Dunsapy wrote:I think that science has collected a lot of evidence through fossils etc, that is not in question. What is in question is the interpretation of what they have collected, and the absence of the fossil they need to, prove that evolution happened.
No one here has answered this.
Where are all the fossils that make up all the tries of making a leg and foot. I mean first you need some bone material, with really no real shape to it. Maybe jagged ends. This could kill and animal. But if it doesn't how does it go to having ends that will fit with another bone, and then another and then another. Then be connect together and then muscles and then nerves, attached to a brain, and a heart and veins , and a blood supply with kidneys to filter the blood, this all has to be working before any leg is useful. All of this would be discarded before any complete system for a functioning leg would be available to the animal . This is just the basics, how about connecting this all to the brain , and the brain actually getting the leg to be useful. There should be millions of these transitional animals, before any kind of completed one would happen. But none of these are found. Also we don't see any of this type of transition today.
So there are two major things for science to consider. Is it even possible for life to start on it's without a creator?
And is evolution even possible? There is no evidence that either of these happened.
Dunsapy wrote:The picture you sent is not a transitional animal. It is a complete animal. With evolution it is ones with partial heads bits of bones here and there the head in the wrong place. etc. These are the transitional ones. it is these that evolution doesn't have as evidence.
Dunsapy wrote:I don't think legs just poped out, this is what evolution says. But in evolution you should see all the evidence in fossils, before any complete leg would be formed. None are found.
When science uses the word species , their is no agreement in science what a species is. There are pygmies , and there are basketball players, there are Australian aborigines , there are European people, a great variety, but these are all human. They weren't something else. Science does not see this, in, our world now , nor in the fossil record.
Science considers this a problem , because there should be a lot of the 'near humans' alive today.
Dunsapy wrote:I am serious about this. Or I would have left a long time ago.
I am not promoting any kind of religion, or who the creator is at all.
This discussion , is only about science and what it knows or does not know. Also on the interpretation of the science.
My comments on this are only about the start to life and evolution, not on other fields of science.
Science does not know how life started, and doesn't know if it even could start without creation. For science to be honest they should say that, in public. And not assume that it had to start on it's own. For the past 100 plus they have mislead the public and themselves on that.Science admits that they don't even have theories on that yet.
Now on evolution. Science is saying that from some early cell , all life we see now ( and dug up as fossils ) came from that. The difference from you as science is that you say that is exactly what happened, but others say, ( like myself) that the life we see shows intelligence was involved. In other words things were created.
Think you agree with this so far?
My contention is that the start to life from a single cell would first have to be complete from the start, all its parts have to working and complete for the to live. And that has to happen before any copy or division or anything else will happen. Because the cell is complex and needs to live first, to be able to multiply, and it also has to have the instructions for life in the DNA. With that life from life is the only evidence we have, there is no other evidence. This can only happen with creation.
As for evolution, it can be explained from creation, and the incredible , design, that we see, proves this. Science may have discovered the order in which animals were made, but does not show that from some single cell we get all the life we see now.
The one other thing is that , science by doing experiments, can only show that it took life ( intelligence) to make life. The experiments do not show that life could happen without intelligence. You can only observe for that.
Dunsapy wrote: What I am saying is absolutely correct, I am not a troll. If that were the case I would be laughing by now, and gone.
I take this seriously, science has not thought this through. I never say something like this to anyone " someone who just does not have the intellectual capability to understand what they are attempting to discuss". This sounds like science talking down to someone. Sort of sounds like when the Clergy talk to the common people.
The reason some still want to talk to me is that there is something in what I am saying. It does make sense. And the evidence bares that out.
Actually I was banned but I did receive a number of emails that, asked if I would come back, to discuss things.
You all must know by now I'm not just playing games. I'm not trying to trick anyone.
I think that what science has found on all sorts of endeavors is correct, or in the process of learning new things. But what is really the question is what the interpretation science puts on things. Science is not supposed to interpret, their findings but that is the process.
Here is an example. I was reading some information on Macro evolution. There was a pictures of a number of whales, that looked very much alike. The difference being, that bones were shown to be in different places from protecting, the insides, to eventually shown as being part of a flipper. These bones looked like a hand or leg structure. Science says this is proof of evolution. But is that the only explanation? For this to happen with evolution you would expect the bones to move with no goal in mind. So if these bones started to mutate to different places on the body , you would have to find fossils to show all the mistaken placements , until it got the correct placement, then it should keep moving and be out of place again maybe trying to make an arm. The brain would have to rewired to suit the different use of the muscles, etc. But the fossil record shows none of this. For creation you would see completed animals with bones that were in one spot, and a slight change could be made for a new use of the bones to make a flipper. This is what the fossil record shows.
So though science has found and studied millions of fossils, the meaning of these fossils can mean a different understanding, depending on how you look at them. As a evolutionist, you say that proves how animals evolved. But as a creationist I say where are all the mistaken placements of these bones before they became a flipper. This is what is not found in the fossil record. There should be millions of these transitional fossils, but they are not found. So as a creationist, I say one animal was created then the DNA was changed a little and another one was created, but with a flipper. Given the incredible design of life, and that we don't see animals with weird placement of of organs or bones, but completed animals, creation is the only answer. That is also why we don't see chimps, becoming human.
Dunsapy wrote:You have NOT replied to the question about the little Neanderthal girl (yes, a girl, though genetically quite different from homo sapiens).
You are talking about Lucy. I did reply, and linked you to a page that showed the finder of the fossil holding the skull. And what science has said about those remains. And that was about that you would find her in a zoo, rather than as a human. There is an artists drawing that is supposed to be what she looked like, but it is not even close to what the skull looked like.
I did answer these. The Thor one, is just some made up God, but there are millions of those, and some don't believe in a creator at all.. That is why I call this time we are in, the misinformation age.
Dunsapy wrote:Please read what I say more carefully. What I said was that science has given man the ability to ruin the earth. This statement takes into account that people may use the work from science to cause great harm to people and the earth itself. But this doesn't exclude the responsibility of science. Because some of these things are for direct military application. It is also short sighted of science, because the long term result of these things ( like the effect of chemicals on wildlife) were not taken into account until the more long term effects were found out . There still is a problem with radio active wastes, they have been buried at sea, in the ground etc, with a great potential to be a disaster in the future.
As for fish etc. This year our government stopped all fishing of the sockeye salmon, there is only 10% if these fish in their counts, and no idea where they are. We also have fish farms, along our coast. One woman scientist has said for years that the wild stocks were getting lice from the farmed fish. The governments biologists said she was wrong or over reacting, but she was proved correct. Science can be bought and sold.
But still science has done a lot of good things as well. Science has alerted man on many of the earths problems, also in medicine there have been great accomplishments, in understanding, sickness. I've always considered science as explorers, charting the unknown, but the wake from it is good and bad. The bottom line right now is that science has given man the ability to ruin the earth. So the good from science doesn't mean much if the out come, destroys us.
Years ago man worked on his small farm build a modest house, grew food for his family and for others. All of this actions did not harm the land, even the trees he used to build his house could grow back in his life time or very close to it. So that when he died, nothing was ruined, actually he could have improved his land. But today, I can leave garbage that lasts a thousand years. And I have done nothing to improve the land. My life is a destruction, of the ecosystem, without putting back. Of course it is not only science that has caused this, but it is a good part of it.
This condition is not caused from over population.
So because science says something , that does not mean it is correct. Many theories and supposed missing links from science have with test of time, and further research have been outright fraud, or over zealous,scientists trying to make a name for themselves. Lucy was just another one of those.
The bottom line is that science does not know how life started, and does not even have any really good theories on this question. No one expects a complete machine to just happen, and that is what a cell is. I don't expect science to know everything, but if it is going to say something, there should at least should have some proof to back it up.
It does make a difference as to how life started and evolution. If life was created ,then the evolution that science says , is just a myth. Because all the variety we see could be programed in to the DNA, or all different life forms were created. Science does not know any of this.
Dunsapy wrote:But are you the positive one? Science does not have any evidence that life could start on it own. By doing the experiments requires intelligence, and years of research. Even if science could create life in a lab. That only shows that scientists can create life in a lab. It doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. Science so far have not been able to do it. So they still don't know how it was done.That is why the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the one making the positive claim.
Now the evidence we have is that life comes from life, and that there is design in the life we see. Reproduction even if it is just dividing, is an amazing thing. The cell doesn't know it has to survive or make other cells, we take this for granted, because we see it all the time. DNA is not just chemicals , there has to be instructions, in it. And it has taken man a long time even to discover it and now be able to read some of it, man has to go to school for a long time and be taught by others , in well equipped labs. None of this was around when the this supposed first cell , was still dirt or chemicals. This type of magic , is a not reason, it is grasping at straws. But creation , is a possibility, even if you don't know who the creator is. And science has not been able to rule creation out.
I am open to any ideas you have to support this magic.
Creation is the positive one in this.
Dunsapy wrote:Actually she doesn't look real, she looks more like she was made up.stijndeloose, for the zillionth time wrote:
Now: would you put the girl into a zoo or not?
Not Dunsapy wrote:Actually Thor and Odin doesn't look real, they look more like they were made up.Feivel wrote:And Thor will crush your mighty ceiling pussy with his mighty hammer and Odin will trample him underneath his mighty 8 legged steed Sleipnir.stijndeloose wrote:(And Feivel, be careful, or my avatar will sacrifice you to ceiling cat and eat you.)
Thor (noun, m):
Use Thor in a sentence
Imaginary god an main element of a discarded theory of how lightning comes about and bread is baked.I want to ask if you would agree with this? You are the positive here.Odin (noun, m):
Use Odin in a sentence
Imaginary god with long white beard and main element of a now discarded theory of how bread is baked and brains are born.
I am being serious about this. All we see is that life comes from life and science does not know how the first cells came about for example take DNA science has no idea how it can bake bread. Science has given us bombs and diseases and earthquakes and ill-flavoured fortune cookies. There is no evidence for evolution, there are not transitional fossils because none have been found that should have what it takes to prove evolution, you should expect bits and pieces all over the place like five heads and arms on their backs in tongues in their arses and abiogenesis is disproven anyway.
Please read my comments again and pay attention and you will notice that I have given good evidence for the existence of god. Science hasn't given this enough thought. Science thinks it can create life by putting dirt in a flask and putting it in the microwave. Science cannot prove that life can just happen because even in experiments they can only prove creation because they are doing them and they cannot bake bread from dirt because it wouldn't have brains and Thor and lightning do not apply here. Because we see lightning happen and we have electricity in sockets but we do not see life happen and life cannot come from non-life because bread cannot bake itself.
These are all my words.
Therefore god.
RPizzle wrote:You should start a cult.
Dunsapy wrote:Actually this is correct. Science has found that inhibitors in the DNA instructions will stop certain parts of the DNA from being read. Now they are experimenting on the idea by bypassing or changing these inhibitors opening these unused modules of DNA code. What they are finding is ( this is being done on chicken eggs, it is one type of exotic chicken that has scales on the legs and different kind of feathers) They are finding that some of these modules, contain the code for more prehistoric looking animals. This understanding is fairly new and is not proved yet. They were mentioning that it may be possible ( as they learn more about DNA) to actually create some sort of prehistoric animal from the DNA of animals alive today. I found that this was very interesting. Though time will tell if they are correct or not.
Of course science is saying that , this is going to prove evolution. But it can also be that it helps prove creation.
I have mentioned many times that an animal, can be created and then tweaked, and then a slightly different one could be created. If this idea of science is correct, it would only be a matter of tweaking the DNA with these inhibitors, and accessing different modules of this DNA code. This is very much like computer code.
Dunsapy wrote:I am not saying it just looks designed it is designed.
The evidence that man has, is that life comes from life. That is evidence. Science has not shown that anything else could have happened. All science has so far are only ideas. We already know that the material to create life is here. Science themselves say that. Creation says the same thing. These are the only 2 possibilities.
We also know that intelligence can make working systems. Animals and trees are also working systems.
By science doing experiments does not show that life could have started on it's own. ( and I know I am repeating myself, but this is what we have evidence for) Science has to ignore the evidence , to say anything else. They have not found life coming from non life and they have not found it anywhere else.
Has science taken a single cell ( without DNA ) and watched it evolve into anything like we see today? Cells that divide can they be proved not to be created? Can science show that they just do this, without being built to do it?
Science has no evidence for anything else, but creation. This goes for evolution also.
All the stuff science has so far, are idea's, nothing that is actually shown for them to be correct in a real life way. Theories are not real life.
A cell without DNA has no heredity,to make bones, muscles etc. so to have DNA that is useful, this has to happen in some way. Just mixing chemicals without planning for particular body parts, is not possible. Has science shown otherwise? Has science ever shown that this can happen. To use already existing life , is not the same as all this happening on it's own.
There is no evidence that evolution , actually happens, the way science says. Just becasue animals look similar does not mean it came from another . This also could be creation and the creator manipulating the DNA. That is what science has evidence for, the fossil record does not show the transitional, examples that would be in the millions before compared to the animals we see to day and in the fossil record. To have big jumps, in this only shows that creation has to be part of that. Can science say otherwise? Other than theories.
The bottom line here is that science has to go against the evidence we have now.
So far it is only wishful thinking on sciences part about all of this.
Which brought us to:Dunsapy wrote:Code: Select all
[1] One needs to possess a rigorous and robust means of determining whether an entity under examination is "designed" or not, one constructed in accordance with rigorous methodologies; [2] One needs for that means of determining the "designed" status of an entity to have been tested upon entities of known provenance, and found to be reliable via such testing; [3] One needs to demonstrate, by appropriately rigorous means, that the method of testing the "designed" status of an entity is universally applicable; [4] Once steps [1] to [3] above are in place, one needs to demonstrate that said means of testing the "designed" status of an entity yields an unambiguous answer of "yes" for the biosphere and its constituents.
You realize this is sciences version of what you need. and the start to life and evolution do not pass this.
Question 1
OK this holds true for science ideas as well for creation. Science has found that there are many special circumstances that make life possible. You need the right atmosphere, you need food, and you need material for life to come from. Creation passes all of this.
Question 2
Design is something only intelligence has, mistakes or random acts, are what sciences version of life is. But is that what we see. If you look at a cat, with all of it;'s increadable abilities , even a small cat can out do a man. The movement, the internal systems , man tries to copy, for his own designs . A man builds a robot, is it designed or not, did it just happen on it's own? Man knows what design is and should recognize he see's it. Science is blind to this. For science the details have gotten in the way. You have to have reason also.
Question 3
The design of the universe and life , is the evidence of a creator and it tells you a lot about him. .All these evidences can be measured. If science doesn't know who the creator is, does not mean he doesn't exist. The evidence is all around. There are many things that science can't see but can measure the results. As for being universally applicable, we and all other things are part of that.
Question 4
The first three questions pass for creation but failed for science. They don't know how life started or if evolution would work as they say. They have not proved it in any way. The idea that we can even discuss this with our intelligence, tells you there is design. A little example, we can talk in a very fast rate. but do you think about how to move your muscles and air to make sounds of speech. No Once we learn a language out brain does this automatically. We just think about what we are going to say. How did non design make this happen? This was incoded in DNA, so that we can learn any language, and then we become fluent in it. This has to happen when you are young, or you can have many problem with language. This is built into us. Creation.
The introduction of the Dunsapy award.Hackenslash wrote:Well, I am about to award the very first negative Orson. It almost pains me to do so, but I feel that no other response is appropriate.
dunsapy, you are awarded an honorary Orson, the first one of it's kind, for spectacularly missing the fucking point!
I may change this award in the very near future, but this is the only award I have at the moment with the appropriate gravitas to deliver the point.
Seriously, dunsapy, you have given me something really serious to think about. What do I award to somebody who misses the point by light years? I am going to have to mull this over, possibly at length, to come up with a solution. Clearly, an Orson is not appropriate for such fucknuttery, but at the moment I have no other award to give.
Back in a bit if I manage to solve this quandary.
Edit: Actually, I might have a plan, but it will take some time.
Edit 2: Award suitably adjusted.
And a nice way to close this post.
