Methinks i cracked the code of Christianity

[SupremeCommander]

Ever thought about that our universe, our whole galaxy, the damn whole space it self is probably just a molecule itself?
Maybe we're actually just a bacteria for something even bigger then our imagination could picture it

That is again, venturing into the realms of speculation. I have considered it, but it is wholly unlikely that this would work, especially if you equate it to systems we can see day-to-day. The universe has none of the consistency required for a system we could comprehend. You could draw parallels between planets (orbits, etc) and atoms, but it stops there, really. 
Besides, it requires anything that we comprise to be propelled by the random actions of independent things (such as us) within it, unlike an animal, where its atoms do what it wants them to, within logical reason, this entity would be unpredictable as its comprising matter had free will. You wouldn't do much if your legs had free will.

Basically, we aren't geared to think so big. We are talking beyond supermassive here.

[Ad Bot]

[Skele]

Ahem.

"Microevolution, which you just described, does not, and has never been shown to, lead to macroevolution."

Microevolution is completely true, and has no conflict with creation.  However, you cannot equivocate microevolution and macroevolution.  They are not the same.

Is it not possible that macroevolution is a result of millions of years of microevolution?

[WhoDa?]

Is it not possible that macroevolution is a result of millions of years of microevolution?

Different things grow different fast.

[Skele]

I think the problem with creationists and evolution is that they don't have a concept of how long a process like that would take. Afterall, they think the universe was created in seven days...

[Inv3rted]

I refuted everyone of your arguments, but you are still pathetically grasping for something resembling an argument so that you can still stand arrogantly in the face of logic and reason.

Really now?

wat

Science was not created by God. Science is simply a method to understand reality.

And to Duckmeister, I assume you believe every animal that has been fossilized existed at the same time right after creation. If this is so, how would the biosphere be able to support so many species? There are not enough niches, and too many animals that fill the same ones.

This also means that eventually every form of life will go extinct because new species cannot emerge. What kind of sustainable creation is this? Or does God just want to stuff on everything when Jesus comes back?

Of course, modern science is an atheist conspiracy so why even pay attention to the fossil record.

How are you denying that we have observed speciation?

How are you denying that the Earth is as old as every valid dating method ever devised says it is?

Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Natural selection is the most likely operator behind the fact that organisms evolve.

This is the common misunderstanding that every creationist has. Once they understand that evolution is a fact, they can no longer say they "support true science."

This is an image of the background radiation left over from the big bang. The fact that there is heat energy (shown by warmer colors) points directly towards a cosmic expansion.

Hey look, it's them creationist scientists!

You're assuming that something did that. By saying that something MUST have created it, you are using God to replace your lack of knowledge. That is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It makes perfect sense. To a creationist, evolution = false means creationism = true.

To someone using real logic, evolution = false does not always mean creationism = true.

Similar thing happens when they say "well the whole scientific community is an atheist conspiracy therefore I can disregard everything they have collectively figured out." Their logic dictates that they know more than people who have spent their professional lives researching and testing evolutionary biology. That's creationist logic.

Don't forget to explain the fossil record, and the overwhelming evidence of the age of the universe by half life dating and the edge of the visible universe. The farthest light in the universe is over 13 billion light years away. Are you suggesting that God created the universe with those photons in the middle of their motion? Then why not say that he created the fossil record just to fool us? Then if he did that, why worship him as an all loving God if he deliberately deceits us?

Zenthrox, refute the viral DNA traces in the exact same part of the genome in different species.

Also, refute the "junk DNA" that builds up over time being essentially the same in different species.

Also, refute the numerous examples of speciation recorded. Also, refute the myriad of evidence available for the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution by natural selection. There is too much to put in a single post, and to remember at once. That is what you take on when you spew stuff from your Biblically censored mouth.

You still don't understand what DNA is. It's not a coincidence that DNA is the same in different creatures. DNA directly controls certain features / adaptations, and when it doesn't, it is junk DNA. Using DNA, you can track the history of an animal species to a common ancestor with another animal. The field of genetics, by definition, is evidence for evolutionary biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read this article. If you don't accept it but understand it, you have a closed mind as stated in the video posted by Dan.

Ahem.  Your definition of species is only the definition of species as defined by an evolutionist, so obviously it's going to require evolution.  As a result, this is the stupidest, most illogical defense of evolution I've ever heard.  There are other definitions of species, ones that actually define it instead of force it to coincide with an otherwise hung-out-to-dry perspective.

I'm sorry? A species is defined by biologists as a reproductive group. If you dismiss everything said by scientists as atheistically biased, I think you should stop enjoying the benefits of evolutionary biology and astrophysics. Please, enjoy your life without electronics and healthcare.

Oh, but it has everything to do with abiogenesis.  See, evolution REQUIRES abiogenesis, in fact, spontaneous generation is its FOUNDATION!  You obviously know nothing about the perspective you are defending, as what created life in the first place if life did not come from God?  And if life didn't come from God, it certainly couldn't have become what we see today in the way God says it does, therefore, the only result is evolution preceded by spontaneous generation.


wat

You're handicapped. Evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist. You're putting ANOTHER strawman argument into this, and you still don't see it.

And because of the above, your entire view is knocked down by that one chapter.  Besides, if you actually read all of it, you would find that only some of its evidences are against spontaneous generation, and the rest are all against the concept of evolution itself.  So, please, go read it again, fully this time.

Obviously he was using the word "moon" as defined thusly:

"A natural satellite revolving around a planet, excluding various objects that, without the gravitational pull of the aforementioned planet, would be considered as "asteroids" or "space debris"."  

Equivocation is a bad fallacy to dance with, my friend.

Taking things out of context is also a bad fallacy to dance with, my intellectually challenged product of poor gene integration friend. A moon is a moon, even if it was once a piece of debris in space. My point is still valid, and yours still lacking any backing.

Seven degrees can only be considered "small" in a highly relative fashion.  It's enough to support his hypothesis, and whether it's up to your extremely high "grrrr creation grrrr" standards doesn't matter.  It obviously fits his hypothesis scientifically.


It fits the factually correct model of how the solar system developed far better. His argument holds no ground. A seven degree difference is to be expected.

If you looked at his references, he discusses it in more detail.  "With the details of stellar evolution in place, it's hard to imagine the sun acquiring 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum."

I'm sorry, but just because something is hard to imagine does not mean it's not true. Special relativity isn't exactly a walk in the park. Gravity alone accounts for the buildup of mass in the center of the universe. Angular momentum is not created by mass.

This proves to everyone that you barely read anything I had to present, and the small samples you did read you read with a huge amount of bias.

You dismiss the entire scientific community because you assume it is a conspiracy. Are you going to be a hypocrite forever?

Here is my question to you:

Why is it that I soundly refuted the entirety of your puny list of so-called "evidences", while you get to pick 3 out of my list and call it a day?

You didn't refute one. You don't know anything about evolutionary biology. Hell, I'm willing to bet you have no idea how deoxyribonucleic acid is translated into proteins within the cell and vice versa.

I invite you to actually read through everything in those links, and then refute every piece of it, as you asked me to do.  Not this "lol i can pick out 3 parts and then misunderstand them to the point where they become an easily refutable straw man" crap.

lol

Read a book.

Do you realize that 8 of their so-called "evidences" involved fruit flies?  And what did those experiments produce?

More fruit flies!  There were fruit flies with minor mutations, but no matter how many generations were produced, the only resulting organism was a fruit fly.  A fruit fly population mutating over time into a non-fruit-fly population has never been observed, ever.

Read up on the definition of species, before you make handicapped assumptions. We are still apes. If you look at our immediate ancestors, you see very little change. But when you look at ourselves and then go further and further back in time, you see extreme changes. That is evolution. The line that is drawn by speciation is arbitrary and not scientific. You obviously don't know how evolution works.

------

The life sciences' evidences are listed here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html

Evolution has nothing to do with "something coming from nothing." That is the field of abiogenesis, or how life first started. Mixing up scientific fields now, are we? All this goes to show is a fundamental ignorance.

Astronomical and physical sciences' list can be found here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html

Everything on this page is not true. It says moons should be on an equatorial orbit, but this is not the case. Moons can be asteroids that are trapped by gravity or chunks of a planet sent into orbit by an impact. One handicapped mechanism for creation down.

It then goes on to speak of the oh so large variance in orbital planes of seven degrees. This is a very small amount. No disc is perfectly flat, so how do you expect an orbit to be perfectly aligned with its neighbors? This hypothesis would hold more dirt if the planets had much larger differences in orbital planes. Another one down.

"Angular Momentum.  The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun"

This is not true, and I don't know what sort of physics the other took in high school. I think that it is fairly obvious to anyone with half of a brain that the people on the exterior of a racetrack have to move faster to keep in line with those on the interior. Therefore the sun can move much slower than the outer planets. That's three.

He then begins to discuss evidences for a global flood:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences3.html


Oh, this will be fun.

Nevermind. I read everything on that page, and I was expecting some handicapation that the flood carved out the grand canyon. Instead I just got some vague references to Christian and Jewish mythology by Christians and Jews. How quaint.

His references and notes are here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes2.html

All I see here is more and more speak of "spontaneous generation". This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Get it straight. Evolution describes the gradual diversity of life. You have created a straw man argument, which is what I would expect from someone of your scientific understanding.

I can keep recycling the arguments I've used against you before because you keep repeating the same fallacies.

[Metal Axe On Fire]

The whole theory of (macro)evolution is based around an (extremely) old earth. 4.5 billion years. There is no proof of an earth that old.

Right now someone's probably about to get started on carbon dating and other so called "accurate" forms of testing how old a sample is to prove me wrong. Don't bother. With a little research (try researching the other side of the argument for once) you'll find that it's inaccurate. Long story short, samples that we know for a fact are twenty years old come up as being two-hundred thousand or whatever the case.

As far as fossils go it's even worse. They date layers of earth by what kind of fossils are found there, and they date the fossils by what kind of layer it's in. It's circular reasoning.

Next, we have the moon. The moon is 238,855 miles away. You may or may not know that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 1.5 inches a year. That would mean when life first came into existence, the moon was about 132,321 miles away. (238,855 minus 1.5 times 4.5bil divided by 12 divided by 5280) Needless to say, with the moon that close life would have had a hard time getting started.

Those are just a few things that come to mind that might interest somebody to research.

That being said, what's the point of debating? Every topic around here is the exact same. Does anyone ever change their beliefs because of what some kid on Blockland Forums told them? I certainly hope that isn't the case. Most evolutionists and Christians (on these forums in particular) don't have a very good understanding of the other side in the argument, anyway.

Many evolutionists (particularly around someplace like here) will end up just saying what they learned in science class. Likewise, many Christians (again, particularly around someplace like here) will just say what they learned in church. An intelligent opinion can't easily be made without a good understanding of both sides. Anybody whose parents are evolutionists and who learns evolution in school will believe it. Anybody whose parents are Christians and who learns about Christianity in a church will believe it.

You are going to start out on whatever side you are raised with, it just works that way. I will say this though, I find way more evolutionists converting to Christianity than vice-versa. Does this prove anything? Not really, especially because the first thing that will come into many people's minds is "I guess the Christians do a better job brainwashing."

Bottom line: Learn both sides of the argument. Almost everybody who posted here gave me the impression that they really don't understand the other side of the argument, even if they think they do. A mind is like a parachute; it works best when it's open. And to anybody who has resorted to any kind of flame in this topic: don't try to pretend you have an open mind.

[Inv3rted]

Carbon dating only works until 60,000 years into the past.

And you should probably read these three wikipedia articles before you say something doesn't have evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_big_bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

[Riot]

New studies show the Universe is not a sphere, bit a giant ring.

[Madmitten]

Carbon dating only works until 60,000 years into the past.

And you should probably read these three wikipedia articles before you say something doesn't have evidence:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_big_bang

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

because wikipedia is never edited by a troll

[oromis]

It took you long to figure this, yes?

[Inv3rted]

Wikipedia is the most peer reviewed encyclopedia in existence. It has more people correcting the factual errors than the World Book series.

[SupremeCommander]

Carbon dating only works until 60,000 years into the past.

And you should probably read these three wikipedia articles before you say something doesn't have evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_big_bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

He gave reasoning.

because wikipedia is never edited by a troll

Bad argument. It has sources. If you use this, all the person does is gets those instead. Besides, Wikipedia has draconian vandal protection.

[SupremeCommander]

Wikipedia is the most peer reviewed encyclopedia in existence. It has more people correcting the factual errors than the World Book series.

More articles, too.

[Duckmeister]

Is it not possible that macroevolution is a result of millions of years of microevolution?

Five million times zero is still zero, so no, it's not possible.  Genes are selected in natural selection, not created.

And besides, that's dodging the point.  The major issue between evolutionism and creation is not "how did we get where we are today", although that is an issue, but it's "how did life begin".  Evolution is simply a guess at how life could have gotten here today if it had started without God.

Really now?
I can keep recycling the arguments I've used against you before because you keep repeating the same fallacies.

Thanks for that wonderful chronology that you spent so much time on.  I hereby dub it, "Inverted's Chronology of Delusion".

I'm not even going to bother.  You are so closed-minded that you will go to this extent to prove the opposite of what is actually shown?

Wikipedia is the most peer reviewed encyclopedia in existence. It has more people correcting the factual errors than the World Book series.

And yet 80% of the people willing to peer review such material are going to be biased/indoctrinated into a certain (cough, evolutionist) interpretation of the evidence, and are vocal enough to out-edit (and sometimes ban) the 20% who have the other interpretation.  Sorry, but wikipedia doesn't count.  Especially when the numbers are more like 98% to 2%.

[Inv3rted]

And yet 80% of the people willing to peer review such material are going to be biased/indoctrinated into a certain interpretation (cough, evolution) of the evidence, and are vocal enough to out-edit (and sometimes ban) the 20% who have the other interpretation.  Sorry, but wikipedia doesn't count.

Do you ever pause and think that these people had spent their lives learning about the universe via observation and came to these conclusions on their own?

Do you ever notice that you fit the description of an indoctrinated apologetic?

You won't bother refuting because you can't.

You set up a strawman and refute that, and then panic when your strawman is exposed.

You won't give up the claim that evolution requires spontaneous creation of life because it goes against the strawman argument you've held so dear for so long.