17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadRJ was expressing his disbelief over the level of preservation of a wooly mammoth. I was expressing my disbelief over the level of preservation found inside a dino bone. Experts who examined the bone also expressed disbelief over the apparent preservation. They could clearly see the level of preservation in that bone, but based on the estimated age of any dino bone it didn't make sense to see the level of preservation they observed within that bone.
But one of you said something else, not sure which of you. I am not surprised that you changed your story once you realized you were wrong. At least your better than RJ who will stick to his story even when he knows he's talking total nonsense.
If you told me a sandwich sealed in a zip lock sandwich bag could still be fresh after 100 years, I would be inclined to express disbelief over the level of "freshness" in that sandwich. I would not take a bite out of that sandwich no matter how convincing anyones arguments might be concerning its "freshness".
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyMaybe God just became all knowing within the last 6000 years.Imperfections, you've have proof that all things designed are error free?
No, and I OBVIOUSLY do NOT claim nor believe that “ all things designed are error free” (yet another straw man I see) and this is totally missing the point anyway.
So I take it you admit there exists imperfections in the anatomy of living things?
Good! Because th ...[text shortened]... things with design flaws?
How do you rationalize that? does this god actually make mistakes?
The Instructor
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYet when it is a dino bone, you say "ooh how fresh!" and take a bite.
If you told me a sandwich sealed in a zip lock sandwich bag could still be fresh after 100 years, I would be inclined to express disbelief over the level of "freshness" in that sandwich. I would not take a bite out of that sandwich no matter how convincing anyones arguments might be concerning its "freshness".
This is why I say you are a creationist, and because of those beliefs, are looking for holes in the theory of evolution, and seeing them even when they aren't there.
Its telling that you didn't:
1. Question the claim that the bones were fresh.
2. Question the claim that that level of preservation is impossible.
3. Go into the actual details to find out exactly what was being claimed.
Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that it somehow sheds doubt on the theory of evolution.
But how does a dino bone being preserved better than expected have any relation whatsoever to the theory of evolution? Are you saying you think it is possible that dinosaur fossils are incorrectly dated? Are you serious?
17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat are you implying?
Maybe God just became all knowing within the last 6000 years.
The Instructor
that the reasons for the 'design' flaws in life we see today are as a result of god not being so all knowing 6000 years ago and thus made mistakes when he designed them that he would not do so today?
I really honestly like to know what you are thinking here because I am honestly curious.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
17 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsGod clearly is a mathematician, math dictates the laws for all and i MEAN all. Yes everything. No serious! He is! Yes !!!
Maybe God just became all knowing within the last 6000 years.
The Instructor
// ok, a bit more serious.
There are advantages to having 2 sexes. Combinations in genes then comes from 2 parents. Meaning that 2 individuals must survive, mate and so on. Then combinations happen. FACTS: Rats get 3 surviving offspring each year. Leading to food, places to hide etc will be shorter and shorter. (I don't claim to know anything about rats, you can put rabbits here instead). There are cats living that hunt rats. One cat need to catch 4 rats each day to survive. If we make up some fictional numbers.
4000 rats, 50 cats, 365 days in a year. Rat population change each year: 150%. Cat population change each year 110%.
Then there are other conditions, lets take dogs. Dogs eat cats and rats. One dog need to catch either a cat or 10 rats each day. Dogs population change is 110%.
Now comes the moose. Moose and rats have a disease which travel in the mooses (this is acctually true, they have). This disease kills 90% of the rat population every 20th year. Then Dogs will eat cats only, but there are soon no cats left.
Then the 'super-dog' the 'super-rat' and the 'super-cat' will be present every 20th year, since then the fittest survive (due to bad conditions). The genes of the super -dog, -rat, -cat ... will spread. Since they give advantadges to the offspring. As time goes by the dogs, cats, rats will evolve, then they travel and meet other animals from different parts of the country. Perhaps after 50 000 years all rats will be immune to 'moose-disease', and then this immunity will spread to nearby rat-populations, perhaps the cats will evolve to have better sences by which they can distinguage between healthy and sick rats, perhaps dogs will start eating pigs instead of cats.
The point beeing is that nature is constantly changing. If enough animals will die before they make children then they will evolve. Evolution in progress.
In this context it is better to have 2 sexes since this makes combinations happen. At least among mammals, birds, insects, this seems very much to be the case. Some animals perhaps have other means than sexes for generating a diverse offspring, but I highly doubt it.
// Olof.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI am just joking with you. I have no idea about His all knowing ability.
What are you implying?
that the reasons for the 'design' flaws in life we see today are as a result of god not being so all knowing 6000 years ago and thus made mistakes when he designed them that he would not do so today?
I really honestly like to know what you are thinking here because I am honestly curious.
The Instructor
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you want me to be a creationist then fine. You may call me a creationist.
Yet when it is a dino bone, you say "ooh how fresh!" and take a bite.
This is why I say you are a creationist, and because of those beliefs, are looking for holes in the theory of evolution, and seeing them even when they aren't there.
Its telling that you didn't:
1. Question the claim that the bones were fresh.
2. Question the claim that that level o ...[text shortened]... aying you think it is possible that dinosaur fossils are incorrectly dated? Are you serious?
Does this mean I won't have to keep coming back to say "I didn't say that"? I doubt it. It probably means you literally cannot understand what is being said unless you filter it through your own particular beliefs... BTW isn't that something religious folks are always being accused of?
Either stick to the science being discussed or go back to trashing peoples religious beliefs, one or the other. Doing both only validates the point that evolution exists to support atheism. Either evolution can stand on its own or it can't.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I said about that stupid rock, it isn't faith if you limit the results of what
There you go again, trying to force the world to view evolution as 'faith'. It is nothing of the sort, because it can be shown theoretically to be false. That is the falsifiable test of science shown by Karl Popper. That has nothing to do with faith.
Like I said before, it is not faith if I hold a rock 7 feet in the air and think, If I drop that rock on ...[text shortened]... accept evidence as faith. Just because you are blinded by your faith, don't put that on me.
you see to what occurs now. If you tell me that what you see means things
a million years from now one way or another that is another thing altogether.
Kelly
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWell if things can be designed and have imperfections why do you dismissImperfections, you've have proof that all things designed are error free?
No, and I OBVIOUSLY do NOT claim nor believe that “ all things designed are error free” (yet another straw man I see) and this is totally missing the point anyway.
So I take it you admit there exists imperfections in the anatomy of living things?
Good! Because th ...[text shortened]... things with design flaws?
How do you rationalize that? does this god actually make mistakes?
design due to imperfections? You seem to want to accept or reject design
due to religion not due to what could designed or not, since as you'd think
God wouldn't do this means it couldn't be design. You don't lay evolution to
that standard do you, if God wouldn't guild evolution this way or that it
could not be true.
Kelly
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayIs this the "unintelligent designer"-theory?
Well if things can be designed and have imperfections why do you dismiss
design due to imperfections? You seem to want to accept or reject design
due to religion not due to what could designed or not, since as you'd think
God wouldn't do this means it couldn't be design. You don't lay evolution to
that standard do you, if God wouldn't guild evolution this way or that it
could not be true.
Kelly
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause we can trace many of the imperfections to an evolutionary source. In addition, as I mentioned before, the imperfections follow a very distinct pattern that matches what we believe lifes family tree to be.
Well if things can be designed and have imperfections why do you dismiss
design due to imperfections?
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs that so? What is this evolutionary source? What are these distinct patterns of imperfections?
Because we can trace many of the imperfections to an evolutionary source. In addition, as I mentioned before, the imperfections follow a very distinct pattern that matches what we believe lifes family tree to be.
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
Well if things can be designed and have imperfections why do you dismiss
design due to imperfections? You seem to want to accept or reject design
due to religion not due to what could designed or not, since as you'd think
God wouldn't do this means it couldn't be design. You don't lay evolution to
that standard do you, if God wouldn't guild evolution this way or that it
could not be true.
Kelly
if God wouldn't guild evolution
what?
You seem to want to accept or reject design
due to religion
No, science is NOT religion
Well if things can be designed and have imperfections ….
Are you talking about designed by humans or designed by God here?
why do you dismiss design due to imperfections?
Dismiss the existence of WHOS design due to imperfections? designed by humans or designed by God?
If a design was made by your God who is not supposed to make mistakes, yes. Surely you admit you can see the logical reason why? -I mean, why on earth would a god that makes no mistakes design flaws in living things?
But, if what you are referring to design made by us humans, then OBVIOUSLY I would NOT dismiss the existence of that design due to imperfections! And I have never said or implied that I would. I can give numerous examples of human design with imperfections esp with the crappy buggy Microsoft software I have on my computer.