345 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 7:36 PM, said:

For the record, I'm pretty sure I would screw up creation. Things would start working according to plan, and then the giant 4-legged bats might go crazy and eat everything. But if I were omniscient, I would see that coming and fix the bat. The only reason I'm using the first person here is to help imagine the perspective of the creator.

Yea, easy to say: "I would have made the avocado pit smaller", but when you start thinking about how much of creation is in a symbiotic relationship, how physical laws must apply universally and how all things come together in a harmonious symphony of beauty, it makes the task a little more daunting.Maybe enough to even consider the possibility that we aren't up to the ability to judge it?

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 4:50 PM, said:

How many times do we have to tell you that the Bible doesn't count?

Until Judgment Day...

Quote

Well, this is as close as we'll get to an "I was wrong about the cell thing," so I'll take it.

So I was wrong how?That Darwin wasn't wrong, or that he didn't base the religion of evolution on it?

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 4:48 PM, said:

Obviously I'm not going to read that whole mess. I'm sure even you can see how many ridiculous errors there are within that site...but I think I read the section you're referring to.All he says is, "The cell is really complicated, so how could it have arisen via evolution?" I mean, aside from the obvious "god of the gaps" issue, it still in no way affects whether or not Darwin's theory was formulated using "bad science". Like we've said, and you've ignored, many times, the theory of natural selection (his main idea) in no way hinges upon a "smallest unit" of life.

So your contention is that natural selection was his main idea?Does the work of Louis Pasteur just 6 years later where he refuted that by stating that all things only beget like things, not give you pause that real science refuted Darwin's theory?Darwin was raised by a father touting spontaneous generation, and we all know that was false.Darwin said about this:Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thingbeing developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be provedsome day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).He touts a theory that has brought us eugenics.Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death.Darwin will one day be touted as the man who led the scientific world astray for the longest time, which I'm sure will upset Algore for getting knocked off his record ( without steroids)But hey, if you guys love him... have at it.Just don't get so testy when people point out his flaws.You guys act like psychiatrist who are told that Freud fudged his results to 'prove' his theories.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 7:22 AM, said:

Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death..

He was skeptical about the natural selection part... This was in the 19th century... we've learned quite a bit since then, thank you very much

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 7:03 AM, said:

So I was wrong how?That Darwin wasn't wrong, or that he didn't base the religion of evolution on it?

At the moment, all I'm saying is that his theories in no way hinged upon the cell as being the smallest unit of life, therefore using the fact that he didn't know the full inner workings of the cell as a means for calling his work "bad science" is monumentally stupid. Hell, you couldn't find ONE website that agrees with your "it's bad science because he didn't know certain things about the cell"...the best you could find was "the cell is too complex to have evolved from something else". Not one website to back you up...that's a new low, bud. Let this one go. Keep thinking that evolution is a myth and the world is 6,000 years old (even though I think that deep down you know that's ridiculous), but give up on the "bad science due to the cell" thing. It's making you look just incredibly thick-headed. Usually you at least have some kind of warped logic behind your statements, this one is scary bad.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 7:22 AM, said:

So your contention is that natural selection was his main idea?Does the work of Louis Pasteur just 6 years later where he refuted that by stating that all things only beget like things, not give you pause that real science refuted Darwin's theory?Darwin was raised by a father touting spontaneous generation, and we all know that was false.Darwin said about this:Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thingbeing developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be provedsome day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).He touts a theory that has brought us eugenics.Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death.Darwin will one day be touted as the man who led the scientific world astray for the longest time, which I'm sure will upset Algore for getting knocked off his record ( without steroids)But hey, if you guys love him... have at it.Just don't get so testy when people point out his flaws.You guys act like psychiatrist who are told that Freud fudged his results to 'prove' his theories.

Going on wiki and making your way to an obscure Pastuer quote isn't helping your cause. An extremely important scientist in Darwin's day questioned his theory...genius, that should show you that natural selection and evolution WERE NOT taken as fact right away, and only after being validated an an extraordinary number of ways came to be universally considered as the most likely truth by anyone with a brain.And, uh, psychiatrists know that a lot of Freud's stuff was crap...but they still have taken some of his theories, the ones proven to be correct, and have built upon them. That's how science works. If you don't see how this is a positive and objective way to learn about the world around us, I'm sorry.It was cute how you mentioned that Pasteur was a christian though. As if the thousands of influential scientists over the past few hundred years have all been atheists...sorry again, but many have been religious in some capacity. Your "one day" story was amusing too...since we all know that one day (though not for a long time) christianity will be looked at the same way as we see now look at the religions of the Egyptions, Greeks, etc. Don't worry though, people will also will look back and wonder how anyone could have seriously been Jewish, Muslim, or really anything else we currently see on this planet.

[vbnautilus]

Polar bears on a boat with baboons and wildebeast in the middle east!

[Randy Reed]

The islands lie in the Pacific Ocean about 1,000 km from the South American coast and straddling the Equator. There are 13 large islands, 6 smaller ones and 107 islets and rocks, with a total land area of about 8,000 square kilometres. The islands are volcanic in origin and several volcanoes in the west of the archipelago are still very active.Due to the volcanic nature of the islands the terrain varies vastly from one island to the next. Alot of the low lying islands and area do not have grass or ground vegetation where the upper areas do. The few animals that have made it to the island (most likely fromthe Ecuador area) have "evolved" very differently making it an idea place to observe evolution and natural selection. One of my favorites is the giant tortiose (land turtle) who likely drifted to the island. It's been shown that this is possible but I won't digress.)In some areas where there is low lying grass you can see a "low shelled" tortoise.Where there isn't and they eat cactus and upper vegetaion they have the "saddleback" tortoise. Notice how the shell above the neck has risen to allow them to reach it.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 7:03 AM, said:

Until Judgment Day...That Darwin wasn't wrong, or that he didn't base the religion of evolution on it?

Quit being a booger by saying the "religon" of evolution it isn't inciting anyone other than to show your arrogance. Heh, Until Judgement Day.You bet your life.

[Randy Reed]

Aside from tree rings and carbon dating all the advancements in genetics has given us concrete proof of the links between the species and timelines.(combining the fossel record, rates of mutation and nucleotide diffrences between species)Really all the genetic evidence has made everything else practically moot if you get down to it which is why no one seriously disputes evolution anymore aside from a few crackpot websites like BG linked.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

The islands lie in the Pacific Ocean about 1,000 km from the South American coast and straddling the Equator. There are 13 large islands, 6 smaller ones and 107 islets and rocks, with a total land area of about 8,000 square kilometres. The islands are volcanic in origin and several volcanoes in the west of the archipelago are still very active.Due to the volcanic nature of the islands the terrain varies vastly from one island to the next. Alot of the low lying islands and area do not have grass or ground vegetation where the upper areas do. The few animals that have made it to the island (most likely fromthe Ecuador area) have "evolved" very differently making it an idea place to observe evolution and natural selection. One of my favorites is the giant tortiose (land turtle) who likely drifted to the island. It's been shown that this is possible but I won't digress.)In some areas where there is low lying grass you can see a "low shelled" tortoise.Where there isn't and they eat cactus and upper vegetaion they have the "saddleback" tortoise. Notice how the shell above the neck has risen to allow them to reach it.

Do you understand that showing a picture of two turtles doesn't show evolution, it shows adaptation, something all Creationist agree with. Afterall, God made animals able to adapt because He's a really smart dude.

[Balloon guy]

Mills, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 8:27 AM, said:

He was skeptical about the natural selection part... This was in the 19th century... we've learned quite a bit since then, thank you very much

No, he disagreed with it. So you're saying that in the 19th century people didn't really know enough to understand the theory that Darwin invented?Which lends itself to my contention that Darwin built his theory on bad science.And you guys have followed off the cliff ever since, seeing everything through evolution only glasses.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 9:35 AM, said:

At the moment, all I'm saying is that his theories in no way hinged upon the cell as being the smallest unit of life, therefore using the fact that he didn't know the full inner workings of the cell as a means for calling his work "bad science" is monumentally stupid. Hell, you couldn't find ONE website that agrees with your "it's bad science because he didn't know certain things about the cell"...the best you could find was "the cell is too complex to have evolved from something else". Not one website to back you up...that's a new low, bud. Let this one go. Keep thinking that evolution is a myth and the world is 6,000 years old (even though I think that deep down you know that's ridiculous), but give up on the "bad science due to the cell" thing. It's making you look just incredibly thick-headed. Usually you at least have some kind of warped logic behind your statements, this one is scary bad.Going on wiki and making your way to an obscure Pastuer quote isn't helping your cause. An extremely important scientist in Darwin's day questioned his theory...genius, that should show you that natural selection and evolution WERE NOT taken as fact right away, and only after being validated an an extraordinary number of ways came to be universally considered as the most likely truth by anyone with a brain.And, uh, psychiatrists know that a lot of Freud's stuff was crap...but they still have taken some of his theories, the ones proven to be correct, and have built upon them. That's how science works. If you don't see how this is a positive and objective way to learn about the world around us, I'm sorry.It was cute how you mentioned that Pasteur was a christian though. As if the thousands of influential scientists over the past few hundred years have all been atheists...sorry again, but many have been religious in some capacity. Your "one day" story was amusing too...since we all know that one day (though not for a long time) christianity will be looked at the same way as we see now look at the religions of the Egyptions, Greeks, etc. Don't worry though, people will also will look back and wonder how anyone could have seriously been Jewish, Muslim, or really anything else we currently see on this planet.

If you could step out and see how blind you are...but I understand. It is a terrible thing to realize that you are less open minded than you think you are.I didn't list any web sites because I didn't look. I linked one because it was the #1 that came up on google and I wanted to send vb on a wild goose chase as a trap for mills which worked. I don't need proof to know what is documented. Darwin based his theory on junk science. His natural selection theory is still conjecture, not proven fact and you guys will defend to your death that something that has never been shown to have happened is 100% true.But continue to suggest that 'anyone with a brain' knows this because by poisoning the argument you give it the much needed support it lacks.The fact that you guys cannot even admit that much of what Darwin believed, like spontaneous generation, has been proven to be false shows that the only one with an open mind here once again...is me.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 7:49 AM, said:

and I wanted to send vb on a wild goose chase as a trap for mills which worked.

LOL, i'm flattered that you spend so much time thinking about me.what crazy scheme will you come up with next?

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 7:40 AM, said:

So you're saying that in the 19th century people didn't really know enough to understand the theory that Darwin invented?

Well, I'm sure even those that were skeptical understood the concept. But People in the 19th century had no idea about DNA, genetic similarity, the fact that we have a fused chromosome showing that at one time, we shared the same number of chromosomes as the Apes, or the evidence in the fossil record. There is nothing wrong remaining skeptical until more information is known, you think Pastuer would disagree if he were alive today? IMO, extremely doubtful.You really think the fact that because a theory is met with skepticism in it's early stages, that means the theory is invalid? Better throw out Relativity then...

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 7:49 AM, said:

If you could step out and see how blind you are...but I understand. It is a terrible thing to realize that you are less open minded than you think you are.

The BG argument method, when all else fails, insult someone.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 7:40 AM, said:

Which lends itself to my contention that Darwin built his theory on bad science.

no it dosen't

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 7:39 AM, said:

Do you understand that showing a picture of two turtles doesn't show evolution, it shows adaptation, something all Creationist agree with. Afterall, God made animals able to adapt because He's a really smart dude.

Okay fine. They look similar and despite the fact that many species have evolved or adapted in the Galapagos, going from carnivore to herbivore etc., the animals still look similar so you don't buy it. Perhaps a different animal with more extremes might make the difference a little more stark like the dog. All dogs are descendents of the wolf. All of them. Picture a chihuaha (sp) and a St. Bernard and a poodle and a Great Dane. All came from the wolf. As people formed villages and had dumps for the trash some wolves shed their natural habitat in favor of easy pickins. As people tried to run them off some ran, others stayed (not so ready to give up a free lunch) and eventually people got curious and it went from there. Now over a few hundred years we have purposefully interbred dogs coming up with all kinds of weird looking animals until you end up with the president having a Labradoodle.We did this to the wolf in a relatively short time span, think what millions or a billion years of evolution could bring about. Spiders and snakes, neandethals, trailer park hussies, and butterflies. It's not that far fetched in that light. If people can breed thousand of different types of roses and mowing grass, horses and cats, apples and pears natural selection isn't far fetched.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 8:40 AM, said:

Okay fine. They look similar and despite the fact that many species have evolved or adapted in the Galapagos, going from carnivore to herbivore etc., the animals still look similar so you don't buy it. Perhaps a different animal with more extremes might make the difference a little more stark like the dog. All dogs are descendents of the wolf. All of them. Picture a chihuaha (sp) and a St. Bernard and a poodle and a Great Dane. All came from the wolf. As people formed villages and had dumps for the trash some wolves shed their natural habitat in favor of easy pickins. As people tried to run them off some ran, others stayed (not so ready to give up a free lunch) and eventually people got curious and it went from there. Now over a few hundred years we have purposefully interbred dogs coming up with all kinds of weird looking animals until you end up with the president having a Labradoodle.We did this to the wolf in a relatively short time span, think what millions or a billion years of evolution could bring about. Spiders and snakes, neandethals, trailer park hussies, and butterflies. It's not that far fetched in that light. If people can breed thousand of different types of roses and mowing grass, horses and cats, apples and pears natural selection isn't far fetched.

Complete conjecture on your part.I can equally say that the wolf/dog precursor was the one running to eat the garbage from the first Subway and the ones that stayed became dogs, the ones that didn't became wolves, and the ones that ate but didn't stay all died off.Your entire belief in the theory of evolution is 99% conjecture without a shred of actual evidence.You find a single shin bone in Africa, soon you will have a complete drawing of the settlement that these 'missing links' lived at complete with color of skin amount of eyebrows shape of head etc. And no one bats an eye that all you have found is a couple bones...But if you want to prove that canis comes from canis lupus to prove cross species evolution...who am I to stop you?

[Balloon guy]

Mills, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 8:06 AM, said:

LOL, i'm flattered that you spend so much time thinking about me.what crazy scheme will you come up with next?

Same one, I post truth, watch you run around in circles, then I laugh.If it works don't fix it.

Mills, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 8:10 AM, said:

Well, I'm sure even those that were skeptical understood the concept. But People in the 19th century had no idea about DNA, genetic similarity, the fact that we have a fused chromosome showing that at one time, we shared the same number of chromosomes as the Apes, or the evidence in the fossil record. There is nothing wrong remaining skeptical until more information is known, you think Pastuer would disagree if he were alive today? IMO, extremely doubtful.You really think the fact that because a theory is met with skepticism in it's early stages, that means the theory is invalid? Better throw out Relativity then...

I can never figure out if you guys honestly just don't understand a simple line of thought, or if the irrational part of your brains that have given in to the delusion of evolution trumps all ability to follow a simple train of thought. But whichever it is, I never remotely postulated that people being skeptical of something means it wasn't true. I guess though when faced with something you can't understand/explain the best defense is to pretend I said something else and then tear down that straw man argument. So again I'll type slow.Evolution was a theory founded with bad data, faith in untrue science and a biased desire to disprove the need for God by a person with psychological issues. Since then people with other motives have continued this theory, forcing all findings into the best angle to support this theory, and as such have corrupted the ability of science to find truth anymore. It's like golbabl warming without the political money pouring in...

Mills, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 8:28 AM, said:

The BG argument method, when all else fails, insult someone.

Yes, that is my exclusive method here.As long as you don't read anyone else's posts and misunderstand mine.But that's your method for all other truths, why should I think you would apply a different method to judging my posts than you do for how you judge everything?Badly.

Mills, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 8:37 AM, said:

no it dosen't

Well you delved deep in your argument trove and dug up a good rebuttal.I will have to google half the internet to come up with a respon...oh wait.Yes is it dose.

[Mills]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 15th, 2010, 9:08 AM, said:

I can never figure out if you guys honestly just don't understand a simple line of thought, or if the irrational part of your brains that have given in to the delusion of evolution trumps all ability to follow a simple train of thought. But whichever it is, I never remotely postulated that people being skeptical of something means it wasn't true.

then what was your point in posting that pastuer was skeptical of evolution/natural selection?