Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Hello Richard
    I am back again. As a rule, I try to use as few words as possible but you choose to brush them aside and demand meticulous explanation. When you are asked to do the same you refer the interrogator to some authority or other . Now I ask you to dot every i and cross every t in response to these comments and questions I said that dna and rna were two of the tools which God used , I thought the the metaphor would have been readily understood. When you write the word” EVOLUTION” : What you really mean or imply is , the Darwen theory of evolution by the (accidental) selection of the species.That is totally different from the general meaning of the word. Now let us consider the absurd notion that D.N.A arose spontaneously without the intervention of (dare I say it?) Almighty God. The dumb darwenists declare that life sprang spontaneously from the primordial ocean. .O K Let's have a closer look. In the primordial soup there just happened to be strands of phosphorous ( not unusual) Somewhere along the line some molecules of thymine just happened to be attracted to the phosphorous atoms in a peculiar way. So far : just barely possible . Now conveniently , there were four other sugar compounds dissolved in the water. Theses molecules then attached themselves to the uracil bases in a very special way . NO WAY. The absurdity now descends into farce. Somewhere ,possibly thousands of miles away in the same ocean the same thing was happening. After millions of years , the different strands met and merged. Now , by purest chance ,they happened to congeal in such a way as to form a letter of an infinitely complex code . Of course D.N.A on its own is useless. It needs a counterpart in order to function. Now it so happened that in another part. Of the world that a similar scene was being enacted except that uracil was the base instead of thymine. After a period of time , these two met and merged . Then a strange thing happened . They happily wrapped themselves round a suitable molecule of protein and the first bacterium had arrived. I can only think of one appropriate adjective , one suitable expletive . Bullshit. If you believe that ,then you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. And now for a quote from your post
    Good morning Alec,

    It is unfortunate that you did not read my previous post. You could have saved yourself all the time it took to type those words. You are preaching to the choir. I have already conceded the fact that we do not know how DNA arose and that it is one of the great mysteries in the history of life. Here is what I wrote:
    The origin of DNA is a mystery, but that is irrelevant because the Bible doesn't say that God created DNA and then let it evolve over millions of years. So even if we could prove that God created DNA, it wouldn't prove that the Bible and Christianity is true. That's what you fail to understand.
    As I said, the origin of DNA it is irrelevant to this discussion. This is because the Bible does not say that God created DNA and then slowly created all the living creatures over a period of millions of years in a sequential way (from the simpler to the more complex) that mimics "evolution."

    Furthermore, there is a fundamental error in your definition of evolution. You wrote: "the Darwen theory of evolution by the (accidental) selection of the species" - there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant. Anyone who knows anything about the real science of evolution would laugh at such comments as comically ignorant. It's one thing to oppose Darwinian evolution, but you can't successfully do that if you are ignorant of it's very definition!

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That's not true. I have given you much evidence, but you did not respond. For example, I told you that DNA evidence supports the idea of common descent, but you did not respond. And besides, you are being dishonest because we both know that you do not want any "proof" and you will not accept any evidence no matter how strong it is.
    That is an old trick and used all the time . . It is sometimes called misdirection. First you say that D.N.A supports the notion of common descent and then you use the word proof to imply that it was an established fact when in truth it was only conjecture in the first place.
    That's ridiculous Alec. There was no misdirection. I did not switch from saying there was "evidence" to saying there was "proof." I never asserted it was proven. I put "proof" in quotes because I was talking about your request for "evidence/proof" that you don't really want. Talk about "misdirection!" You missed the whole point of my words. You do not want to know the truth on the question of evolution because you only want to hold to the dogmas you think the Bible teaches. So you are pitting your private religious beliefs based on nothing but ancient words in an ancient book against Science. Good luck with that one ...

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    The conclusions are plainly wrong. To say that because a monkey has the same genetic markers as a man means that men were descended from monkeys is like saying that a man must be a potato because he has a jacket. The D.N.A of of monkeys must be more than 90% similar to that of man because of the similarity of structure. Millions of markers must be similar if not identical because they indicate the form , colour, structure and al the finest details.
    You have failed to understand the argument. I was not talking about the number of shared genes. I was talking about the kind of DNA evidence used in courts to identify paternity. There are unique patterns in the DNA that allow us to trace ancestry. It is accepted by the courts, and is used to impose capital punishment. So here you are rejecting all this science that has been established on solid verifiable facts all because it contradicts your personal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago by people utterly ignorant of the most basic science? That's just plain NUTS.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I have said this before and I will say it again : There is no conflict between the bible and true science. True science is Knowledge from inquiry . Modern science is Theory from speculation. I read the bible for myself and draw my own conclusions. I have never thought that Adam was the first human on earth ,not by a million yrs.
    That's just great Alec. You are a "lone wolf" and you have in your possession a book written thousands of years ago in foreign languages that have to be translated for you by experts because you couldn't do it yourself, and you take that strange foreign book written by shepherds of the Bronze age and you "draw your own conclusions" that directly contradict the peer-reviewed conclusions of ten thousand professional scientists? There are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks. Unfortunately, we both know you don't fit into the first category. You have absolutely no foundation for your rejection of evolution. You can't even accurately state the fundamental premises of the theory! Your obstinate opposition to something you don't even understand is absurd to the highest degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Lets have a look at genesis for a minute. In the beginning the earth was without form and void. It was a mass of gas in the vastness of space. God projected a mental image into the formless mass and the mass assumed the shape of the image. That agrees roughly with the limited observations which are possible today. If God had used the technical language of 2050 A.D who could have understood it?.
    God had an infinite number of choices about how he wanted to communicate the truth of creation. So why then did he choose to use the false cosmology of the Bronze age? Isn't it a little odd for the Omniscient Lord to use such absurd falsehoods that just happen to be what the ignorant and primitive people would have said without inspiration? Why did he use the pattern of the three-tiered universe with a solid dome "firmament" holding up the "waters" that were above? There's no water up there. There's no solid dome firmament. And God didn't even initially create "the heavens and the earth!" The earth wasn't created until some 9 billion years after the "heavens." Fundamentalist Christians have been trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with the facts of modern science for decades and have failed completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    The geological record and the fossil record are in accord with the account. Life began in the sea and the plants on the land. . But before that it was so turbulent that it was impossible know sea from sky. Then the birds appeared . Next the animals After hundreds of millions of years ,mankind appeared.
    Well, at least you got the last part correct - it did take millions of years for the birds and other animals to appear. But the rest is ridiculous. The Bible says the sun and moon and stars were "made" on the Fourth Day. But this contradicts all science, so you invent the silly idea that God just made them "visible" on the "fourth day." So again, we see Christian "apologists" implying that God is such a moron he couldn't even say what he meant in the Bible, and we had to wait for some dimwitted human to come along and ADD WORDS TO THE TEXT to create a "plausible" explanation to fix the breach between Science and the Bible. Is there any reason anyone should believe such an obviously contradictory and absurd story? You can't claim that the Bible is from an Omniscient God and then go about "fixing" his obviously erroneous book! Your entire program is self-contradictory and self-defeating.



    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    You insist that there are many transitional forms . You cannot name one .
    If you wanted the truth, you could spend the rest of your life documenting "transitional forms." But you don't want the truth, so there's no need for me to present it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    You cynically said that maybe there was a change every million years or so . NO ! The change occurred every fifty million years on average and the change was so sudden and dramatic that it left an indelible mark in the record set in stone. It is so definitive that the rocks are identifiable by the fossils which they contain.
    You have made this assertion many times, but I have no idea where you got it from. Please cite your source so I can verify it. I'm pretty sure you have mangled the facts.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake district U.K
    Posts
    314

    Chuck it Charlie It's rubbish

    QUOTE!


    If you wanted the truth, you could spend the rest of your life documenting "transitional forms." But you don't want the truth, so there's no need for me to present it again.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alec cotton
    You cynically said that maybe there was a change every million years or so . NO ! The change occurred every fifty million years on average and the change was so sudden and dramatic that it left an indelible mark in the record set in stone. It is so definitive that the rocks are identifiable by the fossils which they contain.

    You have made this assertion many times, but I have no idea where you got it from. Please cite your source so I can verify it. I'm pretty sure you have mangled the facts.

    The first part is an obvious evasion, intended to obscure the truth . I challenge you now to name one
    'transitional form' and the source of your information so that I can check it.

    As for the second part ; I will most gladly cite my source. Look in any book on geology or fossils and you will see a list of the geological periods ; When they began , when they ended and the fossil remains which are always found in them . Older rocks are overlaid by younger rocks .In every single case : The older rocks contain fossils which do not occur in the younger rocks . The younger rocks contain the remains of animals which never existed in the previous 50 million years. They allways appear fully formed and perfectly adapted to conditions of the day. There is no transitional period. If you can't be bothered doing that , then look in your dictionary.DEVONIAN (period).of or relating to the fourth period of the palaeozoic with evidence of the first amphibians and tree forests.
    JURASSIC .0f or pertaining to the second period of the mesozoic era with evidence of many large dinosaurs , the first birds ( including archaeopterix) , and mammals. All these appear suddenly, fully formed, fully fledged and ready for action with nothing in between . They remained that way without change for fifty million years and disappeared without trace. Check it out

    QUOTE

    - there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant

    If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.
    Alec

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I challenge you now to name one “transitional form” and the source of your information so that I can check it.
    You don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea how rich the fossil record is. We have millions of transitional forms. Here's an overview of the evidence and a solid refutation of your false assertions:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje...eature=related

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    As for the second part ; I will most gladly cite my source. Look in any book on geology or fossils and you will see a list of the geological periods ; When they began , when they ended and the fossil remains which are always found in them . Older rocks are overlaid by younger rocks .In every single case : The older rocks contain fossils which do not occur in the younger rocks . The younger rocks contain the remains of animals which never existed in the previous 50 million years. They allways appear fully formed and perfectly adapted to conditions of the day. There is no transitional period. If you can't be bothered doing that , then look in your dictionary.DEVONIAN (period).of or relating to the fourth period of the palaeozoic with evidence of the first amphibians and tree forests.
    JURASSIC .0f or pertaining to the second period of the mesozoic era with evidence of many large dinosaurs , the first birds ( including archaeopterix) , and mammals. All these appear suddenly, fully formed, fully fledged and ready for action with nothing in between . They remained that way without change for fifty million years and disappeared without trace. Check it out
    That's what I thought - you''v mangled the evidence beyond recognition. There are not "50 million year" periods void of any evolution. That's ridiculous. Those periods are just rough outlines. They are not even well defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    - there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant
    If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.
    That's a false dichotomy. Many things are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." Things that happen according to natural laws like gravity and electricity are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." The are simply "determined" by the natural laws and initial conditions. Now it is true that you could think of the initial conditions as "accidental" but that's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Your statements indicate that you simply do not understand the basic elements of evolution. Suppose a creature had an "accidental" mutation that gave it slightly longer legs so it could run a bit faster. Natural selection means that it would be "selected for" and it's competitors would be "selected against" because they lost. The mutation was accidental, but the "natural selection" was not. Given your confusion on this most basic of all evolutionary concepts, I have no reason to believe you know what you are talking about. This is confirmed by your "cranky" attitude you exhibit when you reject ten thousand professional scientists and their millions of physical observations as if you had any such knowledge to justify such a grand dismissal. Like I said, there are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake district U.K
    Posts
    314

    even a worm will turn

    That is one transparent apology. of course evolution is not called accidental If it was it would be too transparent. You offer two feeble excuses. One is that the Darwen theory is not called accidental . You say that my dichotomy is wrong . That's rich. let the reader judge. An incident which occurs withot planning is an accident. When an unfortunate incident occurs by chance we call it an accident. The theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance. In common english usage , that means , by accident. Now if you are capable of judging any thing , you have two choices. Did the development occur by accident or design?:By chance or by choice. ?. Of course the dates are only estimates but the facts speak for themselves I was once watching a documentery on T.V. about the grand canyon.There was a well worn path which people could descend. At one stage , the guide stopped and addressed the group Behind them I distinctly saw the fossilised head of a tricerotops. It was almost at river level.I thought " these rocks must be Jurassic because that is when that animal appeared The rocks which these rocks sit on are either triassic or permian. All rocks are identified by the fossil remains in them . It is obvious that there were millions of trierotops in the word at the beginning of the jurassic . I have just provided the evidence. On the video which you reccomended the "expert" stated (quite rightly ) that for an animal to be preserved is very rare. Now your "expert " stated that there are thousand of intermediate species but failed to name one. Now here is a chance to take the acid test , but neither he nor any other group or organisation will make it or take it because it would be proof positive that they are wrong.If a group or team of geologists were to go to the deep part of the grand canyon and take samples of the rocks and fossils found all the way to the top they would discover that they remained unchanged throughout the whole period. When faced with the sticky problem of the terrible twins; D.N. A. and R.N.A. You say that you don't know how life started What the hell are you doing here then: Rambling on about how it developed in minute detail. Now , come clean. Do you believe that life started by chance or do you believe that it was orchestrated . Do you believe that it bumbld and stumbled on aimlessly or do you believe that it was directed.
    Alec

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,229
    The oldest fossil found are 3.4 billion years old bacteria which were already well developed in such a short time since the formation of the earth. How could this be if based on the theory of evolution and natural selection? Where are the transitional stage of molecules combining to form life? It thus suggests intelligent design and creation and not magic. I don't understand how intelligent people can believe life can formed by itself as if by magic?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08...mic049921.html

    Excerpt:
    Time Isn't On Their Side
    What are the implications of these findings for the debate about intelligent design? Materialists often suggest that blind and unguided chemical reactions -- cheered on by electricity, heat, other forms of energy, and vast eons of time -- spontaneously formed a self-replicating molecule which then evolved through unguided processes into life as we know it. Origin of life theorist George Wald captured the spirit of this perspective in a paper written in 1955:

    Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.6

    As we've seen, life could not have existed on earth when the earth first formed because the early earth was a hostile place as a result of impacts during the heavy bombardment period. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould explains that, contrary to Wald, the amount of time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited:
    Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life.7
    Likewise origin-of-life theorist Cyril Ponnamperuma stated "we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."8.

    The new reports of early microfossils from the Archaean provide more evidence confirming that life existed very soon after the earth became hospitable to life.



    Glory to God's creation! Amen.
    Last edited by CWH; 08-25-2011 at 04:42 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    The oldest fossil found are 3.4 billion years old bacteria which were already well developed in such a short time since the formation of the earth. How could this be if based on the theory of evolution and natural selection? Where are the transitional stage of molecules combining to form life? It thus suggests intelligent design and creation and not magic. I don't understand how intelligent people can believe life can formed by itself as if by magic?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08...mic049921.html

    Excerpt:
    Time Isn't On Their Side
    What are the implications of these findings for the debate about intelligent design? Materialists often suggest that blind and unguided chemical reactions -- cheered on by electricity, heat, other forms of energy, and vast eons of time -- spontaneously formed a self-replicating molecule which then evolved through unguided processes into life as we know it. Origin of life theorist George Wald captured the spirit of this perspective in a paper written in 1955:

    Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.6

    As we've seen, life could not have existed on earth when the earth first formed because the early earth was a hostile place as a result of impacts during the heavy bombardment period. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould explains that, contrary to Wald, the amount of time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited:
    Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life.7
    Likewise origin-of-life theorist Cyril Ponnamperuma stated "we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."8.

    The new reports of early microfossils from the Archaean provide more evidence confirming that life existed very soon after the earth became hospitable to life.



    Glory to God's creation! Amen.
    The fact that there is no physical evidence that you yourself began as a single cell that divided into trillions of cells over a period of nine months in your mother's womb does not imply that you were magically created by God as a full grown human being. The same goes for our knowledge of our own origins. Lack of knowledge does not prove God. Sorry. But even if it did prove God, it would not prove the Christian God because the Bible does not say that God created life 4.5 billion years ago.

    Have a nice day!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    - there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant.
    If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.
    That's a false dichotomy. Many things are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." Things that happen according to natural laws like gravity and electricity are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." The are simply "determined" by the natural laws and initial conditions. Now it is true that you could think of the initial conditions as "accidental" but that's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Your statements indicate that you simply do not understand the basic elements of evolution. Suppose a creature had an "accidental" mutation that gave it slightly longer legs so it could run a bit faster. Natural selection means that it would be "selected for" and it's competitors would be "selected against" because they lost. The mutation was accidental, but the "natural selection" was not. Given your confusion on this most basic of all evolutionary concepts, I have no reason to believe you know what you are talking about. This is confirmed by your "cranky" attitude you exhibit when you reject ten thousand professional scientists and their millions of physical observations as if you had any such knowledge to justify such a grand dismissal. Like I said, there are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks.
    That is one transparent apology. of course evolution is not called accidental If it was it would be too transparent. You offer two feeble excuses. One is that the Darwen theory is not called accidental . You say that my dichotomy is wrong . That's rich. let the reader judge. An incident which occurs withot planning is an accident. When an unfortunate incident occurs by chance we call it an accident. The theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance. In common english usage , that means , by accident.
    Hey there Alec,

    The problem is caused by your sloppy use of language. If you want to debate a scientific theory, you need to speak precisely. You incorrectly referred to "natural selection" as "accidental selection." This indicates that you are grossly ignorant of the theory. Your description of natural selection is like saying that it would be merely "accidental" that a gambler would roll snakes eyes once in every 36 throws on average. You ignore the fact that there are underlying physical laws that determine the one in 36 frequency.

    And now you are changing your story and saying that the "theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance." First it was the selection process that you called "accidental" and now it is the "changes." It is true that some "changes" - such as the random mutations in the genome - are "accidental." That is common knowledge. But it does not imply that evolution as a whole is "accidental." Case in point, the process of "natural selection" is not "accidental." If you had sufficient knowledge about the differences amongst all members of a given population you could calculate an excellent estimation of how many of each would survive.

    Perhaps an analogy would help. Suppose you took a bunch of iron filings and tossed them on a piece of paper with a magnet underneath. Would the iron filings make a random pattern? No! Why not? Because their is a non-random magnetic field that determines their position. This is just like evolution - it has random elements like mutation and non-random elements like natural selection. Simple as that.



    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Now if you are capable of judging any thing , you have two choices. Did the development occur by accident or design?:By chance or by choice. ?.
    That is a false dichotomy because it ignores that non-random nature of natural laws. Who "chose" the pattern of the iron filings? No one. They were determined by chance and natural law. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Of course the dates are only estimates but the facts speak for themselves I was once watching a documentery on T.V. about the grand canyon.There was a well worn path which people could descend. At one stage , the guide stopped and addressed the group Behind them I distinctly saw the fossilised head of a tricerotops. It was almost at river level.I thought " these rocks must be Jurassic because that is when that animal appeared The rocks which these rocks sit on are either triassic or permian. All rocks are identified by the fossil remains in them . It is obvious that there were millions of trierotops in the word at the beginning of the jurassic . I have just provided the evidence.
    Yes, you provided evidence ... evidence for evolution, that is. Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    On the video which you reccomended the "expert" stated (quite rightly ) that for an animal to be preserved is very rare. Now your "expert " stated that there are thousand of intermediate species but failed to name one. Now here is a chance to take the acid test , but neither he nor any other group or organisation will make it or take it because it would be proof positive that they are wrong.If a group or team of geologists were to go to the deep part of the grand canyon and take samples of the rocks and fossils found all the way to the top they would discover that they remained unchanged throughout the whole period.
    Your assertion is simply false. Granted, there are lines in evolutionary development that look "punctuated" but it is not generally the case. There are many smooth transitions. Your whole line of argumentation is irrelevant anyway because the evidence you site is the evidence for evolution - punctuated or not! Don't you get it? You are admitting that the fossil record shows that creatures developed from the simpler to the more complex over millions of years. You say there are some problems with the theory of exactly how this happened. SO WHAT??? You have confirmed fact of evolution, and are disputing only the theory of how it happened. I think that's great! If you think you have found some authentic error in the theory of evolution, there will be thousands of evolutionary scientists who would be most delighted to review your thesis. But if you think that a mere problem with the theory somehow contradicts the fact of evolution, then you don't even know what you are talking about because you are using the fact of evolution as the basis of your argument!

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    When faced with the sticky problem of the terrible twins; D.N. A. and R.N.A. You say that you don't know how life started What the hell are you doing here then: Rambling on about how it developed in minute detail. Now , come clean. Do you believe that life started by chance or do you believe that it was orchestrated . Do you believe that it bumbld and stumbled on aimlessly or do you believe that it was directed.
    Alec
    Your demand that I have a "belief" about the origin of life is like demanding that a geologist have a "belief" about the cosmological process that formed the planet. Obviously, that is absurd. You can do your geology all day long without having any "belief" in the truth or falsehood of the nebular hypothesis.

    I don't have sufficient knowledge to have a "belief" about how life originated. But I do have sufficient knowledge to believe that evolution is a fact and that the evidence strongly suggests common descent of all living organisms.

    Have a great day!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake district U.K
    Posts
    314

    Going mad. Are you coming?

    Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . That seems a stupid statement on the face of it. Many things in the Bible seem absurd at first sight . What it really means is ,'observe the animals and their behaviour and you will recognise my influence. Look closely , use your judgement and draw accurate conclusions. I am dismayed many times by the attitudes of fools who take the name of Christ and are convinced that they have power and authority to heal the sick and raise the dead . It is very often no more than presumption and assumption . They assume that the spirit of god is at their command and all they have to to is say the word and it is done. You hear them say ' I command this sickness to leave ' or something like that . Many years ago we lived in a run down house which was infested with cockroaches . A local preacher called and when he saw the problem he said to my father-in-law ' You should have faith and COMMAND those cockroaches to leave.' My father-in- law said ,' I'm not going to get down on my hands and knees and tell the cockroaches to bugger off.' I am told to use the academic , scientific approach. It does not work . It can't work and those who demand it don't use it. There seems to be some confusion between evolution and Darwen's theory of evolution. It is obvious that developments were by increments . That is observable. It is also observable that every creature is dependant on every other creature for it's existence; from the microbe to the mammoth,from the amoeba to the antelope. If one of the vital species ( such as the worm) was to be extinct overnight , then all life would end very shortly. It can be readily observed and proved under controlled conditions that all animals are imbued with just sufficient intelligence to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. Fools will retort 'That's nature' . Of course it's nature . Nature is God. I choose to believe in the God of the bible.
    The choice has proved to be a good one . The words have often been verified and the choice justified. I am often at variance with the academics. Just nowI am considering Septarian Nodules.. I have been well acquainted with them for many many years. Recently, I bought a few. Two were local and one from Taiwan. On close examination I decided that they were not nodules at all . I have a very strong feeling that they are organic in origin. Now the text books tell me that coal was formed by ancient forests turning into peat and the peat slowly turning into coal. Wrong, wrong wrong . I worked at the coal face for two years and never saw one fossil in a piece of coal. I don't say they don't exist . Just that in the hundreds of tons of coal that were on my shovel ,I never saw a fossil .They proliferated in the rock which formed the roof. There were thousands in the floor under the coal but none in the coal itself . Now why is that? . If the 'experts' are right , then there should be masses of fossilised material in the coal . Now it is my turn to speculate and theorise. My assumptions are based on observation the coal mine roof we would always be on the lookout for signs in the roof. A circle , about two feet across , we called a 'slip'. It was a line , about the thickness of a pencil line.It was ,in fact , all that remained of a tree like plant . The core was solid rock. The coating was coal, The greasy coal failed to grip the surrounding rock and so there was a real danger of it slipping out and crushing a man. The other danger was a 'roll'. Rolls were long parallel lines about two feet apart. This was a tree lying on its side. These plants never extended into the coal. Why?. Because the coal , at that time was liquid . It was oil. It was a sea of oil. Now let us take a step back and look at the rock. In the mines where I worked , the rock was like slate . When you split it,it the imprint of ferns in it. That is all they are: imprints. The plants were covered in oil . The waters were muddy with fine ash . Modern researchers have all the opportunities that I could only dream about . They could go down to the bottom of a coal mine shaft . They could take samples of the rock all the way to the top. They could examine the fossils and see if there was any change. They could date the rocks from radiation techniques. They could find out how long it was between the deposit of one seam to another. They could calculate how long the period was and much more. They will never do it because if they do they will have egg on their face. The same thing applies to the grand canyon , In places it is a mile deep. ( Encyclopaedia Britannica) Anybody can take samples from bottom to top and draw conclusions . I can' be bothered writing all the details . That is Just a rough outline
    Alec

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . That seems a stupid statement on the face of it. Many things in the Bible seem absurd at first sight . What it really means is ,”observe the animals and their behaviour and you will recognise my influence. Look closely , use your judgement and draw accurate conclusions. I am dismayed many times by the attitudes of fools who take the name of Christ and are convinced that they have power and authority to heal the sick and raise the dead . It is very often no more than presumption and assumption . They assume that the spirit of god is at their command and all they have to to is say the word and it is done. You hear them say “ I command this sickness to leave “ or something like that . Many years ago we lived in a run down house which was infested with cockroaches . A local preacher called and when he saw the problem he said to my father-in-law “ You should have faith and COMMAND those cockroaches to leave.” My father-in- law said ,” I'm not going to get down on my hands and knees and tell the cockroaches to bugger off.”
    I agree with all those points you made.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I am told to use the academic , scientific approach. It does not work . It can't work and those who demand it don't use it. There seems to be some confusion between evolution and Darwen's theory of evolution. It is obvious that developments were by increments . That is observable. It is also observable that every creature is dependant on every other creature for it's existence; from the microbe to the mammoth,from the amoeba to the antelope. If one of the vital species ( such as the worm) was to be extinct overnight , then all life would end very shortly.
    The fact that you are communicating on this forum via computers testifies to the absurdity of your claim that the "scientific approach" doesn't work. Of course, I guess you must mean that it "doesn't work" for evolution. But that seems nutty too because you use all the scientific facts you can find in your attempt to refute it. In other words, you are trying to use science to defeat science while claiming all the while that science doesn't work!

    Also, you might want to start spelling "Darwin" with an "i".

    And yes, there are many differences between Darwinian evolution and modern theories - which is what anyone should expect since the theory has been evolving for over 100 years!

    I'm glad you admit that it is "obvious that developments were by increments." How do you interpret that obvious fact? Do you think each organism is a special creation by God? Or is evolution "partly correct?" Either way, you apparently have a "theory of evolution" to explain the fossil record.

    As for the mutual dependance of organisms upon each other. It is not so complete as you suggest. The worm could die by life would continue. But that's irrelevant to my point which was that we have strong evidence for common descent of all organisms which contradicts the idea that each species was specially created by God.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    It can be readily observed and proved under controlled conditions that all animals are imbued with just sufficient intelligence to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. Fools will retort “That's nature” . Of course it's nature . Nature is God.
    Oh my! You believe "Nature is God?" That's panetheism dude! Most Christians would reject such a statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I choose to believe in the God of the bible.
    The choice has proved to be a good one . The words have often been verified and the choice justified.
    Yes, no one can argue with that. Everyone knows there is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters which are above.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I am often at variance with the academics.
    You don't say! I find that hard to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    Just nowI am considering Septarian Nodules.. I have been well acquainted with them for many many years. Recently, I bought a few. Two were local and one from Taiwan. On close examination I decided that they were not nodules at all . I have a very strong feeling that they are organic in origin. Now the text books tell me that coal was formed by ancient forests turning into peat and the peat slowly turning into coal. Wrong, wrong wrong . I worked at the coal face for two years and never saw one fossil in a piece of coal. I don't say they don't exist . Just that in the hundreds of tons of coal that were on my shovel ,I never saw a fossil .They proliferated in the rock which formed the roof. There were thousands in the floor under the coal but none in the coal itself . Now why is that? . If the “experts” are right , then there should be masses of fossilised material in the coal . Now it is my turn to speculate and theorise. My assumptions are based on observation the coal mine roof we would always be on the lookout for signs in the roof. A circle , about two feet across , we called a “slip”. It was a line , about the thickness of a pencil line.It was ,in fact , all that remained of a tree like plant . The core was solid rock. The coating was coal, The greasy coal failed to grip the surrounding rock and so there was a real danger of it slipping out and crushing a man. The other danger was a “roll”. Rolls were long parallel lines about two feet apart. This was a tree lying on its side. These plants never extended into the coal. Why?. Because the coal , at that time was liquid . It was oil. It was a sea of oil. Now let us take a step back and look at the rock. In the mines where I worked , the rock was like slate . When you split it,it the imprint of ferns in it. That is all they are: imprints. The plants were covered in oil . The waters were muddy with fine ash . Modern researchers have all the opportunities that I could only dream about . They could go down to the bottom of a coal mine shaft . They could take samples of the rock all the way to the top. They could examine the fossils and see if there was any change. They could date the rocks from radiation techniques. They could find out how long it was between the deposit of one seam to another. They could calculate how long the period was and much more. They will never do it because if they do they will have egg on their face. The same thing applies to the grand canyon , In places it is a mile deep. ( Encyclopaedia Britannica) Anybody can take samples from bottom to top and draw conclusions . I can' be bothered writing all the details . That is Just a rough outline
    Alec
    OK - it looks like you learned some interesting stuff as a coal miner. That's cool. But I don't quite get your point. Are you saying that all geological scientists on the planet are part of a big conspiracy to hide that fact that the earth is young or that Noah's flood really happened, or some such thing? Are you pushing a conspiracy theory that says science is trying to hide the facts that prove the Bible?

    By the way, what do you think of all the answers I gave in my previous post. You did not respond to them.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake district U.K
    Posts
    314

    Darwin's demise?. Wishful thinking!.

    O.K Richard . We will go on a nit picking crusade. Don't blame me for being boring , you started it. Quote. 'The fact that you are communicating on this computer testifies to the absurdity of your statement that the scientific approach doesn't work. That is your fancy footwork coming into play. It all depends on what you mean by science. I have said before that modern science is theory from speculation. True science is . Knowledge from inquiry. This computer came about because men over the years observed , judged ,concluded and applied . That is light years away form the speculative 'science' of Darwinian evolution. When you are on the ropes , you duck and dodge and wobble and weave instead of taking it on the chin like a man. I don't mind you shadow boxing but I do object to your limbo dancing. You admire the bigwigs, I despise them.I will give you an example.A group of these well heeled investigators dug a mammoth out of the permafrost. At vast expense they humped it back to the museum lab and then blew their trumpets about the great achievement. The most important questions went unnoticed. They had the ideal opportunity to take samples of soil from the sole of the foot to the shoulder. Then they could pose the question ; What were the prevailing conditions when this animal died What was the vegetation beneath its feet. . What was the vegetation at shoulder height. The permafrost was the same from the day of its demise to the present day. What was the nature of the deposit which buried it . Was there any pollen in it . Any seeds . If so , what sort?. I have never heard those questions posed much less answered . If they had been conducive to the Darwin theory , they would have emblazoned them in newspaper headlines. These are the kind of big knobs whom you revere. You say that I should spell charlie's
    name with an I . I will defer to your request ----- reluctantly. . When they say that Darwin won ,I ask when did Darwin win . That is why I spell win with a wen. You say that the Darwin theory has been evolving for a hundred years . It has been revolving for a hundred years and revolting all that time . It can't evolve . It was crap from the start . Ever since then ,it's adherents have been tinkering and altering , shoring it up and shoving it . It is still a heap of rubble. Truth may emerge but it cannot evolve . It is either true or false. True or false?.

    Quote. I am glad that you admit that developments were by increments. How do you interpret that obvious fact?
    Obvious ,I thought. I have many times seen younger rocks sitting on top of older rocks . In every single case , there are animal remains in the older rocks which are never seen in the younger ones . There are fossils in the younger rocks which did not exist in the older ones. The cut-off point is so distinctive that the age of the rock can most often be determined by the fossils in it. The theory insists that the animals adapt themselves and then states that they became extinct because they could not adapt. No animal can adapt itself. Each one is adapted to the environment and to the purpose for which it is intended. . We will take the simple case of the graptolite . It was introduced in the Cambrian period. . It survived the Ordovician,the Silurian,Devonian and Carboniferous. At the end of the carboniferous it suddenly disappeared from every sea ,lake ,pond and puddle in the world. The purpose had been served and it was replaced by other organisms. I am only stating the obvious : That which screams out from the ground and demands attention. It is obvious to me that life is choreographed, that it is moving ever onward to a specific goal. The changes are punctuated by world wide catastrophic events. In the geological past they can be seen as a pattern. Each period lasting about fifty million years. It is about 50000000 yrs since the last one , so we must be due another at any time. There is no logical reason to assume that the sequence has ended.
    Quote.Yes you provided evidence-------- evidence for evolution that is.

    Once again you are hopping about . Dancing round the periphery .I think you could have taught st Vitus. You ask me to dot every I and cross every t and attend to every iota subscript,watching every yod and tending every tittle. In the mean time you can slide from one definition (of the same word ) to another and back again in the same breath. You deceptively use the word 'evolution', when you really mean the Darwin THEORY OF evolution. You say that a geologist can't have a belief about the origins of the earth ( Don't ask for precision again) They most certainly do and they trumpet it on a regular basis. You ask me if there is a conspiracy. My answer is YES! There is , but it operates at a subliminal level. When an eminent individual sees a gaping hole in the accepted theory , he dare not expose it for fear of ridicule . I have seen it in operation on several occasions.

    Quote .You believe that nature is God . That is pantheism.

    Once again you deceptively change the meaning of a word to indicate that which was obviously not intended. To talk about the birds and the bees as 'nature ' is infantile. Every sentient being on earth is aware of an omnipotent , intelligent force at work I am a monotheist to the very core . I am convinced that this spirit which some call 'nature' is the one who identified himself as Jehovah. I am also convinced that he had the bible written in order to enhance the quality of life for humanity. This is the God whose laws I seek to understand and whose rules I try to live by.
    Alec

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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