dunce:
The video was in reply to this strawman you posted earlier:
You see, the Theory of Evolution does not claim, nor have I or anyone else implied that it's "the maker of this earth and the universe, and heaven." Only you have said that because it was easier for you than addressing what was actually said.
You posted a classic, A1 Strawman logical fallacy and logical fallacies do not an argument make. This is basic stuff Michael that you should really know. But feel free to come back with another Dunning–Kruger effect...... :dunce:
PS, and just to add for clarity: when there have been frauds in science, guess who exposed them? Religionists, theologians, Creationists? Christian apologists? Nope, none of the above. It would be the science community that does that, and the same is the case when errors are made. That is what "peer review" is about.
Science is a self correcting endeavour and when individual scientist are shown to be wrong, then they are wrong. If only religions would follow suit. Maybe when Moby Dick leaves the water and learns how to fly
You should try that :dunce: :rapture:
Oh Alwight,
So it's okay if Creation is supposed to be wrong, but it is not fine if Science is wrong. I don't know what video you're talking about, but I'm talking about the one on Knight's thread Evolution vs God, page 20, post 299, by FraterJoseph!! That's where the truth is. That Science has been found to be WRONG!
And Creation with God will soon be Proven and you're bald assertions will be you atheist's problem.
Seeking the Truth With God,
Michael
So it's okay if Creation is supposed to be wrong, but it is not fine if Science is wrong. I don't know what video you're talking about, but I'm talking about the one on Knight's thread Evolution vs God, page 20, post 299, by FraterJoseph!! That's where the truth is. That Science has been found to be WRONG!
And Creation with God will soon be Proven and you're bald assertions will be you atheist's problem.
Seeking the Truth With God,
Michael
Dear hedshaker,
Where is Alwight's rebuttal? Which thread? Which post? Which Pg. No? Also, I know that God made man, whether He made him different each time or not. We have fossil records of it and I have told you this before. We have different 'version' of man, made a lot better each time. To us now, who mock the God that made us. Not Cool! You can't tell your Maker that He didn't make you. You are pushing it and don't even know it.
MichaelC
Where is Alwight's rebuttal? Which thread? Which post? Which Pg. No? Also, I know that God made man, whether He made him different each time or not. We have fossil records of it and I have told you this before. We have different 'version' of man, made a lot better each time. To us now, who mock the God that made us. Not Cool! You can't tell your Maker that He didn't make you. You are pushing it and don't even know it.
MichaelC
Dear hedshaker,
Never mind. I found out which Page No. 21, and Post Nos. 304, 305, and 307. It's on Knight's thread Evolution vs God. I answered it all there. I was trying to make some sense with what you were saying, but we just had a lot of miscommunication. Read it and weep!
Will You Accept God Now??
MichaelC
Never mind. I found out which Page No. 21, and Post Nos. 304, 305, and 307. It's on Knight's thread Evolution vs God. I answered it all there. I was trying to make some sense with what you were saying, but we just had a lot of miscommunication. Read it and weep!
Will You Accept God Now??
MichaelC
alwight
New member
Michael, I know you've had and still do have your problems in this life, I'm sorry I really don't want to be unkind but I think you should also try to accept that you are perhaps not the sharpest tool in the box. But at least you do finally seem to have found your way to that post mentioned above it seems.
Yes I can and do conclude that life, as we know it, was not created, it evolved, there really is no doubt at all based on the evidence. The only way I am wrong and you are right is if the creator also created all the evidence we find, and did so simply to deceive us.
I have already explained that science expects to be wrong, which is why formal theories are presented so that they can be shown to be false by others if indeed they are. If they cannot be falsified given enough time, resources and good evidence then they may well generally become regarded as fact, as indeed is the Theory of Evolution.
If your version of "soon" is at all similar to that of John of Patmos then we will all have departed this mortal coil by at least 2000 years.
JosephR
New member
I will take science head on
I will take science head on
Hey guys, I have been searching the last day and am still looking for references , I did not want to make this statement without info but I think I should so you can look too ,whoever is interested and then we can reckon together.
There is one chromosome with double stamped information, most say it is what causes the sex in male or female. However this DNA anomaly does not occur in pre humans 8-12k years ago... as you can see I am not a YEC, I love science and facts,, I would rather have any truth then any lie that suits me.
Anyways back on topic. The double stamped chromosome is one of a kind as in no other has information on both sides and as I stated above it does not exist in ancient pre-human remains we find and do test's on. So I logically deduce it does not define if we become male or female as pre-humuns were male and female as well.
If you accept this information then "god created man" in a genetic sense makes sense,,if not it still deserves looking into and being answered..
I will continue gathering info and will provide sources soon.
Peace
Joe
I will take science head on
Hey guys, I have been searching the last day and am still looking for references , I did not want to make this statement without info but I think I should so you can look too ,whoever is interested and then we can reckon together.
There is one chromosome with double stamped information, most say it is what causes the sex in male or female. However this DNA anomaly does not occur in pre humans 8-12k years ago... as you can see I am not a YEC, I love science and facts,, I would rather have any truth then any lie that suits me.
Anyways back on topic. The double stamped chromosome is one of a kind as in no other has information on both sides and as I stated above it does not exist in ancient pre-human remains we find and do test's on. So I logically deduce it does not define if we become male or female as pre-humuns were male and female as well.
If you accept this information then "god created man" in a genetic sense makes sense,,if not it still deserves looking into and being answered..
I will continue gathering info and will provide sources soon.
Peace
Joe
JosephR
New member
Well I dont know why other then it seems there was some genetic manipulation here,as I said most say its the sec chrome the X and Y . But when they find ancient remains and do the test they are missing the double sided information on the back of the chromosome but yet still are women and men.
I forget the one womans body they found..they gave her a name but it escapes me.. but her chromosome lacked the other side of the information... now it may be a natural mutation im not sure, but it fits the timeline and makes sense to me how God made us different then the animals.. I think of god like a super coder,programmer,,and its obvious that DNA is the coded,,super binary way he made us, the architecture is uniform across the board.
thanks for your reply
I am still looking for sources and will post them here when I gather them .Well I dont know why other then it seems there was some genetic manipulation here,as I said most say its the sec chrome the X and Y . But when they find ancient remains and do the test they are missing the double sided information on the back of the chromosome but yet still are women and men.
I forget the one womans body they found..they gave her a name but it escapes me.. but her chromosome lacked the other side of the information... now it may be a natural mutation im not sure, but it fits the timeline and makes sense to me how God made us different then the animals.. I think of god like a super coder,programmer,,and its obvious that DNA is the coded,,super binary way he made us, the architecture is uniform across the board.
thanks for your reply
Sorry, but your post makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you can find a citation to the paper you read it would help. I think at the least you are misinterpreting something.
JosephR
New member
also on a sidenote for the faith minded person this could explain as to Gen 1 he made man and women and told them to be fruitful then later created adam then Eve from his rib...there is some reasons you can find why he used the rib but it sounds like to me he made her out of his direct DNA code as to be a perfect match,as other humans at the time would be lacking as far as intellect and so on.
I know these are far reaching ideas and wont be accepted by most but please all who read just ponder and think about it,do your own research and I am happy for any feed back,,thanks
I know these are far reaching ideas and wont be accepted by most but please all who read just ponder and think about it,do your own research and I am happy for any feed back,,thanks
JosephR
New member
Signs of Intelligence
by Stephen C. Meyer, Discovery Institute
Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. DNA’s structure allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Mr. Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has since noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly “something else” is at work.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in radio signals—always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “Information habitually arises from conscious activity.” So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.
Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based on ignorance or religion, but instead on re-cent scientific discoveries and on our uniform experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning.
In short, intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based on the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who say otherwise confuse the evidence for a the-ory with its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted the theory despite such potentially unsettling implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
by Stephen C. Meyer, Discovery Institute
Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. DNA’s structure allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Mr. Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has since noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly “something else” is at work.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in radio signals—always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “Information habitually arises from conscious activity.” So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.
Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based on ignorance or religion, but instead on re-cent scientific discoveries and on our uniform experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning.
In short, intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based on the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who say otherwise confuse the evidence for a the-ory with its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted the theory despite such potentially unsettling implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Hedshaker
New member
I read it but didn't weep. If you're thinking of a career in Christian apologetics Michael, don't be giving up your day job just yet.
Not yet. I'm still working on the Easter bunny and Santa. But if I ever lose my mind to that degree I'll be sure to let you know
ETA: You didn't mention your strawman I notice. Don't blame you. Keep schtum and hopefully everyone will forget
- Status