Creationist child abusers close doors

Professor Baxter said:
It's not relevant to the point the poster was making.

We are never going to run out of questions. Our lack of omnipotence does not mean that all knowledge is useless, just yours. The vicious infinite regress is a weak argument and not solved by your fairy tales.
Click to expand...

no, but it IS relevant to recognizing this "theory" is simply your own fairy tale unsupported by a single dram of evidence......
 
Professor Baxter said:
Of course not or you would not be here to ponder the question though whether you qualify is debatable. Do you mean earlier???
Click to expand...

I mean "after".....you can have your choice of whether earlier or later communicates that to you.....to me, the one that happens first would be the earlier, the one that happens second would be later.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....saying that their theory only works if there were Urzymes doesn't provide any evidence that Urzymes actually existed.....
Click to expand...

I did not suggest that it PROVES anything, moron. I said it provides a HYPOTHESIS that makes the time frame problem surmountable for life to have developed on earth. Also, the panspermia hypothesis of the other paper deals with the time frame problem by suggesting an extraterrestrial origin.

We don't know if the RNA existed on earth. You don't know what you are talking about and you never will because you are not attempting to understand.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I did not suggest that it PROVES anything, moron. I said it provides a HYPOTHESIS that makes the time frame problem surmountable for life to have developed on earth. Also, the panspermia hypothesis of the other paper deals with the time frame problem by suggesting an extraterrestrial origin.

We don't know if the RNA existed on earth. You don't know what you are talking about and you never will because you are not attempting to understand.
Click to expand...

what I believe also solves the problem of insufficient time for life to have evolved........like my beliefs, no scientific evidence is available to support what you believe.....

the only problem is you think we are using different methods......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do you consider irreducible complexity to be a failed argument?......
Click to expand...

Because it was disproven when it was shown that bacterial flagellum had evolved. They were reducible.

If you are going to be a creationist then don't rely on science to guide you. Better and more intelligent scientists will always come along and trump your argument. Besides that, how can you rely on that which you condemn as not factual? Science is your enemy and that's been stated by creationists many times but in not so many words. Creationists condemning science is easy to find.

This is not an argument for or against your creationist beliefs, just a warning to reject science if you want to try to stay true to creation.
 
monty1 said:
Because it was disproven when it was shown that bacterial flagellum had evolved. They were reducible.

If you are going to be a creationist then don't rely on science to guide you. Better and more intelligent scientists will always come along and trump your argument. Besides that, how can you rely on that which you condemn as not factual? Science is your enemy and that's been stated by creationists many times but in not so many words. Creationists condemning science is easy to find.

This is not an argument for or against your creationist beliefs, just a warning to reject science if you want to try to stay true to creation.
Click to expand...

countering one proposed example does not refute a theory......if waiting for shit to simply happen means that it is impossible for life to have evolved from inception to its current state in the time that the earth has existed, is it also likely there are certain complexities of advanced life forms for which there is insufficient "shit just happening" time to accomplish?.....

be wary of circular arguments here.....the fact we have human beings that "evolved" from flagellating bacteria is not in fact evidence that the time was sufficient......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what I believe also solves the problem of insufficient time for life to have evolved........like my beliefs, no scientific evidence is available to support what you believe.....

the only problem is you think we are using different methods......
Click to expand...

Simply put, science will not provide her the answers, just as surely as the literal belief in the bible won't provide you. So in that respect, if neither of you can rely on the other's dogmatic position then it becomes impossible to argue with each other.

But if she comes over to your dogmatic position on science having all the answers then she has fallen into the trap. You only need to make sure that you don't fall into her trap which promotes creation. And I'm sure you won't because we have no need for it in order to argue evolution.

I think that any arguing that goes on between the two is nothing more than attempts to strengthen each other's beliefs respectively. It speaks of an unsureness on the part of both parties. Otherwise, why would either bother when evidence presented by either is completely unacceptable to the other?

It does perhaps provide the opportunity for either party to the debate to lay the trap. And that's the trap that was laid for the creationists in the Dover trial. They were defeated based on the evidence as soon as they tried to argue with irreducible complexity. It became impossible for the court to decide otherwise.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
countering one proposed example does not refute a theory......if waiting for shit to simply happen means that it is impossible for life to have evolved from inception to its current state in the time that the earth has existed, is it also likely there are certain complexities of advanced life forms for which there is insufficient "shit just happening" time to accomplish?.....

be wary of circular arguments here.....the fact we have human beings that "evolved" from flagellating bacteria is not in fact evidence that the time was sufficient......
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't completely decipher your 'shit happens' rhetoric completely, but I'll try to keep it to the basics.

Countering one proposed example only serves to destroy that proposal. And that's what happened with the creationist argument on irreducible complexity. But I am also saying that as each new argument arises from the creationist side, it will be the job of science to disprove it if it flies in the face of science. I think that by it's very nature, any creationist argument must by necessity fly in the face of science and so the onus is put on the scientific community to argue it, not be silent on the issue.

be wary of circular arguments here.....the fact we have human beings that "evolved" from flagellating bacteria is not in fact evidence that the time was sufficient......
Click to expand...

Is that a fact? Or is that a slip of the tongue or a misinterpretation of your meaning by me? I have made no argument that deals with time being sufficient or otherwise.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I mean "after".....you can have your choice of whether earlier or later communicates that to you.....to me, the one that happens first would be the earlier, the one that happens second would be later.....
Click to expand...

???

It is after 8 billion years ago now. There is intelligent life now. You are also confusing where the 8 billion years comes in to the equation.

The universe was 8 billion years old when the earth came into existence, which I believe they put at 4.5 billion years ago (not 8), and intelligent life takes 10 billion years to evolve.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what I believe also solves the problem of insufficient time for life to have evolved........like my beliefs, no scientific evidence is available to support what you believe.....

the only problem is you think we are using different methods......
Click to expand...

What you believe is not based on ANY science and trying to derive it from science DOES make it impossible, according to the Cornell paper and plenty of other facts.

There is an overwhelming abundance of scientific evidence for what I believe and for what I don't know there is possibility for plausible explanations not requiring a super ghost.
 
monty1 said:
Is that a fact? Or is that a slip of the tongue or a misinterpretation of your meaning by me? I have made no argument that deals with time being sufficient or otherwise.
Click to expand...

neither....its mockery of the ongoing claim that human beings evolved from pond sludge.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
???

It is after 8 billion years ago now. There is intelligent life now. You are also confusing where the 8 billion years comes in to the equation.

The universe was 8 billion years old when the earth came into existence, which I believe they put at 4.5 billion years ago (not 8), and intelligent life takes 10 billion years to evolve.
Click to expand...

how long does it take the human brain to evolve from mold?......
 
Professor Baxter said:
What you believe is not based on ANY science and trying to derive it from science DOES make it impossible, according to the Cornell paper and plenty of other facts.

There is an overwhelming abundance of scientific evidence for what I believe and for what I don't know there is possibility for plausible explanations not requiring a super ghost.
Click to expand...

shucks, I'm still waiting for you to show how this document proved life wasn't created.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
countering one proposed example does not refute a theory......if waiting for shit to simply happen means that it is impossible for life to have evolved from inception to its current state in the time that the earth has existed, is it also likely there are certain complexities of advanced life forms for which there is insufficient "shit just happening" time to accomplish?.....

be wary of circular arguments here.....the fact we have human beings that "evolved" from flagellating bacteria is not in fact evidence that the time was sufficient......
Click to expand...

You are clueless.

Please explain to us why evolution is dependent on the notion that life originated on earth?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I've never argued against evolution.....only against his dogmatic ideas about it.......
Click to expand...

Creationist beliefs can't be reconciled with evolution. As soon as you try to do that then you will have fallen into the trap.

I'm not aware of his dogmatic ideas because I haven't followed this debate closely. The reason I don't is because the two of you are arguing from a totally different set of beliefs.

If you are a modern Christian who has discarded upwards of 90% of Christian teaching in order to stay abreast of the times then I have little interest in what you say. It would just be a complete compromising of Christian beliefs. It would represent a rejection on your part of religion.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You are clueless.

Please explain to us why evolution is dependent on the notion that life originated on earth?
Click to expand...

subject for a different discussion......this is about whether there's been sufficient time for intelligent life to evolve to its current condition.....I will spot you bacteria as a starting point......discuss....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top