Science Disproves Evolution

[Dinwar]

Quote:

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.

Oh, yes, well, "It's a marical" is a perfect explination.

It also neatly removes that nagging little thing called "evidence" from the equation. Nice how that works.

Quote:

In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.

This is where your understanding fails. You can copy and paste the words, but you don't grok them and cannot accurately apply them.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Which ones and how do those discoveries support Brown's conclusions? In your own words, please.

In my own words: You will have to read Brown's book.

Quote:

Not to mention all the new species we keep discovering in the ocean, like the thermal vent tubeworms. Of course, I suppose they could have just kept going on the volcanic energy during the flood. But the point is, as you are saying, there are way too many animals to have two of each on some boat.

And if you didn't take the insects, some of them, like moths and butterflies, would drown.

Finally, Pahu, how did the koalas and kangaroos get to Australia from Turkey? How did the lemurs make it to Madagascar? What about the giant sloths - how did they get to South America? And the bison to North America?

Genesis mentions all creatures that crawl on the earth as being part of the ark's cargo. As I mentioned earlier, the whole scenario involving the ark was supernatural. One clue is the dove that brought an olive branch back to the ark after about a year of flooding. In the natural world, all vegetation would have perished, so the alternative is God must have replenished it. That shouldn't be too hard for someone who created the universe from nothing, should it?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.

And what verses support that?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.



Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

If you're going to invoke a God who intervenes to that degree, then frankly all bets are off. If He did all that, and miraculously prevented all the freshwater animals from dying in salt water and miraculously prevented the salt water from leaving the land barren etc etc then it seems fair to wonder why He carried out His plan in such a convoluted way. After all, the purpose was only to kill all the bad humans. He could have done that with a wave of His hand, thereby sparing billions of other creatures. Why go to the complexity of killing them all with a flood, while miraculously preventing the flood from killing freshwater fish? He could have prevented the flood from killing Noah and family too - just a wave of the hand and they could breath underwater. If He can magic all those animals to the ark, then He could equally well magic them all to a safe place that doesn't flood, and no ark would have been needed.

Better still, He could just have designed the world properly in the first place, and then He wouldn't have had to indulge in this planet-wide massacre.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.

Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

Magic!
Well, that's an alternative to the testable hypothesis at the heart of the scientific method.

Now, you mentioned earlier that 'The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely'; would you agree that your initial statement was erroneous?

It is not that the events are credible, except in the literal and meaningless sense that you can always find somebody to believe ANYTHING.

Originally Posted by Pahu

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.

Yes, I guess.
Now, don't take it poorly, but it seems to me like you are repeating a definition without actually understanding it...

Now, please not the first sentence: 'A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy'.
Clearly you can see that this definition can not be applied to the earth as it is constantly bombarded by a influx of thermal and radiative energy, hence raising the availability of thermal energy...

[laca]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.



Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

So basically there's no rational explanation, and you know it. You just say "goddidit" and that's that. That's fine, but don't expect to sway anyone here with that BS. Also, what always boggles me with religious nuts like you is that they come here trying to use some perverted "science" to prove their pathetic excuse for a god, but in the end, after it all comes crushing down, it's always "OK, OK, but see, God did it and you can't prove he didn't! La-la-la can't hear you...". And that is just lame.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Pahu

In my own words: You will have to read Brown's book.

In other words, just take your word for it, even though you have no idea. This is the JREF, you have made the same unsupported claim and can not support it.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by Pahu

Genesis mentions all creatures that crawl on the earth as being part of the ark's cargo. As I mentioned earlier, the whole scenario involving the ark was supernatural. One clue is the dove that brought an olive branch back to the ark after about a year of flooding. In the natural world, all vegetation would have perished, so the alternative is God must have replenished it. That shouldn't be too hard for someone who created the universe from nothing, should it?

Or, you know, it could just be a made up story.
Generally, when somebody tell us something that we know conflict with reality, we assume they are making it up, not that magic was involved...

I understand that you are a literalist Christian and that is what work for us, but surely you understand why we can not accept it as you do and why it is not scientific (and hence, the title of this thread was innacurate...).

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Seriously, this is beyond silly. It's perfectly obvious that your beliefs are wrong. I don't mean like morally wrong or anything, just incorrect. Why cling to that which is demonstrably false? What do you get out of not accepting the blatantly obvious?

I agree that we should always seek reality. That's what science is all about. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution? Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption....The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

[Mirrorglass]

Ah, but Jesus Christ said: "Dudes, it's all just metaphorical. God doesn't exist, and evolution is a fact. Get over it; the Golden Rule is still a swell idea."

[Dinwar]

Quote:

And what verses support that?

Frankly, I don't care. All that does is push the question back one step (ie, what evidence is there that the Bible is valid in the first place?).

Do you have any objective evidence for any of this? Right now, given that you've already been reduced to "goddidit", I'd say the answer is "No".

Quote:

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?

~sigh~ Because there IS evidence. See the thread in the Sketoid forum here about evolution for page after page after page of it.

Quote:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

Nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

Not an authority on science. Plus, nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

Quote:

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption....The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

Nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

Quote:

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

I SERIOUSLY doubt that this is taken in context; also, if it was said after the invension of the radio or television it's a flat-out lie.

Quote:

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

Nothing to do with evolution (abiogenesis is NOT evolution, despite the continued attempts by Creationists to force us to accept it as such). Also, the data is old. Abiogenesis is a perfectly viable theory, and is distinct from previous views that fall under the heading "spontaneous generation".

Do you have anything relevant to say?

[laca]

Originally Posted by Pahu

In my own words: You will have to read Brown's book.

The levels of utter fail reached by each post are astonishing.

Originally Posted by Pahu

Genesis mentions all creatures that crawl on the earth as being part of the ark's cargo. As I mentioned earlier, the whole scenario involving the ark was supernatural. One clue is the dove that brought an olive branch back to the ark after about a year of flooding. In the natural world, all vegetation would have perished, so the alternative is God must have replenished it. That shouldn't be too hard for someone who created the universe from nothing, should it?

That's your evidence? Really? Most disappointing. Ray Comfort's banana argument is better.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by DC

thats the cool thing about that god, he just can do about everything. Or at least he did a long time ago, today he does nothing, he became a lazy ass.
or is he creating more galaxies in case we take another deep space picture?

You are right. There are some things God cannot do, like lie. But to assume He is not doing anything today is to be unwilling to appreciate the facts that it is He who keeps everything in place, maintaing all the laws of physics He created. You can thank Him for every breath of air you enjoy.

[Pahu]

The Law of Biogenesis


Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009402] So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed increasing time.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1036679]

[Mirrorglass]

Originally Posted by Pahu

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

For those of you interested, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the Huxtley quote, and the above, at least, is a bald-faced lie. While George Wald did write an article for Scientific American (quite possibly to the issue cited), the sentence above appeared nowhere in it. This 'quote' is twisted to vaguely resemble one of Wald's statements, but of course with the meaning completely twisted around. It's one of the nastiest examples of fundamentalist dishonesty out there.

I've unfortunately lost the link to my source; if anyone else happens to have it, I'd by grateful if you posted it.

ETA: Never mind, here it is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/part1-4.html

The article is from 1958, and as said, contains nothing with much resemblance to the above quote.

ETA2: No, sorry, 1954 after all. Think before posting, think before posting..

[DC]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You are right. There are some things God cannot do, like lie. But to assume He is not doing anything today is to be unwilling to appreciate the facts that it is He who keeps everything in place, maintaing all the laws of physics He created. You can thank Him for every breath of air you enjoy.

he can indeed not lie. lying requires existence.

[laca]

Originally Posted by Mirrorglass

For those of you interested, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the Huxtley quote, and the above, at least, is a bald-faced lie. While George Wald did write and article for Scientific American (quite possibly to the issue cited), the sentence above appeared nowhere in it. This 'quote' is twisted to vaguely resemble one of Wald's statements, but of course with the meaning completely twisted around. It's one of the nastiest examples of fundamentalist dishonesty out there.

I've unfortunately lost the link to my source; if anyone else happens to have it, I'd by grateful if you posted it.

ETA: Never mind, here it is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/part1-4.html

The article is from 1958, and as said, contains nothing with much resemblance to the above quote.

ETA2: No, sorry, 1954 after all. Think before posting, think before posting..

That's just plain disgusting. Pahu, please retract the "quote".

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by Pahu

I agree that we should always seek reality. That's what science is all about. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?

But the theory of evolution has plenty of evidence, so your quotes are a moot point.

First of all, regardless of what these few quotes say about a handful of supporters of the theory (and of the creationists that lie, quote-mine and otherwise mis-represent their statements), the majority of scientists that adopted the theory of evolution were and still are Christians. So, painting the theory as some sort of conspiracy by an atheistic scientific establishment betray a grave misunderstanding of the history of science...

More importantly, is your misunderstanding about the theory having 'no evidence'.
In reality, evolution by natural selection it is one of the best supported scientific theory in the history of science.

I can't start to scratch the surface of the (literally) millions of piece of evidence that come from so many independent directions (from the fossil record, to genetic, to anatomy...) all to fit within each other to paint a coherent picture to the point that Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, to borrow the words of yet another non-atheist...


Now, I don't expect you to take my word for it and, indeed, you should actually do your own research (Here is a good place to start).
But, to be honest, I don't think you will. I think you will keep on buying the misrepresentation by fellow creationists that will only confirm you in your dogmatic refusal. So, we are probably wasting our time here...

[Papermache]

As he is an honest messenger, I'm sure Pahu will retract this statement here and on the IGN boards where he recently posted it.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Pahu

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.

Would you care to explain how the theory of evolution by natural selection violates this principal?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Pahu

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?

your premise is wrong.
There is an overabundance of evidence.
a great resource to start understanding this would be:
http://talkorigins.org/

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Originally Posted by pahu

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.

Would you care to explain how the theory of evolution by natural selection violates this principal?

Pahu,
In your explanation, please remember that organisms do not represent closed systems, as they are continually exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by joobz

Pahu,
In your explanation, please remember that organisms do not represent closed systems, as they are continually exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings.

Plus there's that giant hot thing in the sky that keeps pumping huge amounts of energy into virtually the entire ecosystem.

[godless dave]

There is no law of biogenesis.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Pahu

The Law of Biogenesis


Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

---- <snip> ----

Bzzzzzt! Wrong.

The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life.

Nil. Zilch. Nada. The Theory of Evolution, in fact, makes only one assumption: Life already Exists.

There is no Scientific Theory for the origins of Life. There *are* a handful of Hypotheses, and they are generally placed within a concept known as 'Abiogenesis'. There is so little evidence, that there is no theory. All science knows is once there was no life on the planet. Then there was life. Could it be God? Alien Life? Magic? Time Travelers? Natural processes? Yes. Any of the above. However, lacking evidence for the existence of God, Aliens, magic, or Time travelers, Science has chosen to investigate Natural Processes for the origins of life, and things in that direction are rather promising.

But please, make sure you know what you are arguing against. The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the origins of life any more than it cares how your cars engine works, or how a plane flies.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by godless dave

There is no law of biogenesis.

Actually there is one. But it isn't a "law" like the thermodynamics laws.

What's funny about the Law of Biogenesis is that it was postulated as a contradiction against the prevailing theory of life, Spontaneous generation, that life ALWAYS emerges from non-living material. A theory, by the way, that was believed to agree with biblical teachings.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by Pahu

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

By the way, that quote too is made up.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Pahu

In what way? People have long known that it is hard to keep hot and cold separated. Hot things cool down and cold things naturally warm up. That’s why the ice melts in your refrigerator if the power goes out. Entropy is a measure of how evenly distributed heat is. As the ice melts in your refrigerator, the entropy of the refrigerator, and the air in your kitchen surrounding it, increases. The same thing is true of information.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i11f.htm

How do you measure the temperature of information?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Pahu

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

Out of interest in full disclosure, the full quote is:
"If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, No Eden and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards"

I think this quote (and the omitted text especially) highlights the reason why Pahu and so many other Christians deny the evidence supporting evolution.


Pahu, Do you agree with the logic that Huxley puts forth.
If evolution is true, do you agree that it would disprove the genesis story?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Pahu

despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

With every new study in the field of life's origins, the odds are greatly improved.

Each new catalytic process and each new method of forming organic compounds that is discovered helps the natural emergence of life become more likely. NOT less likely.

There are fewer random elements mixed into the process, every year. NOT more.

The study of life's origins has, therefore, been productive to science; whereas creationist ideas have not.

Those "odds" may have been insurmountable, in the past, when we knew a lot less. But, even though we have not answered every question, yet, the odds actually look a little better and better all the time, with each step we take.

The so-called "Laws of Biogenesis" haven't done anything even close to such productivity in science. What good are they?!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Pahu

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.



Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

Odd that god couldn't convert a single one other than Noah's family. Yeah I know "free will" however if I was given a choice to believe or drown I could manage a belief especially when I saw the water rising.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DC

thats the cool thing about that god, he just can do about everything. Or at least he did a long time ago, today he does nothing, he became a lazy ass.
or is he creating more galaxies in case we take another deep space picture?

He created a place so perfect he couldn't leave it.

[SumDood]

Pahu,
It is nearly definite that no one is going to change your beliefs just as you are not going to change ours. And thats fine. The points I would like you to take away from this recent turn in the discussion are quotes you copied and pasted here. Most are taken out of context, have had words removed to change the original meaning or are complete fabrications. We have seen these and countless other 'quotes' here that are copied from creationists' web sites. Why do you think they resort to such tactics?

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Pahu

I agree that we should always seek reality. That's what science is all about. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?

The highlighted is false.

Quote:

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

Way to quote-mine, dude.

Originally Posted by Pahu

The Law of Biogenesis

Not a law.

Quote:

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.

Neither has supernatural creation.

Quote:

All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis.

No one but creationists claim that your "law" is a law.

Quote:

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

Quote:

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose.

Everyone says that, because that's what the theory of evolution says. It has no bearing on how life arose. It simply deals with what happens to life once it already exists.

Quote:

Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

Total straw man. No, we don't.

Quote:

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends

This statement erroneously assumes a closed system.

Quote:

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed increasing time.

Pfffffffffffffffffahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Quote:

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] [color=blue][i]that life never arises except from life.

No. It didn't. It became accepted doctrine that life was not coming from non-life in the case of the bacteria which Pasteur was studying.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Pahu

I agree that we should always seek reality. That's what science is all about. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?

I see, so how do you explain antibiotic resistence.

Quote:

Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

Yeah, I am not Richard Dawkins, he is not the pope of science. false argument.

You do know that Darwin was a theist?

Quote:

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

That is a problem for people who believe in original sin and the garden of Eden. Tell me do you eat shellfish or do you keep a kosher household?

Quote:

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist” :

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption....The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” (1966, 3:19).

There are reasons to feel that evolution is a valid theory. I don't give a squat about any political ramifications for foolish people.

Quote:

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution?” said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

So he is a dumass, and that is still an appeal to authority.

Would you care to discuss the crackpot theroies of Brown or do you want to discuss evolution?

Quote:

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

I don't suppose that you understand something, there is no dogma is science. ToE is valid because it matches the data.
Brown's theory is not because he doesn't.

Quote:

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

So you have a sample of people, whoopee, ever hear of Stven Jay Gould, or any of the much larger people who teach evolution and are theists.

Try debating the theory of evoltion in another thread, not just quote mining. You really do just cut and paste , don't you?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Frankly, I don't care. All that does is push the question back one step (ie, what evidence is there that the Bible is valid in the first place?).

Dinwar, please do not mix my quotes with Pahu's. Unless you leave my name there, use the quotation and quote buttons for multiple quotes.

And the truth is there are NO bible verses that say God gathered the animals or loaded the alleged Ark.

[Jack by the hedge]

Dancing David, you ought to take a look further up the page, where people have pointed out where the quotes Pahu has copy/pasted are twisted misquotes or barefaced fabrications.

Actually you probably noticed that already, but I thought it bore repeating: While I'm sure Pahu repeated those "quotes" believing they were true, it appears they are deliberate lies.

[Lord Emsworth]

Feeding the phrase "law of biogenes" to Wikipedia redirects to an article which is about Biogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

And in this short article there is indeed a chapter titled "Law of Biogenesis". I quote:

Quote:

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.[5][6] Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized hippo in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

Doesn't really look like a law in the scientific sense to me, though ...

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Dinwar, please do not mix my quotes with Pahu's. Unless you leave my name there, use the quotation and quote buttons for multiple quotes.

And the truth is there are NO bible verses that say God gathered the animals or loaded the alleged Ark.

No, I quoted you and I was responding to your statement. I was a bit harsh, and it certainly wasn't directed at you (ie, I'm not telling YOU I don't care about the bible, I'm telling Pahu), but the point is, in my mind, valid: Even if there were Biblical confirmation for everything Pahu said none of it would constitute evidence without proof that the Bible was a valid source.

The fact that there aren't any is just icing on the cake.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Pahu

In my own words: You will have to read Brown's book.



Genesis mentions all creatures that crawl on the earth as being part of the ark's cargo. As I mentioned earlier, the whole scenario involving the ark was supernatural. One clue is the dove that brought an olive branch back to the ark after about a year of flooding. In the natural world, all vegetation would have perished, so the alternative is God must have replenished it. That shouldn't be too hard for someone who created the universe from nothing, should it?

As I said earlier (in a post that was ignored by you), I am fine with the miraculous aspects of the Flood story. The only question I have is why did God change all available evidence to indicate that there was no flood. Why did God artificially manipulate the DNA of all living creatures to include junk DNA in a manner which would indicate hundreds of millions of years of evolution and speciation? Why did God change the atomic structure of radioactive atoms in such a way as to lead us to believe that radiometric dating indicates an Earth billions of years old? Why did god change the structure of coral on a microscopic level to lead us to believe that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old and its rotation is slowing down because of the moon?

In short why did God not only hide all evidence of a flood but also fabricate evidence to lead us to believe that there was not a flood?


ETA: oh and feel free to apologize for posting inaccurate quotes.