Topic: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS

[okie the thread killer]

Okay Mark, sorry, I will retire from this thread.

[♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥]

Okay Mark, sorry, I will retire from this thread.

Geez Okie....... retire from this thread?
 your one of the few Mark doesn't pull his hair out when he responds
 Mark needs a good challenge to keep his faith intack    

[okie the thread killer]

Well thanks, But probably only people with strong beliefs, either way, should be posting here. I am too ambivielent. Too much of a sinner to be a Christian, too much of a Christian to be an atheist. Probably just too lazy....

[mark]

Geez Okie....... retire from this thread?
 your one of the few Mark doesn't pull his hair out when he responds
 Mark needs a good challenge to keep his faith intack   

I love a good challenge!

[mark]

Bump!

[mark]

BUMP!

[freethinker]

You must research the conditions required to create a fossil. Not every living thing that dies is going to be included in the fossil record. So to claim that a lack of fossil's for a "transitional lifeform" is proof evolution is wrong is a stab in the dark. 
This psuedo-science you guys have going on and presenting as "proof" to something that is impossible to proove is getting a little ridiculous...
 
 
heres a nice website to give you some scientific information about the theory of creation science....    http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/higgins2.html

[Lepard LLC]

Fifty years ago, a chemist named Stanley Miller conducted a famous experiment to investigate how life could have started on Earth.


Recently, scientists re-analyzed his results using modern technology and found a new implication: The original sparks for life on our planet could have come from volcanic eruptions.


The 1950s experiment was designed to test how the ingredients necessary for life could arise.


Miller and his University of Chicago mentor Harold Urey used a system of closed flasks containing water and a gas of simple molecules thought to be common in Earth's early atmosphere. They zapped the gas with an electric spark (representing lightning on ancient Earth), and found that after a couple of weeks the water turned brown. It turned out that amino acids, the complex molecules that make up proteins, had formed from the simple materials in the flasks.


The finding was lauded as proof that the fundamental building blocks of life could be derived from natural processes on our planet.


Recently, Scripps Institution of Oceanography researcher Jeffrey Bada, who was Miller's graduate student when the experiment was first performed, stumbled upon vials containing residues from the tests. In a slight variation on the famous experiment, in some of these trials, steam had been injected into the gas to simulate conditions in the cloud of an erupting volcano. These results had never been made public.


In the newly recovered samples, Bada and his team found 22 amino acids, 10 of which had never been found in any other experiment like this.


"The apparatus Stanley Miller paid the least attention to gave the most exciting results," said team member Adam Johnson, a graduate student at Indiana University. "We suspect part of the reason for this was that he did not have the analytical tools we have today, so he would have missed a lot."


And, after re-analyzing the samples from the original trials that had been published in 1953, the team also found that those flasks contained far more organic molecules than Stanley Miller realized.


"We believed there was more to be learned from Miller's original experiment," Bada said. "We found that in comparison to his design everyone is familiar with from textbooks, the volcanic apparatus produces a wider variety of compounds."


The researchers published the results of their new analysis in the Oct. 16 issue of the journal Science.


Over the past 50 years, scientists have changed their thinking about what elements were present in the atmosphere of early Earth. Miller used methane, hydrogen and ammonia in his experiments, though now researchers think Earth's ancient atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen.


"At first glance, if Earth's early atmosphere had little of the molecules used in Miller's classic experiment, it becomes difficult to see how life could begin using a similar process," said team member Daniel Glavin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "However, in addition to water and carbon dioxide, volcanic eruptions also release hydrogen and methane gases. Volcanic clouds are also filled with lightning, since collisions between volcanic ash and ice particles generate electric charge. Since the young Earth was still hot from its formation, volcanoes were probably quite common then."

[mark]

  Its still flawed. He used no oxygen even though its been proven that rocks of the time contained oxygen.

[mark]

  We did not come from volcanoes we were Created by God! All evidences support a Creator!

[Digital Narcosis]

I think we know your stance on all of this already Mark.

No need to muddy up the thread with repeated posts.

[mark]

 So instead of simply bashing me, Why don't you post something of substance and prove me wrong. I would very much like to have an intellectual discussion about our origins. But the atheists, and demonically possessed got NOTHING !

[freethinker]

mark, you ask for the impossible.    we can not disprove god any more then we can disprove santa claus, vampires or werewolfs, ghosts.
 
you can not possibly hold up your end of an "intelligent" discussion. everything you see is distorted by the fact that you already believe in god.  everything merely confirms your beliefs - nothing gives you doubt. 
 
what kind of a "discussion" could you possibly offer us other then insisting we are wrong and misguided and expecting us to merely have faith in you being correct??

[mark]

  Whether you know it or not one day you will have faith.  You might even say "Man I wish I had listened to Mark" He was so smart and handsome too !

[freethinker]

  Whether you know it or not one day you will have faith.  You might even say "Man I wish I had listened to Mark" He was so smart and handsome too !

 
suuure..     

[Digital Narcosis]

That's not a Christian attitude.

  Whether you know it or not one day you will have faith.  You might even say "Man I wish I had listened to Mark" He was so smart and handsome too !

[Digital Narcosis]

Ok... want me to prove you wrong?

How old is the Earth according to Christianity Mark?  Between 6000 and 10,000 years right?

Guess what... its about 4 billion years old...

Fossils are distinguished by minimum age. Most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago. Fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon which would make those several billion years old.

There are bugs preserved in amber that date back a few million years alone...

The oldest human fossils are dated at 200,000 years old... that's older than 10,000 years... the cap on creation.

I don't want to hear the carbon dating is flawed argument either... that's moot in my opinion.  You'll have to come up with something else.

So instead of simply bashing me, Why don't you post something of substance and prove me wrong. I would very much like to have an intellectual discussion about our origins. But the atheists, and demonically possessed got NOTHING !

[mark]

  I think there are some very good theories pointing to a young earth about 6000 years old.

[Digital Narcosis]

Oh yea?

Which one's and why?

[prE4chEr]

Oh yea?

Which one's and why?

There is substantive evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together in harmony. Dinosaurs were vegans. For one, the bible speaks of a behemoth that ate grass. That behemoth was T-Rex. Also, as you well know, life imitates art and vice versa. Well, have you heard of the Flintstones? How do you explain the dinosaurs in that show if art imitates life?

[mark]

      Rivers are carrying salt into the world's oceans at a known rate, yet the sodium (salt) level in the oceans is far below saturation. Oceanographers have determined that, at most, 27% of this sodium flowing into the ocean, manages to get out to ocean each year. Therefore, every year the concentration of salt in the oceans increases slightly. All of the salt in the world's oceans can be accounted for in just 1/50 the time assumed available by evolution.
      Helium is being released into our atmosphere by radioactive decay at a known rate, yet all of the helium in the atmosphere can be accounted for in 1/2500 of the time assumed by evolution. This dating method accounts for all of the helium escaping into space and assumes no starting helium.
      Measurements indicate that the total energy of the earth's magnetic field has decreased by a factor of 2.7 in the last 1000 years. This sets an upper limit to the age of the earth's magnetic field at 10,000 years. Were the earth older than this, the magnetic field would be impossibly strong.
      The inner stars of galaxies rotate faster than the outer stars. If spiral galaxies were more than a few hundred million years old, they should be a featureless smear instead of a distinct spiral. For 50 years, this problem has been known, but no plausible explanation has been found. The best current explanation for how stars could have formed involves "density waves" from supernovas. Yet, how could there have been supernovas to create the stars when there weren't any stars to begin with?
      The Sahara desert grows at a known rate guess how old it is?
      The moon is moving away from the earth at a known rate. Four billion years ago it would have been impossibly close.
     Here are just a few dating methods that point to a young earth. (and I left out flawed carbon dating per your unscientific request.)

[freethinker]

let's look at a long list of "creation scientist's" who support the teachings of the bible.
 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/
 
rather convincing lists of scientists who believe in god eh??
 
if you will observe:
 
there are very few paleontologists or archaeologists on this list (less then 5 total)
 
the overwhelming majority of scientists on this list are in the wrong field of study to be rebutting evolution  to begin with(doctors/surgeons/chemists/psychologist, areospace engineering, philosophers, computers/electronics, et cetera ,et cetera)
 
some even have the term "creationist" in their title (creationist biologist...)  this isninuates they entered the field of study already believing in god and out to disprove evolution from the get go.
rather then the supposedly thousands of scientists who have "found god" while studying evolution, as creationists would like you to believe...   
 
what does this mean?? creationism is a pseudo-science, created by the church in an effort to derail the efforts of modern science and remove evolution from the classrooms in favor of the teachings of the bible. and the people who have rallied behind it already believe the bible to be truth, and are looking at the evidence much like a horse who walks wearing blinders....     
 
why do they not gather a list of all the scientists and preachers/nuns who devoted thier life to god at an early age, and lost thier religion while studying science and the world around them......    it's only fair.

[mark]

  That's a new approach? Instead of bashing me your now bashing the very qualified scientists and Doctors who are much more qualified than you, or I to debate this subject. Quit telling us that you are somehow smarter than these people and "Show Me".

[Geezer Glide Taz]

I'll still bash you Mark if it will make you feel better

[freethinker]

  That's a new approach? Instead of bashing me your now bashing the very qualified scientists and Doctors who are much more qualified than you, or I to debate this subject. Quit telling us that you are somehow smarter than these people and "Show Me".

i did not bash a single one of those scientists. i'm sure they are well respected among thier peers [or were, at least]. what i was bashing is the slight of hand and misdirection the church is feeding you as "evidence" - and the fact that you are so eager to spread this "evidence" - when supposedly the only thing you require is faith in the first place [and continue to cite the bible when someone doesn't agree with on it]
 
you can't have it both way's pal...   either faith or science...   
 
besides, my point with the scientists was not that they were stupid. the majority of them worked in fields that you generally would not bother to ask about dating a fossil, let alone the earth.
would you honestly quote a dentist [and offer it as truth] for saying "the world is only 6000yrs old"   ??   

[ECOGEEK54]

Hey, Mark, it's a fact among scientists who've heard the name Dr. Kent Hovind, that he distorts, fudges and chooses to ignore the facts from the studies he reads.  He is out for one thing only, personal gain.  Did you know the man you're quoting is in prison?  For what?  Personal gain...er...tax fraud.  Tomato tom-ah-toe.

"It is certainly possible for a person to acquire expertise in a scientific field by studying that topic independently. However, such a person [Kent Hovind] does not claim to have an advanced degree in the field.  There is NO EVIDENCE that Kent Hovind has more than a college sophomore level of course work in ANY science. There is NO EVIDENCE from his thesis that he is widely-read in the areas of evolution, astronomy, geology, paleontology or even the history of science beyond what is written in a few young-Earth creationist books. There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that the requirements for a Ph.D. degree from Patriot University fall far below those of typical secular or religious institutions."  A review of Dr. Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.

[mark]

  Still bashing, Still nothing of substance?
                                 
                       P.S. When have I quoted Kent Hovind?

[fish]

 I found this interesting;

Is Richard Dawkins still evolving? (He now says a case could be made for a deistic God.)
The Spectator ^ | October 23, 2008 | Melanie Phillips

On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that

...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could.

Anthony Flew, the celebrated philosopher and former high priest of atheism, spectacularly changed his mind and concluded -- as set out in his book There Is A God -- that life had indeed been created by a governing and purposeful intelligence, a change of mind that occurred because he followed where the scientific evidence led him. The conversion of Flew, whose book contains a cutting critique of Dawkins’s thinking, has been dismissed with unbridled scorn by Dawkins – who now says there is a serious case for the position that Flew now adopts!

Unfortunately, so stunning was this declaration it was not pursued on Tuesday evening. Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God. The fact that Dawkins now appears to be so reluctant publicly to defend his own position on his own territory of scientific rationalism – and indeed, even to have shifted his ground – is a tribute above all to the man he was debating once again on Tuesday evening.

Afterwards, I asked Dawkins whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm. He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression. But he also said other things which suggested to me that some of his own views simply don't meet the criteria of empirical evidence that he insists must govern all our thinking.

For example, I put to him that, since he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therefore believes that something can be created out of nothing -- and that since such a belief runs counter to the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this is itself precisely the kind of irrationality, or ‘magic’, which he scorns. In reply he said that, although he agreed this was a problematic position, he did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation – God -- was more incredible. Later, he amplified this by saying that physics was coming up with theories to show how matter could spontaneously be created from nothing. But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent. So such a belief, whether adduced by physicists or anyone else, does not rest upon rational foundations.

Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

The other thing that jumped out at me from this debate was that, although Dawkins insisted over and over again that all he was concerned with was whether or not something was true, he himself seems to be pretty careless with historical evidence. Anthony Flew, for example, points out in his own book that Dawkins’s claim in The God Delusion that Einstein was an atheist is manifestly false, since Einstein had specifically denied that he was either a pantheist or an atheist. In the debate, under pressure from Lennox Dawkins was actually forced to retract his previous claim that Jesus had probably ‘never existed’. And in a revealing aside, when Lennox remarked that the Natural History Museum in which they were debating – in front of dinosaur skeletons -- had been founded for the glory of God, Dawkins scoffed that of course this was absolutely untrue.

But it was true. Construction of the museum was instigated between 1855 and 1860 by the Regius Professor of Medicine, Sir Henry Acland. According to Keith Thomson of the Sigma XI Scientific Research Society, the funds for the project came from the surplus in the University Press’s Bible account as this was deemed only appropriate for a building dedicated to science as a glorification of God’s works. Giving his reasons for building the museum, Acland himself said that it would provide the opportunity to obtain the

knowledge of the great material design of which the Supreme Master-Worker has made us a constituent part...The student of life, bearing in mind the more general laws which in the several departments above named he will have sought to appreciate, will find in the collections of Zoology, combined with the Geological specimens and the dissections of the Anatomist, a boundless field of interest and of inquiry, to which almost every other science lends its aid : from each Science he borrows a special light to guide him through the ranges of extinct and existing animal forms, from the lowest up to the highest type, which; last and most perfect, but pre-shadowed in previous ages, is seen in Man. By the aid of physiological illustrations he begins to understand how hard to unravel are the complex mechanisms and prescient intentions of the Maker of all; and he slowly learns to appreciate what exquisite care is needed for discovering the real action of even an apparently comprehended machine.

Truth is indeed the crux of the matter – but Dawkins seems to understand the word rather differently from the rest of us.The great question, however, is whether his own theory is now in the process of further evolution -- and whether it might even jump the species barrier into what is vulgarly known by lesser mortals as faith.

[ECOGEEK54]

I connected Dr. Hovind to the post you put about the salinity of the water, helium, etc.  He created the site you're always quoting, Dr. Dino.  He makes the arguments you wrote in that post and I figured you would know this, since you're quoting them.  There's my substance on that subject.  He has misguided you by distorting facts, twisting words and much much more.  There is this thing called scientific integrity, of which he shows not to have.  So, the source you're using might as well be from Mad Magazine.  Also, scientific proofs and rebutles to these false arguments are out there, if you choose to look for them. 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/

[mark]

  Some logic:  Hovind once quoted the same guy you quoted and many scientists don't like Hovind so your an idiot?    Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can prove that evolution is true. I think there are over 50,000 anti Hovind websites. I stand by my word that the Hovind THEORY makes much more sense than the evolution theory.