• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
    Results 101 to 125 of 147
    Like Tree315Likes

    Thread: Who or what is God to you?

    1. #101
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      Thanks Sageous and thanks for the earlier comment.

      @ StephL... I dont mind the excursion at all. Im still curious as to what God is to a Believer though. I have never heard a Christian explain what God is to them. However I like the info you provided about natural selection and so on. Thanks

      Carry on....
      StephL likes this.

    2. #102
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Quote Originally Posted by kadie View Post
      @ StephL... I dont mind the excursion at all. Im still curious as to what God is to a Believer though. I have never heard a Christian explain what God is to them. However I like the info you provided about natural selection and so on. Thanks
      Carry on....
      Ah! That's good to know - thank you! I suspect that for fundamentalist Christians, god is not only loving, but also deeply terrifying, how this divine forgiveness goes with the also well-described divine wrath - I'm not quite sure.


      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      okay stephl, I'll watch the video. But it would really take a miracle (no pun intended) for me to realistically think that evolution was anything other than a pure fantasy! I think out of everything in science, it is the most unscientific notion and unworkable theory that exists, it doesn't actually fit into the realm of science it's a misconception! I would be delighted if you could come to a understanding of this. It is perhaps the most damaging delusion on the planet. Out of all the man made religions, evolution would be the one of the worst. If you do work through that paper, don't aim to simply refute no matter what, consider carefully what it is saying and why, and why it comes to those conclusions, and the evidence that exists on the claims.
      okay StephL, I did watch it. No real suprises for me, and I understand the theory they are trying to teach.
      Wow! That's cool - I'm positively surprised.

      But there is a few problems. For instance how do they know the earth is billions of years old? This is just a speculation. There is no dating method or geology or anything in the Universe that makes me think the earth is that old. But there is several things which make me think the Earth is young.
      Here's a video, taking on the claims that radioactive-decay dating wouldn't work for dating, and explaining, why it does actually work: Dating Methods
      But if you forget about this method for a moment - how about astronomy, which allows us to measure the age of the universe and our solar system using a variety of independent methods - and all these methods, astronomical and otherwise converge on about 13.7 billion years for the universe?
      That the earth has been around for more than 10.000 years follows from only considering snow layers in the Arctic, where it can be shown, that an annual additional layer was laid down for the last at least 700.000something years. In the spoiler is a great article, summing up the matter of different methods converging in results:

      Spoiler for How do we know, how old universe and our planet are?:
      Final part of the spoilered article:

      Conclusion
      Many different and complementary scientific measurements have established with near certainty that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Layers in glaciers show a history much longer than 10,000 years, and radiometric dating places the formation of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. Light from galaxies is reaching us billions of years after it left, and the expansion rate of the universe dates its age to 13.7 billion years. These are just a sampling of the types of evidence for the great age of the Earth and the universe; see the resources below for more.

      With the bird beaks from Darwin it's not very good evidence sweety. In the video they say that a big storm blew the birds on to the island. I doubt it they are really throwing in a lot of speculation and they probaly just migrated there as different types of birds. Nothing really suggests that they evolved their beaks. Amazingly the video takes this theory and just to the massive assumption "ta da" all the diversity in life is now explained. But it isn't. There is no way such a theory can speculate on all the animals. Certainly not us as humans. Can you understand my skeptism?
      Na - the finches are just an example, and a very well documented one at that. Everything has it's story, very complex stories at times, being reconstructed by evolutionary biology. They have been very busy since Darwin, and there are indeed theories for most of all life-form's development.

      You are a skeptic yourself you should understand my skeptical position on such a thing. This is what I am doubting. That mutations could happen over billions of years to produce all the different life. That natural selection even evolves anything. And my questioning of the fossil record, which does not show transitional things, and does not explain the explosion of diversity.
      I see what the main problem is - if you believe the earth is that young - then of course evolution makes no sense - not enough time for it all to come to pass. But as you can see above - you might have been selectively ignoring all these contrary findings - it's really the same science, which has put a man on the moon. You can't selectively take out all the knowledge which contradicts the bible and expect stuff to still work under these skewed premises - goes for nuclear power usage the same as for astronomy the same as for geology the same as for climate research besides of course biology - they can't be all in on an anti-Christian conspiracy.
      And the last thing, that would entice me to be skeptic about solid findings, massive evidence is a book, written by peasants in bronze age Palestine, who simply had no better explanations for the reality they found themselves in, than what they speculated to be the case. Today we have data - and all fields of science seem to conspire to render the bible story incorrect - isn't it rational to rather conclude, it must be that old book, which got it wrong?

      It's almost as if with some of the animals God is mocking evolution. They are so vastly different. The size of a giraffe's neck? The trunk of an elephant. Feathers on a bird, and just all sorts of things which would be basically impossible to explain with this theory.
      How about looking into the feathers - can't embed the video directly - but it's nice and only 3 min. and fully sufficient. With mentioning the transitional forms found from the beginnings of feathers in dinosaurs: Evolution of Feathers

      And for something not addressed at children: Feather Evolution - National Geographic Magazine
      I could go on and on like that.

      I am just not convinced that you could invent something that demonstrates evolution.....I think laws of nature do not allow evolution, and that you couldn't find anything which we can see, and say 'yes that's evolution'. Genetic variation of the blue eyes I'm not even sure that counts as a mutation. Just....different genetic variation of the eyes. The law of entrophy means everything is breaking down so DNA would actually get worse not better. Don't mind the Earth but say even if the sun was billions of years old to sustain the earth. At it's current rate it would have burnt out long ago if it was that old.
      Which natural laws would that be? About the sun's age, and how this sort of thought, as to why it didn't burn out yet, has actually contributed to the dating methods - see spoiler on that. In short - it's not just "burning" - it's a huge nuclear reactor. Aand - we can indeed watch evolution in very fast reproducing organisms for one thing - even influence it directly: Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDaily
      But besides that - we are also able to watch macroevolution happen - here are several examples, we were lucky enough to be able to study while happening:
      Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd

      A "bottleneck" is often involved in new species appearing - for instance the natural catastrophe wiping out the dinosaurs and almost wiping out lots of other creatures, too, has lead to these surviving creatures finding new ecological niches to live in, now devoid of competition/predators. They part their ways - go into different environments, and adapt to them - until one day, they can't reproduce with each other any more, if they meet again - that's speciation.

      Weell - yeah. Next comes the article - I guess, I'll edit in later on, or it'll take a bit longer!

    3. #103
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
      Ah! That's good to know - thank you! I suspect that for fundamentalist Christians, god is not only loving, but also deeply terrifying, how this divine forgiveness goes with the also well-described divine wrath - I'm not quite sure.
      If you grew up before with a father that disciplined you, then you understand the feeling of not wanting to do something wrong for fear of getting punished, that doesn't mean we hate our parents it's part of the respect of the relationship it means they care.

      Wow! That's cool - I'm positively surprised.
      I'm suprised you went to all the effort to reply to me too, and thank you, though I think it would have being tiny tiny more relevant to answer the paper on it because it really said it a lot better than I typed things.

      Here's a video, taking on the claims that radioactive-decay dating wouldn't work for dating, and explaining, why it does actually work: Dating Methods
      There is many types of dating methods, where do you want to start? Cause I have been through them and I am positively certain that they don't work at all.

      how about astronomy, which allows us to measure the age of the universe and our solar system using a variety of independent methods - and all these methods, astronomical and otherwise converge on about 13.7 billion years for the universe?
      Which methods are you talking about because everything in the Universe points to it being young and not old.

      That the earth has been around for more than 10.000 years follows from only considering snow layers in the Arctic, where it can be shown, that an annual additional layer was laid down for the last at least 700.000something years. In the spoiler is a great article, summing up the matter of different methods converging in results:
      You know that there is sources on the net that go step by step through your video's and show their inaccuracy? I guess I could get them for you, but would you even be interested since you havn't looked it up? The arctic is not evidence of how old it is. It's unlikely that Layers could have formed this way.

      In a Nutshell
      Many independent measurements have established that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old. Geologists have found annual layers in glaciers that can be counted back 740,000 years. Using the known rate of change in radio-active elements (radiometric dating), some Earth rocks have been shown to be billions of years old, while the oldest solar system rocks are dated at 4.6 billion years. Astronomers use the distance to galaxies and the speed of light to calculate that the light has been traveling for billions of years. The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.7 billion years old.
      Radiometric dating is proven mistaken and there is sources for that online that I can get for you. But say if you are measuring the age of the universe from the light from stars. Isn't some stars lightyears away from earth that they claim to measure? If that was the case then how could the universe even be 13 billion years old if stars from say 50 billion lightyears away are visible? Wouldn't that make the universe older? Even so the only way you can really measure the distance of stars is through mathematics and that has a definite limitation with distance so you don't know how far away, you couldn't accurately measure it in lightyears. Your assumption that light needs to travel in a linear way across the universe I'm not sure the earth would even be old enough for us to see so many stars cause would the light have reached us from those stars yet? If it was a big bang, the light is traveling in what direction to reach us? Wouldn't the big bang need to travel faster than light? Or you are assuming you know exact size of the universe? Wouldn't the light travel with the big bang and so already be everywhere connected? If genesis is true, light didn't travel in a linear fashion from the big bang. What I am claiming is that you don't measure light that way, and that it's not how we decode it in our minds with quantum physics, and also the speed of light is not 100% certain that it stays at the same rate, because it can change, which is another thing.

      Introduction
      As Christians, we believe that God created the world and that the world declares his glory, so we can’t ignore what nature is telling us about its history.
      Age of the Earth from seasonal rings and layers.
      layers are not a dating method, that's a speculation. The scriptures makes it clear the earth is around 6000 years old from the generations of Adam, so if we are christians we listen to what the scriptures says about it. Also I don't think any of the dating methods are really scientific to say that it's evidence.


      If you’ve ever seen a horizontal slice of a tree trunk, you’ve seen how a tree forms a new growth ring each year. In years of drought, the tree grows less quickly so the ring is narrower; in good growing seasons the ring is thicker. A tree’s age can be found by simply counting its rings.
      You can't tell the age of things from a tree because each tree is different and also lives in a different climate, and grows different. The rings arn't developed over millions of years because no tree is even that old. How can you age something based on something that is not even as old as what you assume the earth is?

      European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology.
      That is hearsay and just speculation, you can't say a tree is 12,000 years old based on it's rings without making a wild assumption.

      Scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and 740,000 years old in Antarctica.3 These annual layers go back much farther than the 10,000 years advocated by the young earth creationists. The Earth must be at least 740,000 years old.
      Just because you drill some ice, doesn't mean you get to date it to the age that you pick. There is no actual science that makes any sense for dating it to that. It's just an assumption. I don't really care how deep down you drill the ice, there is no way you can assume it's 740,000 years old (that's pretty precise for a guess)

      Age of the Earth and solar system from radiometric dating
      So, if we find a rock with equal parts Potassium-40 and Argon-40, we know that half the Potassium-40 has decayed into Argon-40, and that the rock hardened 1.3 billion years ago.
      The substance that you measure it from, is not uniform in all things, so it is not reliable. Samples have been taken which have been proven to be wrong. This dating method is already debunked cause you can't date back to that old. There is examples where scientists have decided that something is billions years old. But then changed it to only a few thousand years to fit a particular theory. lol. The dating method can be done over and over until a random number comes up that they think is good. It could come back 1,000 years, or billions of years. It's like a roulette wheel and just spin the wheel until you win evidence that you decide. It's not a proper measurement.

      Nearly all meteorites have the same radiometric age, 4.56 billion years old.
      That's because they made it that way, not because it was a reliable dating method. Even so why are all meterorites the same age there when that is not even how old you say the universe or earth is. 4.56 billion years is a random number? Meteorites should be different ages why the same age? How do you just decide something is 4.56 billion years old. Without making a very precise and wild assumption about something. I don't think anything is a billion years old, even from space.

      See Did God create everything recently but make it appear old?
      No evolutionist tried to make it appear old, to undermine the sciptures. Why do you think so much focus is on trying to prove everything is ancient? It's the only way they can say their theory has any merit.

      But the biggest pattern we see is that galaxies are moving apart from one another. This motion apart is not all at the same speed; instead it follows a pattern where galaxies that are further apart are moving more quickly.
      If the universe is based on the big bang and expansion. Why is it that planets go in different directions? Wouldn't that go against the expansion principle?

      Na - the finches are just an example, and a very well documented one at that. Everything has it's story, very complex stories at times, being reconstructed by evolutionary biology. They have been very busy since Darwin, and there are indeed theories for most of all life-form's development.
      I don't think any theory of evolution would really make sense for any particular animal to be honest. I don't think they have been busy with it, they have been busy trying to convince people their theory has any merit whatsoever through maybe bacteria, but that's not viable evidence for evolution. They created the geological columb but that's circular reasoning not something we find in geology they changed it around. Sometimes people draw diagrams saying these animals came from those animals and draw a sort of werid family tree of it, but there is no way they can back those claims and it's not what is to be found from the fossils or what we see today in nature.

      The more I research it the more convinced I become that this theory is some type of weird cult by evolutionists.

      it's really the same science, which has put a man on the moon.
      Dating methods didn't put man on the moon babe.

      they can't be all in on an anti-Christian conspiracy.
      If you don't want to believe something, you would have to make some kind of alternative belief system up. Which is what they have done isn't it?

      a book, written by peasants in bronze age Palestine, who simply had no better explanations for the reality they found themselves in, than what they speculated to be the case. Today we have data - and all fields of science seem to conspire to render the bible story incorrect - isn't it rational to rather conclude, it must be that old book, which got it wrong?
      There probaly is cases where tribes made stories up to explain things like lightning. But that is mythologizing the bible to say that it's not history or real litrature. It's really just a guess, assumption that the bible isn't true. No science today refutes it but some scientists choose to remove God and the scriptures from being relevant but that's based on a materialist culture in the scientific community, and partly because of the dogma of evolution tried to give the impression that the bible is factually incorrect but it's actually their theory that is unworkable. What about artifacts like the ark of the covenant or Noah's boat that actually prove history and verify events?

      How about looking into the feathers - can't embed the video directly - but it's nice and only 3 min. and fully sufficient. With mentioning the transitional forms found from the beginnings of feathers in dinosaurs: Evolution of Feathers
      StephL do you really believe this is how feathers developed from dinosaurs? That birds are the result of dinosaurs?

      Which natural laws would that be? About the sun's age, and how this sort of thought, as to why it didn't burn out yet, has actually contributed to the dating methods - see spoiler on that. In short - it's not just "burning" - it's a huge nuclear reactor.
      Do you think that the sun could burn for billions of years? Or that it would die out eventually.....

      Aand - we can indeed watch evolution in very fast reproducing organisms
      I wouldn't be so quick to call mirco biology evolution. I think it is just miscroscopic lifeforms.

      But besides that - we are also able to watch macroevolution happen - here are several examples, we were lucky enough to be able to study while happening:
      Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
      This is the same argument that has been used over and over, but it's not actual evolution that's just some small genetic variation. It's not macro evolution. How do stars or planets even form, shouldn't we able to observe a balanced rate of stars forming and dying? We don't even see stars form. Instead we see them die. That's against evolutionary theory with that ratio of zero forming to lots dead.

      the natural catastrophe wiping out the dinosaurs and almost wiping out lots of other creatures, too, has lead to these surviving creatures finding new ecological niches to live in, now devoid of competition/predators.
      Could it be that the ecological system was already established, and that the natural catastrophe was the global flood. Hence why we see the fossils? If birds were from dinosaurs the story isn't adding up because how come the birds survived this catasrophe when they would actually be weaker, or would they even have enough time to evolve feathers and become smaller if it was possible? How is it any more credible than say a dreamtime story from some aboriginal tribe? I don't see how the dinosaurs could even get feathers realistically.

      Thank you StephL for your effort and your response. But I have some very serious reservations of taking these claims seriously. I have a lot of questions about what you say is your evidence. What about my paper quoted? What's your direct response to that? It may take a few months if you like take your time to really research it past the junk science that evolutionist feed people. I think you will find that not just the dating methods are unreliable but also the other things you bring up and how it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. If you want to find out about it the best way is purposely go looking for the evidence you don't believe in. That's how I falsified personally for myself the dating methods, and the astronomical dating. As well as the experiments that were suppose to show evolution. I can't write about it all here as it's not within the scope of the thread. But yes I have contemplated before the things you bring up. I am worried that you are not thinking about it yourself but just 'trying to prove it' rather than thinking about the kind of science you are bringing up here, and some of the issues that people have with it as a claim for evolution. The other side of the story is much different and I think you would have to agree that it does address all those issues.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 09-01-2014 at 07:37 PM.

    4. #104
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Ooolright - I'm through with the first part of the article, which is easy, at least it seems so to me, because I had dealt with that aspect in my prior post.
      As far as I understood you, you can live with the idea, that micro-organisms are evolving - even today and so that we can watch it.
      But the other link didn't convince you - I've spoilered it in, for second thoughts.

      I'll do that first "chapter" now and then leave you the choice as to what you want me to answer to primarily - your above post or the rest of the article. You've thrown up a huge variety of topics and details in that post - up to mixing up cosmology with biology. Cosmological evolution has got nothing to do with the biological variant, except semantically, as in both life and the universe change characteristics over time in a not completely chaotic way - actually in an ordered way, but following very different principles - the analogy does not hold up much further than that.
      But we do indeed watch stars "being born" and not only violently "dying" with our space-telescopes - they formate in stellar "nebulae", and those are among the most beautiful things nature has in stock for us. So that as little excursion from the first portion of the article - and these are the guys and gals having put these men on the moon, who are telling you about this wonder of nature, star formation: Stars - NASA Science

      Below examples of such "star birthing" interstellar gas clouds - look at the name of the ones in the first pic - Deists love such things!

      Hubble Space Telescope: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): "Pillars of Creation" in a Star-Forming Region




      Famous "Horsehead Nebula", unusual picture, not sure where from:



      This is something to get into a state of awe and wonder from contemplating!


      Okay - to the first little segment:

      The Scientific Case Against Evolution
      by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

      Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

      Evolution Is Not Happening Now

      First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
      I brought the evidence for "macroevolution" in my prior post. Here's the second link from above spoilered out for you:

      Spoiler for Evolution is with us today - it's really happening and under our eyes!:
      By the way - is “micro-evolution” a Creationist term? I only heard it in that context and not in university. Anyway - seems my link on bacteria was convincing - I thought, that's what's meant with the term?
      The problem is one of perspective. As I described before, speciation happens primarily in bottle-neck situations or in other circumstances, where creatures are confronted with novel environments - not out of the blue. And it usually takes a lot of generations, when it happens. But it happens all the time - evolution is not "over" - it's an ongoing process. And I so happen to have something really interesting in terms of dogs and Creationism - Ken Ham had claimed, that the biblical story with Noah's flood would make for trees of biological variation just like science would find them to be the case for dogs. Not so – this video is very enlightening, I would say, for demonstrating, that Ken Ham wasn't shying back from complete quackery in order to make the myths seemingly reconcilable with evidence. But not only that - it explains genetic bottlenecks etc. very nicely - explains what the diagram Ham flashed on the screen actually says:



      Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
      It has – see prior post, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.

      A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

      . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
      The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
      Well – this "recently" has meanwhile become the past and evolution is out of “historical science” times today. Besides this mentioned fruit-fly, which I didn't yet look up – there’s more - see spoiler and of course in the fast enough replicating micro-organisms. But even if it were only possible to show it once in multi-cellular organisms - like with that fly - it would be proof of watchability already!

      I'll throw in a thread on a transitional life-form, for variation - "Jesus Fish!": http://www.dreamviews.com/extended-d...sil-found.html


      Somebody out to help me with the load? We could share the effort - but it's also fine for me to go through it - I just can't make promises as to how fast that's going to go. But I won't have it be said of me, that I had announced to take on an article, and then ran away!


      In the meantime - please everybody - let kadie and others know, who or what god is for you - and/or isn't!

    5. #105
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      Awesome info StephL. I like where you and Deanstar are going. Now this is good reading!
      StephL likes this.

    6. #106
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      I don't even need to be an undergraduate to do research. It's called educating yourself, and goes beyond your formal education. When you start doing any program, that puts you in the community of research, and you have access to the journals, and you write about them on varies topics. It's not even relevant you just seek ways to discredit and attack cause you basically chuck a fit and say it's not credible if you don't believe in evolution lol. Anything is a joke if it's not evolution to you. Next year or so it will be graduate anyway. It's not much more work to do. Just cause you are in a university or a professor doesn't define your intelligence or righteousness. Of all the professors would have healed the world by now but they mainly contribute to it's problems instead lol. They can't apply their evolution theory to anything constructive to people's life. They mostly are about paychecks and banging students in their class are they not?
      But I'm not talking about informal research, something one does just to learn something for their own pleasure. I'm talking about formal, professional academic scientific research. You are not one of those researchers.

      You are an extremist, religious groups don't use evolutionist as a term. It's just basic scientific terminology. Get use to it.
      Ok, I'll ignore the vast majority of creationists that readily employ the term and instead pay attention to its rare usage in the scientific community. Got it.

      I don't limit my thinking to just journals. That's not where I get my authority. I get it from my own critical thinking based on what God tells me (same as moses or any other prophet). Just because something is a journal paper doesn't always mean it's correct as there is plenty of known frauds as I already pointed out and many paper are simply a opinion that is wrong. The only way you get truth is be discerning enough to be able to know truth. There's no organization that can tell you what is credible and what is not. Journals are not a safeguard of anything. The bible is a safeguard that's something reliable, which is above journals. The bible isn't a scientific paper, but it's telling you straight away the truth of the matter in prophecy, metaphor, parable, poetry, and history and the litrature.
      The Bible is such a safeguard and it's so reliable, which is precisely why doctors read it when they're trying to diagnose a patient or keep up with the latest research.

      Except they don't. If I'm trying to keep up with the latest biological research, I'm going to look at the journals. If I'm looking for a particular biologist's research, I'm going to look at his published journal articles. That's where the data is. I can match it to the author's interpretation. I'm done repeating myself. I don't know why you're giving me these long-winded wooey explanations about expanding your horizons or not limiting your learning or whatever. It's not at all relevant.

      I wasted enough time trying to educate you, if you don't want to be educated, you never going to be. Not even if I spoon feed you biologist work. Imagine if I demanded the way you do, you would be constantly brining me articles on 'evolution'. According to your doublestandards nothing is credible unless it's evolution. That's your religion and it's superstitious. You ignore what is out there that is against your view lol.
      But can you provide names of those biologists?

      I could look through communist China or Russia and look at how critical communism has been to the state, what does it prove? Not much. Communism is still not right even if educational materials that falsify the well being of communism are ignored. They won't teach from another point of view other than communism at that time because that's the culture! Biology isn't suppose to be about evolution, evolution is just a dogma that they push. Just like China or russia have pushed communism before. Evolutionist push evolution in the education system the same way. It's a cancer really, it threatens the legitimacy of science and that's why people lose faith in it mainly.
      Biology is supposed to be about anything related to life forms, including how they change over time.

      Science is not my authority of truth, it's just an extra tool that I use to prove evolution and other things wrong.
      Fighting science with science. Proving my original point.

      *facepalm. Natural selection is not free will, it's a theory that says the superior will survive and adapt in an environment due to their genetic mutations (can't realistically work). There is millions of weak people on the planet that can't even grow their own food or live in a self sustainable way without the government. Even though the strong in any sample could be killed off such as a bird eating the prey of a genetically superior egg. Natural selection doesn't work cause there is weaker and stronger species and many different diverse types of life with different strengths and weaknesses. Natural selection claims only the most strong would be left. (please dont keep replying to me about it)
      The survival of so called "weak people" would technically be closer to artificial selection, though I would say it's not at all related to biology (aside from healthcare) and more related to economics.

      The survival of the fittest in natural selection refers to an organism within its own specific environment and according to what set of skills it has. This does not mean that there will always only be one organism who is the "strongest." Natural selection isn't about being strong, it's about being fit for an environment and having the most success reproductively. If an organism's set of traits allow it to have access to more mates or more resources, the chances of it being able to reproduce increase. That trait may then spread in later generations. The trait has been naturally selected for.

      But obviously there are other organisms who, despite not having these traits, can still reproduce. And if you consider things like geology, climate, and topography, it becomes very clear that biodiversity is nothing controversial.

      *ahhh pulls hair* What do you think linear evolution means in the context in which I said it? It means that you can't have the chicken without the egg (not linear reproduction) the plant without the seed (not linear). The sperm without the egg (not linear) Genetic information is not linear progressing for reproduction but is an enclosed system that is interdependant. I don't care so much what 'biology terms' you cling to. This is using common sense.
      I still think you're being wildly incoherent, so I'm not going to bother attempting to decipher this anymore.

      It's only a particular environment which determins if something may have a slight advantage. People in Africa with Sickle-cell disease can better deal with malaria. That doesn't mean their blood cells "evolved" it means their genetics have tried to adapt to a condition in some limited fashion. If they went into a environment like we live in. Their disease would not prove benifical at all but be a major disadvantage, because it's a disease, not a real improvement.
      This is correct, though I'd say their "genetics" aren't "trying" to adapt to anything. Because DNA replicating isn't a perfect process, errors will develop, leading to a trait such as Sickle Cell Anemia.

      No alteration of DNA can go to the extent that a type of animal goes into another type of animal. That is a theory which is indeed ridiculious.
      No, this definitely happens and it's well documented. As mutations pile up over time and certain traits become selected for, two individuals who evolved from a common ancestor will be different enough genetically that they will not be able to reproduce. This is a very rough definition of what makes one species different from another, but it works in most cases. In some cases, two individuals can produce an offspring, but it will be sterile.

      Genetic adaptation to environment has definite limits. DNA is flexible but it doesn't 'evolve' it just keeps it's blueprint that it already has. Errors are not ultimately passed on because the job of DNA is to deal with any errors, that's why it's flexible in it's variation. Not because it's 'evolving'.
      Like I said, DNA replication is not perfect. Yes, DNA polymerase has an proofreading mechanism built in, but it's not perfect either. Errors can and do happen and can be passed on. Otherwise there would be no hereditary diseases.

      I don't need an introductory class in plant evolution to know that a seed can't evolve without a tree.
      I mean, if you're going to talk about biology like you actually know what it's about, then yeah, you kinda do.

      If hitler was about killing jews and racism, he would not have got in power......lolz. Your logic is weaker than piss and vinegar. For every authority you cite on evolution. I have 10 more on creationism. You only think you have the monopoly because of opression of the truth haha. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act"-George Orwell

      You are not educated and if you think you are, you are either highly decieved, or you in fact pointing yourself out as a liar. It's one or the other.

      Obama got the nobel peace prize. Did he deserve it? haha. Does anyone really deserve anything they get rewarded with in this world? No. In fact the best people in history are martyred not given any nobel prizes. I am calling the entire world an illusion and a deception. You are clinging to the world being righteous. It's not. That's my solid claim based on human trafficking, expliotation, famine, war, and opression of a fiat system of currency through financial terrorism, and overall general terrorism in the world. If the world is correct, I would not be getting a nobel prize before people long before me would have stating the obvious and people would have aknowledged it long ago instead of lies.

      Enough of your arrogance and accusations.....please do end this dumb conversation I am forced in with you. You have to call the entire institute and program 'armchair degree'. Everyone that has ever done any work or study for truth 'armchair truth teller'. You are an armchair dellusionist maybe. lulz. None of your silly attacks work on people like me nor do they fool anyone intelligent.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    7. #107
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
      Ooolright - I'm through with the first part of the article, which is easy, at least it seems so to me, because I had dealt with that aspect in my prior post.
      As far as I understood you, you can live with the idea, that micro-organisms are evolving - even today and so that we can watch it.
      Well I agree that you could somehow manipulate them in a limited way in a lab, but I don't agree that they evolve. I think any changes are small and just naturalistic based on the genetic blueprints.

      But we do indeed watch stars "being born" and not only violently "dying" with our space-telescopes - they formate in stellar "nebulae", and those are among the most beautiful things nature has in stock for us.
      Just looking face value at the pictures. Does it really look anything like a planet forming? Or does it look more like a bit of a dust cloud of some sort? What is it? If this is a planet forming where are the other stages of it? Cause this is about the cloud stage isn't it? I don't think there is a process observed where a planet actually forms, and I don't believe these pictures represent that in any way whatsoever. But if I am wrong I would prefer something a little more explainable.


      This is something to get into a state of awe and wonder from contemplating!
      My awe is of a different sort In my mind I am thinking how can you possibly think that it is to do with a planet? Cause that is amazing that some fluffy cloud (that could it even be photo manipulated perhaps? is evidence that they form into solid planets? Beyond this so called cloud stage I don't see anything. If this theory is correct there sould be many clouds whirling around in different stages of being a complete planet.


      I brought the evidence for "macroevolution" in my prior post. Here's the second link from above spoilered out for you:
      I think we should remember that species is much stranger definition than different kind of animal. With 'species' even a little change can be called a different kind. With a different type of animal in general though they have to be able to re-produce with each other. If it becomes a case that two dogs can no longer breed with each other for example, I see that as not evolution, but the genetic blueprint reaching it's limitation. Different kind of animals will never be able to re-produce with each other, and any genetic variation never allows for that. This is why there can't be evidence of macro-evolution. Because things like cats and dogs can never breed with each other and there is definitely no evidence that a cat came from a dog. As it goes for the rest of the animals too.

      When you talk about fruit flies, again that is some artificial manipulation of a genetic blue print. The fruit flies can actually recover quickly when you leave them alone.

    8. #108
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      there is definitely no evidence that a cat came from a dog.
      Why would a cat come from a dog? Evolution doesn't claim anything so ridiculous. Dogs come from wolves - you do know that, right? And housecats come from other kinds of cats - something like a bobcat or a lynx. That was apparently done in ancient Egypt to create pretty pets for Pharaohs and important officials. But of course modern domesticated cats and dogs aren't so much products of natural selection as human tampering - like we also do with plants to grow bigger tomatoes or bananas etc. Modern animals did not evolve from other modern animals, but they did all come from common ancestors. But then I think you know this, and you also know all the proper answers you're supposed to spew out when anyone tells you evolutionary facts.

      Your cult really did a number on you I'm afraid - they implanted countless reactionary ideas that jump up to silence the cognitive dissonance any time you're shown anything relating to actual evolution or planet formation.

      I won't be talking with you about these subjects anymore, because if you were honestly interested you could easily find the real facts, it isn't hard. I think you're mostly interested in proving what a good Creationist you are by taking on a whole message board full of atheists without losing your faith. But we can hope that by exposing you to some actual facts and exposing the lies you've been fed that the seeds might be planted now, however much you deny it, and at some point in the future you might change your ideas.
      Last edited by Darkmatters; 09-02-2014 at 09:34 AM.

    9. #109
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Darkmatters View Post
      Why would a cat come from a dog? Evolution doesn't claim anything so ridiculous. Dogs come from wolves - you do know that, right?
      wolves can breed with dogs so really I wouldn't even call that a different type of animal. My point is that any animal that is different. You can never say it came from a different animal because they are incompatiable. You don't seem to understand this destroys evolutionary theory. Think further back, evolutionist deduce that everything came from the sea. Ultimately different kinds of fish, supposely turned into different types of land animals (dinosaurs from the sea?) I think if anyone is in a cult it would be evolutionists.


      Your cult really did a number on you I'm afraid - they implanted countless reactionary ideas that jump up to silence the cognitive dissonance any time you're shown anything relating to actual evolution or planet formation.
      Wouldn't it be cognitive dissonance when you don't admit the obvious? Such as different types of animals are seperate and don't evolve from each other?

      I won't be talking with you about these subjects anymore, because if you were honestly interested you could easily find the real facts, it isn't hard. I think you're mostly interested in proving what a good Creationist you are by taking on a whole message board full of atheists without losing your faith.
      It's not my fault that everyone is atheist. It doesn't mean you have the facts though on your side though. I am interested in what makes sense. I did ask before what is logic to an atheist, and no-one seems to be able to give a resonable answer about what atheist define as logic. Science is suppose to be about critical thinking and discussion, as that's how discoveries are made through investigation and questioning. I am questioning that evolutionist are not just inaccurate but plain ridiculious and going to the extent of fraud in the education system. That would be a faith based religious agenda. The same as a cult invading people's life.

    10. #110
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Well I agree that you could somehow manipulate them in a limited way in a lab, but I don't agree that they evolve. I think any changes are small and just naturalistic based on the genetic blueprints.
      Well - I guess, that's a start. What you had thrown up somewhere before, was that such "genetic manipulation" would only decrease or shift the abilities of organisms - but in that Nature paper, I linked a review to (a multi-national effort, that project) - they mention it explicitly how these E. coli got better adapted while evolving over 20.000+ generations. That was the aim of the study - showing how natural selection having it's way brings about actual benefits. This number 20.000+ is a reason, why you can't see it from your armchair - a lot of reproduction goes down before something significantly changes.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Just looking face value at the pictures. Does it really look anything like a planet forming? Or does it look more like a bit of a dust cloud of some sort? What is it? If this is a planet forming where are the other stages of it? Cause this is about the cloud stage isn't it? I don't think there is a process observed where a planet actually forms, and I don't believe these pictures represent that in any way whatsoever. But if I am wrong I would prefer something a little more explainable.
      You are right - these are dust and gas clouds!
      My pictures show clouds, in which new stars formate, not planets, that works differently again, see below. I'll copy out from that NASA link above, which states the fact and explains a little:

      Quote Originally Posted by NASA
      Stars

      Stars are the most widely recognized astronomical objects, and represent the most fundamental building blocks of galaxies. The age, distribution, and composition of the stars in a galaxy trace the history, dynamics, and evolution of that galaxy. Moreover, stars are responsible for the manufacture and distribution of heavy elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, and their characteristics are intimately tied to the characteristics of the planetary systems that may coalesce about them. Consequently, the study of the birth, life, and death of stars is central to the field of astronomy.

      Stars are born within the clouds of dust and scattered throughout most galaxies. A familiar example of such as a dust cloud is the Orion Nebula, revealed in vivid detail in the adjacent image, which combines images at visible and infrared wavelengths measured by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope. Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction. As the cloud collapses, the material at the center begins to heat up. Known as a protostar, it is this hot core at the heart of the collapsing cloud that will one day become a star. Three-dimensional computer models of star formation predict that the spinning clouds of collapsing gas and dust may break up into two or three blobs; this would explain why the majority the stars in the Milky Way are paired or in groups of multiple stars.
      As the cloud collapses, a dense, hot core forms and begins gathering dust and gas. Not all of this material ends up as part of a star — the remaining dust can become planets, asteroids, or comets or may remain as dust.
      In some cases, the cloud may not collapse at a steady pace. In January 2004, an amateur astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting — its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
      Here's a source with pictures and some more explanations from a physics department: The Birth of Stars

      He explains it very nicely - from UniverseToday:



      But you will find much more about it, if you look - just google star formation, and you'll get to such sources, they abound.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      My awe is of a different sort In my mind I am thinking how can you possibly think that it is to do with a planet? Cause that is amazing that some fluffy cloud (that could it even be photo manipulated perhaps? is evidence that they form into solid planets? Beyond this so called cloud stage I don't see anything. If this theory is correct there sould be many clouds whirling around in different stages of being a complete planet.
      Again - this is about stars, not planets. And I'm awed by the sheer size and beauty of these clouds - combined with the thought, that actual stars are forming in them, stars like our sun. While star formation is understood and we can observe it - with planets there seem to be some questions open, this is what Wikipedia has to say on their formation:

      Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
      It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk. Through accretion (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction. These concentrations become ever denser until they collapse inward under gravity to form protoplanets. After a planet reaches a diameter larger than the Moon, it begins to accumulate an extended atmosphere, greatly increasing the capture rate of the planetesimals by means of atmospheric drag.

      When the protostar has grown such that it ignites to form a star, the surviving disk is removed from the inside outward by photoevaporation, the solar wind, Poynting–Robertson drag and other effects. Thereafter there still may be many protoplanets orbiting the star or each other, but over time many will collide, either to form a single larger planet or release material for other larger protoplanets or planets to absorb. Those objects that have become massive enough will capture most matter in their orbital neighbourhoods to become planets. Meanwhile, protoplanets that have avoided collisions may become natural satellites of planets through a process of gravitational capture, or remain in belts of other objects to become either dwarf planets or small bodies.
      It really does fill me with awe! Us small humans on a little planet in the outskirts of an insignificant galaxy - we are able to find these things out - watch them happen, learn about the workings of the universe so that our knowledge enables us to produce working technology on such a gigantic scale as we do. Even a cell-phone would have seemed like divine magic to our forefathers, heck - a sophisticated piece of modern clothing would! Hubble Space Telescope and it's pictures would have right-out blown their minds!

      If there was a god, willing and able to reveal stuff to humanity - why didn't he reveal something more interesting and useful than he did? Let us in on scientific knowledge about how his creation actually works, instead of waiting for us to find out on our own, how it can't have happened the way the bible says?

      How is it - does it contradict the bible, that stars are born and die? I guess it does, because it is peculiar, that you wouldn't be aware of it yet otherwise. Could it be, that you've been indoctrinated with something like: "Stars have been created at the beginning by god, and there are no new ones coming into being any more"? Is that Creationist doctrine? If so - I guess this reality comes as a mighty surprise.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      I think we should remember that species is much stranger definition than different kind of animal. With 'species' even a little change can be called a different kind. With a different type of animal in general though they have to be able to re-produce with each other. If it becomes a case that two dogs can no longer breed with each other for example, I see that as not evolution, but the genetic blueprint reaching it's limitation. Different kind of animals will never be able to re-produce with each other, and any genetic variation never allows for that. This is why there can't be evidence of macro-evolution. Because things like cats and dogs can never breed with each other and there is definitely no evidence that a cat came from a dog. As it goes for the rest of the animals too.

      When you talk about fruit flies, again that is some artificial manipulation of a genetic blue print. The fruit flies can actually recover quickly when you leave them alone.
      What you are talking about is that hybrids tend to be sterile, right? Like that plant in the link I spoilered out above. But what would it be, if you found some dogs on a newly discovered island, which somehow escaped scrutiny from explorers for thousands of years*. Say the dogs were left there by an ancient civilisation and had sufficient time to evolve and a specific need to adapt to that island, too.
      Now - there will be some, who are already a bit adapted, and they have more success at procreation of abundant and viable offspring, while the others die off, etc, etc. Now you come with your boat and find some critters very much looking like dogs, but they are unusual, not only varying in what us humans are interested in when crossing dogs, but they have clearly gained some function other dogs/wolfs don't have, too. And it's an adaptation, it can be understood as being beneficial to them because of the special features of the island. They have an ability, no usual dog has a use for - say going vegetarian - bit extreme - but why not, with meat resources dwindling in just the right rate - like the Panda bear, also a secondary plant eater - not with four stomachs and having a lot of eating to do?
      So then you take them with you and to your chagrin - your vegetarian "dogs" can't reproduce with any other dogs any more - but with each other they can!
      Eureka?
      Would that constitute a new species having evolved in your eyes?

      Ah - exactly - it would be good, if you gave a hypothetical case in which you would indeed diagnose "evolution"!
      I could come up with scenarios (and did in my Atheism thread), which would justify a diagnosis of "a god did it" in my eyes. If she/he/it pretended to be the Christian god - I would feel like accusing him of obscurantism, but that's another thought.


      Okay - article next portion:

      Quote Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
      Evolution Never Happened in the Past

      Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

      Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.

      Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

      Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.
      There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea - but please re-check the National Geographic link on feather evolution, I provided - you find transitional stages of dinosaurs with "almost-feathers" in that matter as well.
      Creationists had for ages been clamouring, why we wouldn't find a fish with feet - the Darwin Fish (not Jesus fish - my bad). Well - we did find dozens of them. And not only that - evolutionary theory lead to scientists predicting, where exactly they might find it - and they did:
      Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.

      I really recommend giving it due consideration:

      Quote Originally Posted by Slate
      We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian ichthys symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs.

      But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us.

      Sure enough, in 2004, scientists found one of those transitional species: Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues. Tiktaalik, explains Shubin on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, is an "anatomical mix between fish and a land-living animal."

      "It has a neck," says Shubin, a professor at the University of Chicago. "No fish has a neck. And you know what? When you look inside the fin, and you take off those fin rays, you find an upper arm bone, a forearm, and a wrist." Tiktaalik, Shubin has observed, was a fish capable of doing a push-up. It had both lungs and gills. In sum, it's quite the transitional form.

      Shubin's best-selling book about his discovery, Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, uses the example of Tiktaalik and other evolutionary evidence to trace how our own bodies share similar structures not only with close relatives like chimpanzees or orangutans, but indeed, with far more distant relatives like fish. Think of it as an extensive unpacking of a famous line by Charles Darwin from his book The Descent of Man: "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

      "Many of the muscles and nerves and bones I'm using to talk to you with right now, and many of the muscles and nerves and bones you're using to hear me with right now, correspond to gill structures in fish," explained Shubin on Inquiring Minds. Indeed, despite having diverged from fish several hundred million of years ago, we still share more than half of our DNA with them.

      "The genetic toolkit that builds their fins is very similar to the genetic toolkit that builds our limbs," Shubin says. "And much of the evolution, we think, from fins to limbs, didn't involve a whole lot of new genes."

      Now, of course, none of this sits well with the young-Earth creationist crowd, who are continually trying to undermine science education and U.S. science literacy. What do creationists say about Shubin's research, and especially Tiktaalik? Turns out that creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has his answer ready to go: "There are no transitional forms that support evolution," he confidently declares in a minute-long audio track dedicated to debunking the Tiktaalik finding. Why? Because "the Bible says God made fish and land animals during the same week, not millions of years apart." That's just the beginning of the attempted takedowns that creationists have leveled against Shubin's work.



      Pictured near where it was found is a Tiktaalik roseae fossil — one of the most complete of the dozens of specimens discovered to date.
      Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues.
      Photo courtesy PBS

      Creationists snipe, raise doubt, and deny almost everything that we know, but the reason that Tiktaalik is such a momentous find appears to be beyond them: Evolutionary theory (complemented by an extensive knowledge of geology) predicted not only that this fish would have existed, but also that its fossilized remains would probably be found within a specific part of the world, in geological layers of a particular age. Hence, Shubin's many trips with his team to the Canadian Arctic, where those rock layers could be found. "We designed this expedition with the goal of finding this exact fossil," explains Shubin. "And we used the tools of evolution and geology as discovery tools to make a prediction about where to look. And the prediction was confirmed." Tiktaalik isn't just proof of evolution; it's also proof that the scientific process works.

      Nevertheless, following the announcement of Tiktaalik's discovery in 2006, the creationists pounced. "My inbox is filled with some interesting emails," says Shubin. Over time, as the idea for Your Inner Fish began to gel, Shubin decided to seek out creationists, or less-than-evolution-friendly audiences, in person to try to explain the fossil and what it means. "I decided at that point, I'm going to go give talks in Alabama, in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and elsewhere, where I'll bring Tiktaalik with me, or the cast of Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "And I've done this every year."

      Having the fossil to show, says Shubin, changes the entire nature of the discussion. "It's about the data, it's about the evidence, it's about the discovery," he says. "It's about, 'How do you date those rocks, how do you compare that creature to another creature?' Well, if we do that, we kind of win, because what it means is it changes the conversation in a way where it's now about evidence," he continues. "You're not going to change everybody's mind, but you're going to affect a few, most definitely. And that's kind of my passion. That's what I think I can bring to the table."
      Yeah - well - I guess, this does speak for itself, esp. what I fattened. That you need not evolve a new toolkit for making limbs instead of fins is also interesting, you see, it's easier to evolve "new features", when you can build them from pre-existing mechanisms. That such things pre-exist also confines evolution to a degree - it doesn't start all over again from scratch, but further differentiates, what was there already in a more primitive form. Why not as many transitional forms as other fossils? Well - look back to that video which fact-checked Ken Ham. What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger. There simply were not as many of those there, also not "needed", which is logical, if you consider, how it comes to pass. There's development for so and so long, and then stability for much, much longer - equals more fossils - until the next major environmental upheavals.

      Quote Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
      The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

      With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

      And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
      Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

      The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.
      Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

      Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.
      Here is a classical misconception. As I said before, the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence. We do have good hypotheses for that as well - but it's a different topic, and it gets always conflated with evolution by Creationists, because abiogenesis is indeed one of the phenomena, we're not able to definitively explain - we don't yet know enough. But seriously - it's just trying to distract people, if you throw that in under evolution.

      Quote Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
      Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

      The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.
      Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

      Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.
      I didn't yet look that up - but the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.

      Ah - but now I did look it up - and tadaa - the respective transitional form is called "Pikaia" - not a mystery at all (any more). This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures - so it makes for a fine reply to this segment of the Morris article: 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution

      Quote Originally Posted by About/Education
      10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution

      As useful as it is, the phrase "missing link" is misleading in at least two ways. First, most of the transitional forms in vertebrate evolution aren't missing, but in fact have been conclusively identified in the fossil record. Second, it's impossible to pick out a single, definitive "missing link" from the broad continuum of evolution; for example, first there were theropod dinosaurs, then a large array of bird-like theropods, and only then what we consider true birds. With that said, here are 10 so-called missing links that help fill in the story of vertebrate evolution.

      1. The Vertebrate Missing Link - Pikaia



      One of the most important events in the history of life was when vertebrates--animals with protected nerve cords running down the lengths of their backs--evolved from their invertebrate ancestors. The tiny, translucent, 500-million-year-old Pikaia possessed some crucial vertebrate characteristics: not only that essential spinal cord, but also bilateral symmetry, V-shaped muscles, and a head distinct from its tail, complete with forward-facing eyes. (Two other proto-fish of the Cambrian period, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia, also deserve "missing link" status, but Pikaia is the best-known representative of this group.)

      2. The Tetrapod Missing Link - Tiktaalik - see above
      The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik is what some paleontologists call a "fishapod," a transitional form perched midway between the prehistoric fish that preceded it and the first true tetrapods of the late Devonian period. Tiktaalik spent most, if not all, of its life in the water, but it boasted a wrist-like structure under its front fins, a flexible neck and primitive lungs, which may have allowed it to climb occasionally onto semi-dry land. Essentially, Tiktaalik blazed the prehistoric trail for its better-known tetrapod descendant of 10 million years later, Acanthostega.

      3. The Amphibian Missing Link - Eucritta
      Not one of the better-known transitional forms in the fossil record, the full name of this "missing link"--Eucritta melanolimnetes--underlines its special status; it's Greek for "creature from the black lagoon." Eucritta, which lived about 350 million years ago, possessed a weird blend of tetrapod-like, amphibian-like and reptile-like characteristics, especially with regard to its head, eyes and palate. No one has yet identified what the direct successor of Eucritta was, though whatever the identity of this genuine missing link, it probably counted as one of the first true amphibians.

      4. The Reptile Missing Link - Hylonomus
      About 320 million years ago, give or take a few million years, a population of prehistoric amphibians evolved into the first true reptiles--which, of course, themselves went on to spawn a mighty race of dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs and sleek, marine predators. To date, the North American Hylonomus is the best candidate for the first true reptile on earth, a tiny (about one foot long and one pound), skittering, insect-eating critter that laid its eggs on dry land rather than in the water. (The relative harmlessness of Hylonomus is best summed up by its name, Greek for "forest mouse.").

      ...

      9. The Mammal Missing Link - Megazostrodon



      More so than with other such evolutionary transitions, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the most advanced therapsids, or "mammal-like reptiles," spawned the first true mammals--since the mouse-sized furballs of the late Triassic period are represented mainly by fossilized teeth! Even still, the African Megazostrodon is as good a candidate as any for a missing link: this tiny creature didn't possess a true mammalian placenta, but it still seems to have suckled its young after they hatched, a level of parental care that put it well toward the mammalian end of the evolutionary spectrum.

      10. The Bird Missing Link - Archaeopteryx



      Not only does Archaeopteryx count as "a" missing link, but for many years in the 19th century it was "the" missing link, since its spectacularly preserved fossils were discovered only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Even today, paleontologists disagree about whether Archaeopteryx was mostly dinosaur or mostly bird, or whether it represented a "dead end" in evolution (it's possible that prehistoric birds evolved more than once during the Mesozoic Era, and that modern birds descend from the small, feathered dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period rather than the Jurassic Archaeopteryx).
      So that should suffice to debunk this myth of missing links - they're all out there and abound - and they can all be googled individually.

      Quote Originally Posted by Creationist article, Morris
      Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

      It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .
      Ah - but there's nothing wrong with what he says, even if it's misleading to quote this snippet and then cut him off midsentence! I'm sure it would be interesting, what the content of the ". . . ." section is. Besides that - I checked my dictionary for "virtually" to be sure, it means "almost" and not "entirely". And I've also checked "biota":

      Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
      Biota are the total collection of organisms of a geographic region or a time period, from local geographic scales and instantaneous temporal scales all the way up to whole-planet and whole-timescale spatiotemporal scales. The biota, or biotic component of the Earth make up the biosphere.
      So it's important to know, what he actually meant. The way he put it, these biota have a "duration" - so I guess, he meant the term spatially, but it doesn't matter - what he said goes perfectly well with evolution. In stable conditions almost all critters in a geographic region/timescale will remain basically the same over the duration of this environment's stability. Changes up to actual speciation happen, when the environment changes, just as I said. And if it stays stable - nothing much happens, "almost" nothing. I hope you can see how bringing along this crippled quote, not even bothering to quote the sentence as a whole, looks really weak from Morris. He wants to sell this mangled citation as a leading biologist disagreeing with evolution, which obviously it is not.


      Edit: I found a better source, an excellent source on watchability of "macroevolution": Observed Instances of Speciation

      Please look into that - if you are really out for sampling all that you can find and then making your very own critical mind up on it - this might just be the ticket. It has hundreds of direct sources, too.


      *Well - I guess it would have to be unreasonably many thousands of years for the island to be free civilisation's tamperings for such a drastic change to come about. It was just for the sake of example and not a good one, but take non-dogs and good is. Heck - take finches!! How come all of these many supposedly initially different species of finch who supposedly flew to the Galapagos in parallel, weren't found anywhere else? Where had they conspired to invade the Galapagos from? Either every last one of them flew there - or the "remaining" ones must have all self-destructed. Hm...
      But best you tell me, what sort of evidence you would consider valid? Give me a better example, if you don't like my vegetarian island dogs!
      Tip - check the link above, the underlined one!

    11. #111
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      Wow Steph, this is beautiful!!! I knew nothing about this fish, nor the fact that our talking and listening apparatus evolved from fish gills! I had only seen the older crawling lungfish versions, awkwardly humping along from puddle to puddle. This must be its descendant, evolved for better adaptability to land.

      And this really points out why evolution belongs in biology classes while Creationism belongs in close-minded cults. It's amazing to see the endless supply of data, intelligence, facts and evidence on the one side, all compounding on top of each other to reveal ever deepening layers of the same story, none of it contradicting any other parts. While on the other side is only ignorance, petulance, childish non-answers and obstructionism. And it's funny to see the way the anti-science movements always want to cloak their arguments in pseudoscientific terminology, because they know that's the only thing that can possibly give it any semblance of respectability. The fact that they're constantly trying to accuse science of being a religion or a dogma when it's clearly not reveals how it must hurt when they receive these criticisms and can't deny it, at least to their own innermost selves, whatever words they may use to cover the fact.

    12. #112
      high mileage oneironaut Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Stickie King Populated Wall Referrer Silver 10000 Hall Points Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      Sageous's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2011
      LD Count
      40 + Yrs' Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Here & Now
      Posts
      5,031
      Likes
      7154
      Deanstar:

      Much as I don't want to, it seems like a good time to ask: Why couldn't God have included evolution in His Plan?

      Yes, this implies that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but is that really a problem? Couldn't the process of creation have taken, say, a few billion years before climaxing at the moment of the expulsion from Eden? Couldn't those six days of creation really just be a metaphor representing a much longer time?

      After all, for an eternal being who cares little about how long a particular creation process might take, evolution seems a fine tool for developing matter into the final product we enjoy today. The bible just says that God created Heaven and earth, and doesn't say how. Perhaps evolution might represent the how?

      The same goes with star nurseries: why wouldn't God choose to make more stars, and why couldn't what was photographed above simply represent our witnessing of His great works?

      I guess I've never understood why God is held by creationists to such tight confines. Just because the guys writing the Bible a few thousand years ago got it wrong or misunderstood what God was trying to tell them, you are committed to a 6,000-year-old-earth model, which is ever so hard to defend.

      [Of course, another corollary of this is the whole "God ought to be omniscient enough to have ceated the entire universe yesterday, with all the clues of age and evolution inserted as tests of faith or intellgence, but that may be a different subject]
      Last edited by Sageous; 09-03-2014 at 12:09 AM.
      acatalephobic and kadie like this.

    13. #113
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2009
      Posts
      48
      Likes
      28
      I feel that ring species alone thoroughly disproves creationism.
      Darkmatters likes this.

    14. #114
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Darkmatters View Post
      Wow Steph, this is beautiful!!! I knew nothing about this fish, nor the fact that our talking and listening apparatus evolved from fish gills! I had only seen the older crawling lungfish versions, awkwardly humping along from puddle to puddle. This must be its descendant, evolved for better adaptability to land.

      And this really points out why evolution belongs in biology classes while Creationism belongs in close-minded cults.
      It may seem Good to you, but wait till I reply to it, then it will just be debunked, as it already is anyway lol. For instance the idea that our talking or listening is related to fish, or gills. That would be inaccurate. You can't realistically make the connection that we came out of the sea. I'm really sorry about your enthusiasm for such a nonsensical notion. Your prejudice against creationist clearly highlights who is in the closed minded cult here.

      It's amazing to see the endless supply of data, intelligence, facts and evidence on the one side, all compounding on top of each other to reveal ever deepening layers of the same story, none of it contradicting any other parts.
      You sound like you are trying to sell us something. You are. Your religion. lol.

      While on the other side is only ignorance, petulance, childish non-answers and obstructionism. And it's funny to see the way the anti-science movements always want to cloak their arguments in pseudoscientific terminology, because they know that's the only thing that can possibly give it any semblance of respectability.
      I think if we take a look at your attitude, that reflects how you react to the true science. You pretend science is something it's not don't you. And this is how you react.


      Quote Originally Posted by Sageous View Post
      Deanstar:
      Much as I don't want to, it seems like a good time to ask: Why couldn't God have included evolution in His Plan?
      Because evolution makes no sense, it implies that something is not complete and perfect yet. Since God is all powerful and knowing, evolution would only serve to demonstrate that he didn't know something and was in a process of trying to 'make it better'. Why would an all knowing God litrally spend billions of year waiting for things to develop on their own? Sit back and watch the fish and think "I really hope they make it on to the land in a few millions years, that's my plan". I think if someone believed in a God that did things through evolution, it's not the God of the bible, period.

      I don't see time as linear progress, that's not how I view time. Without evolution clouding my judgment, I see time for what it really is, part of a whole set in place by God.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 09-03-2014 at 12:43 AM.

    15. #115
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      Yes, by all means, I'm looking forward to your debunking! At the very least it will be entertaining. And I expect to see lots of good science included in it if course, actual science can't be debunked by hearsay or silly statements like "Well, anyone can clearly see… "

      It's a shame that your religion requires enforced ignorance on the part of its followers, through harsh injunctions against honest inquiry and investigation of the truth. But once again, I'm getting really bored with butting my head up against the stone wall of Creationist anti-logic. It's like arguing with a 6 year old who doesn't understand why his arguments aren't given the same consideration as those of the adults, and who honestly believes they're every bit as cogent.

    16. #116
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Darkmatters View Post
      Yes, by all means, I'm looking forward to your debunking!
      This is my last post in the religion section. I'm leaving this entire section now.

    17. #117
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      Quote Originally Posted by Sageous View Post
      Deanstar:

      Much as I don't want to, it seems like a good time to ask: Why couldn't God have included evolution in His Plan?

      Yes, this implies that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but is that really a problem? Couldn't the process of creation have taken, say, a few billion years before climaxing at the moment of the expulsion from Eden? Couldn't those six days of creation really just be a metaphor representing a much longer time?

      After all, for an eternal being who cares little about how long a particular creation process might take, evolution seems a fine tool for developing matter into the final product we enjoy today. The bible just says that God created Heaven and earth, and doesn't say how. Perhaps evolution might represent the how?

      The same goes with star nurseries: why wouldn't God choose to make more stars, and why couldn't what was photographed above simply represent our witnessing of His great works?

      I guess I've never understood why God is held by creationists to such tight confines. Just because the guys writing the Bible a few thousand years ago got it wrong or misunderstood what God was trying to tell them, you are committed to a 6,000-year-old-earth model, which is ever so hard to defend.

      [Of course, another corollary of this is the whole "God ought to be omniscient enough to have ceated the entire universe yesterday, with all the clues of age and evolution inserted as tests of faith or intellgence, but that may be a different subject]
      I like your first question. I always thought about that as I was being taught the book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Even as a kid, I was like HUH? How could that be! Then I guess because I had a vivid imagination, I just went along with it. I wish someone could explain how God, with a wave of his hand created everything in 6 days.
      Sageous and dutchraptor like this.

    18. #118
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3042
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      This is my last post in the religion section. I'm leaving this entire section now.
      Damn now we'll never get to witness that excellent debunking of yours. Is this some for of psychological attack, make us extremely anxious for what could be considered the most epic counter argument versus evolution and rip it out of our hands.

      Just joking, the only sad bit here is that you only tell us after StephL spent so much time working on her own post.

      Because evolution makes no sense, it implies that something is not complete and perfect yet.
      Last time I checked the world was far from perfect. If god is so capable of creation why did he set us up for such atrocities as genocide and disease. If god is anywhere near as competent as the creationists make him out to be, than why did he allow adam and eve to sin, why did he create the human the sin. Even worse is that if it's in human nature to sin, and man was created in gods image...Is god really as kind as we make him out to be. He did, according to the bible, directly cause more than 500000 times as much deaths as satan did.

    19. #119
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      ^ You're only going to bring him back - or is the the plan?

      And after thinking about it, it could be that his epic debunking actually was what he said later in the same post. Far from epic though, or from a debunking for that matter.
      Last edited by Darkmatters; 09-03-2014 at 10:12 PM.

    20. #120
      Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      139
      Whenever I feel that someone is completely closed to debate in a topic, I just don't start a dialogue with them there. The only purpose for doing so would be either for the benefit of others who may be otherwise persuaded towards that person's kind of thinking or social signalling.

      In the case of Mr. Star, his presentation was not compelling enough to convince anybody beyond those who are already heavily creationist and I have no real interest in signalling to everyone just how impressive I am for being more scientifically literate then someone who does not share the same scientific background as me.

      The real danger in debating creationists is that you will soon get an inflated sense of your own virtue as a rationalist.
      Last edited by DeviantThinker; 09-03-2014 at 10:33 PM.

    21. #121
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      Yeah, I'm generally the same until the insults get too thick and heavy to ignore anymore.

    22. #122
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV 3 years registered
      kadie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Posts
      579
      Likes
      461
      DJ Entries
      30
      StephL said:


      In the meantime - please everybody - let kadie and others know, who or what god is for you - and/or isn't!


      Thanks Steph
      StephL likes this.

    23. #123
      Member StephL's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      LD Count
      84
      Gender
      Posts
      2,420
      Likes
      3288
      DJ Entries
      117
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      This is my last post in the religion section. I'm leaving this entire section now.
      Okay. You know - I've been talking to my husband, telling him you would be quite kicking and screaming, metaphorically, but that I also had a slight feeling of wavering, of being open to take the information on face value.
      And so he brought it up again - what if I indeed managed to convince you - would you get in trouble?
      Would the rest of the construct of your faith become suddenly unstable and pieces come crashing, and would you be in for a very hard social ride in such a case? So I'm sort of relieved here - so is kadie - if you ever are in the mood again for debating/debunking/presenting or asking for further comments on the rest of the article - you are warmly invited to do it here: http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...ists-here.html
      But maybe indeed first consider, if you could bear the eventual consequences. So long!

    24. #124
      strange trains of thought Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Populated Wall Veteran First Class
      acatalephobic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Swamptown, USA
      Posts
      1,306
      Likes
      1224
      Quote Originally Posted by DeviantThinker View Post
      Whenever I feel that someone is completely closed to debate in a topic, I just don't start a dialogue with them there. The only purpose for doing so would be either for the benefit of others who may be otherwise persuaded towards that person's kind of thinking or social signalling...

      The real danger in debating creationists is that you will soon get an inflated sense of your own virtue as a rationalist.
      I feel that perhaps the very concept of debate is flawed in this way.

      With debate one must seek to find error in others' positions, seemingly under the assumption that one's own position has none itself. This inflated sense of virtue you spoke of, seems almost a prerequisite.

      With debate, all parties engaged are seeking a "win" for their point of view.
      It compells a person to seek validation for their position by attempting to destroy the opposition.

      It feels more like a war or words than a meeting of minds.

      How can anyone learn anything or gain insight by using such strong-armed tactics, I wonder...I prefer discussions because they seem somehow less arrogant.

      This thread was getting pretty hot and heavy for a while. Which can be fun sometimes.
      But I humbly interpreted the title question as being worded in a way that encourages discussion over debate.

      Quote Originally Posted by Sageous
      I guess I've never understood why God is held by creationists to such tight confines.
      Me either, because to feel threatened by opposition seems like a sign of weakness to me...not strength.

      You would think anyone genuinely seeking insight or truth would be more flexible and open, whereas the example you mentioned reflects only rigidity and stubbornness.

      Without room to learn, grow, and evolve, thoughts stagnate. If this is what qualifies as "winning", it's no wonder I'm an underachiever.
      tropicalbreeze likes this.
      http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp299/soaringbongos/hippieheaven.jpg

      "you will not transform this house of prayer into a house of thieves"

    25. #125
      Diamonds And Rust Achievements:
      Veteran First Class Vivid Dream Journal Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      Darkmatters's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Center of the universe
      Posts
      6,949
      Likes
      5848
      DJ Entries
      172
      I Just found this video that somewhat changes my whole take on Christianity (at least its values, if not its dogma or any other aspect of it). Rocking Mr. E has rapidly become my go-to guy for pretty much everything relating to philosophy of politics, religion, and whatever else he discusses - thus far I'm extremely impressed by every one of his videos I've seen, and his viewpoints seem exceptionally well researched, reasoned and conceived. His accent makes him a little hard to understand (to me anyway) so I have to turn it up loud, but always remember to turn it down right the the beginning and the end when he wails on that git-fiddle!!

      And while he is an atheist, he actually makes a very good argument that Christian values are at the heart of what has made the West great, and that their erosion is a terrible thing for society. Lately I've been feeling more and more that the atheists who scream and rail against every facet of Christianity are pushing an agenda that I dislike, and I think the venerable mister E explains what it is pretty well:

      Last edited by Darkmatters; 09-05-2014 at 02:06 AM.
      acatalephobic and EbbTide000 like this.

    Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

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