Noahs Ark

[Dirty Penguin]

So all the astounding complexity of life occurs because of... the environment?

Partly...yes.

A small bird can migrate thousands of miles unerringly to a nesting site because the environment caused this?

What, so now you actually agree with us? Why would you find it odd that a bird could do this? Your very own flood story says that the biblical Noah and his family entered the boat with animals two by two Male/Female after some time, on a mountain, everyone and everything exited the boat. Now you have to reconcile how all the different animals got to their new homes after the flood waters receded. How did the kangaroo, the polar bear, the brown and black bear or the penguin get to their homes after they were let out of the ark? Surly Noah wasn't a taxi cab driver or some sort of tour bus service dropping everyone off at their destinations.

I find your questions kind of childish. You, on the one hand, question how the various species migrate but on the other hand can't account for what would seemingly be a mass exodus of animals from a central area after said flood.

Owls can fly virtually soundlessly because the environment selected them to do this? I could go on and on.

Yes you can go on and on and your questioning still would not make any sense. Most birds that do not have to constantly flap their wings are stealthy or silent fliers. This works to their atvantage when stalking prey, flying long distance and/or preserving energy. Some smaller birds that constantly flap their wings will make frequent stops, they may not fly as high as other birds or as far of a distance.

As to people who believe in Creation (I am NOT a creationist in the sense I don't believe that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago) not believing creation happened without a cause, that's simply not true. We believe God created the heavens and the earth, as Genesis 1:1 confirms.

Regardless of what type of creationist you are you show a great ineptitude for the understanding of evolution. I know you've been told this over and over and over that Evolution is NOT Abiogenisis. Evolution is change in a living species over time. It does not address the origin of life.

 

[Valjean]

So all the astounding complexity of life occurs because of... the environment? A small bird can migrate thousands of miles unerringly to a nesting site because the environment caused this? Owls can fly virtually soundlessly because the environment selected them to do this? I could go on and on. Sorry, that plow doesn't scour, as Abe Lincoln used to say. As to people who believe in Creation (I am NOT a creationist in the sense I don't believe that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago) not believing creation happened without a cause, that's simply not true. We believe God created the heavens and the earth, as Genesis 1:1 confirms.

Yes it did, rusra, and if you'd make a trip to the library, or do a google search, you'd find science's explanations (and supports thereof) of the mechanisms that account for these phenomena.
You belive Goddidit. Fine. Science doesn't address agency, it only explores mechanism -- which creationism doesn't even touch on.

 

[AxisMundi]

Speaking of Ignorance.......

So evolutionists want to jump into the middle and not discuss the whole picture. Guess what Axis, a lot transpired before life evolved on this planet, and without the whole picture, evolution just wouldn't exist. You may be able to fool yourself that Evolution is the Alpha and the Omega, but it is only yourself you are fooling.

Evolution is a Power of Suggestion based on perceived facts.

Speaking of ignorance, you are attempting to force abiogenesis and evolution together, a rather common Creationist/IDer "trick" (that the rational tend to laugh at actually).

Sorry, but Evolution is a proven scientific fact with centuries of peer review and hard physical data and fossils to substantiate, and while the exact parameters of abiogenesis is still being investigated, more than enough hypothesis have arisen and show promise, especially when the only counter argument is "goddunnit" from a book that is just so wrong in so many aspects.

BTW, what does your reply have to do with my checklist? Did you plan on addressing any of the facts I listed anytime soon?

If I post my favorite "What's Wrong With Genesis book 1" lsit, will you address the items listed or just spout more unrelated and uneducated drivel like you did above?

 

[AxisMundi]

What a warped perception, where did you get this rubbish from. No wonder you cannot discuss this subject logically.

Ad hominems don't win debates or change minds.

Feel free to address those points you don't personally agree with.

 

[AxisMundi]

Some state the WWF occured 2370 BC/BCE



This was during the Egyptian period of the "The Old Kingdom" 2650-2134 BC/BDE. The period when the pyramids were built. If there was WWF shouldn't we see a watermark on the pyramids? And how come the Egyptians survived? Maybe they all stood at the top of the pyramid for 40 days.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/EGYPT/OLD.HTM

Cheers

370 days actually.

 

[AxisMundi]

So all the astounding complexity of life occurs because of... the environment? A small bird can migrate thousands of miles unerringly to a nesting site because the environment caused this? Owls can fly virtually soundlessly because the environment selected them to do this? I could go on and on. Sorry, that plow doesn't scour, as Abe Lincoln used to say. As to people who believe in Creation (I am NOT a creationist in the sense I don't believe that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days 6,000 years ago) not believing creation happened without a cause, that's simply not true. We believe God created the heavens and the earth, as Genesis 1:1 confirms.

Yes, evolution developed birds that can migrate. We know when and where it originated as we know the mechanisms behind it and we ahve ahrd fossil evidence to back it up.

Yes, evolution developed soundless flight for owls. They are (mostly) nocturnal hunters after all. We also have hard fossil evidence of this progression as well.

Yes, Creationism/ID states that something came from nothing. The myth doesn't state that Jehovah made everything out of stuff, but popped it magically into being from nothing.

 

[footprints]

Speaking of ignorance, you are attempting to force abiogenesis and evolution together, a rather common Creationist/IDer "trick" (that the rational tend to laugh at actually).

At typical answer from a creationist. Deny all science to support your own view.

If you want to believe that life just popped out of thin air, and didn't need physics or chemistry to support it, well what can I say, this is your belief. Sorry I am not into supernatural beliefs, but I understand you are.

Sorry, but Evolution is a proven scientific fact with centuries of peer review and hard physical data and fossils to substantiate, and while the exact parameters of abiogenesis is still being investigated, more than enough hypothesis have arisen and show promise, especially when the only counter argument is "goddunnit" from a book that is just so wrong in so many aspects.

The fossil records to date show completely different species, easily indentifiable to each other. Not the slow, slow transition as proposed by the theory of evolution.

Many people cling to imaginary power of beliefs, don't be concerned that you do.

BTW, what does your reply have to do with my checklist? Did you plan on addressing any of the facts I listed anytime soon?

LOL check list. Do you mean your perceptional prejudice. I already dealt with that. You keep that rubbish, I don't want anything to do with it.

If I post my favorite "What's Wrong With Genesis book 1" lsit, will you address the items listed or just spout more unrelated and uneducated drivel like you did above?

You just have to love a creationists mind. When they can't deal with facts they turn to the bible.

Just for the record Axis, I most probably have a different association to the bible than you do. I am sorry I cannot have your creationists view.

 

[footprints]

Ad hominems don't win debates or change minds.

Feel free to address those points you don't personally agree with.

If Ad hominems don't win debates or change minds, I would suggest you stop using them if you are into winning debates and changing minds. Generally what I have found is, you get the same garbage back as you dish out.

Feel free to address those points you don't personally agree with.

 

[darkendless]

At typical answer from a creationist. Deny all science to support your own view.

That was not an answer from a creationist, your's was. You completely ignored the point because you have nothing to come back with, typical.

If you want to believe that life just popped out of thin air, and didn't need physics or chemistry to support it, well what can I say, this is your belief. Sorry I am not into supernatural beliefs, but I understand you are.

Once again, throwing the word belief around like its going out of fashion, grow up.

The fossil records to date show completely different species, easily indentifiable to each other. Not the slow, slow transition as proposed by the theory of evolution.

Never heard of transitional fossils have you? They are avaliable all over Australian muesems.

LOL check list. Do you mean your perceptional prejudice. I already dealt with that. You keep that rubbish, I don't want anything to do with it.

No you didn't. We raise the same points over and over again and your best answer is to ignore these points, and focus on a perceptionally based answer which means interpreting cultural history. What a great way to establish facts

You just have to love a creationists mind. When they can't deal with facts they turn to the bible.

You obviously don't know what a creationist is.

Just for the record Axis, I most probably have a different association to the bible than you do. I am sorry I cannot have your creationists view.

Have you met man of faith? He's just as short sighted and close minded as you are.

 

[AxisMundi]

If Ad hominems don't win debates or change minds, I would suggest you stop using them if you are into winning debates and changing minds. Generally what I have found is, you get the same garbage back as you dish out.

Feel free to address those points you don't personally agree with.

I'm not interesting in "winning debates" with you people. Until you Creationist/IDers understand fully the Scientific Method, and bother to educate yourself, you will remain fixated on your beliefs like a leech on bar skin.

I just like showing the world how far you people have to twist reality and ignore facts to uphold your scripture and beliefs.

BTW, list something for me to disagree with. I already listed some of my disagreements with the Noah myth. I could do the same for Genesis 1 too. But I'm not going to waste the time if your not going to debate the list.

At typical answer from a creationist. Deny all science to support your own view.

If you want to believe that life just popped out of thin air, and didn't need physics or chemistry to support it, well what can I say, this is your belief. Sorry I am not into supernatural beliefs, but I understand you are.

The fossil records to date show completely different species, easily unidentifiable to each other. Not the slow, slow transition as proposed by the theory of evolution.

Many people cling to imaginary power of beliefs, don't be concerned that you do.

LOL check list. Do you mean your perceptional prejudice. I already dealt with that. You keep that rubbish, I don't want anything to do with it.

1. "I know you are, but what am I" argument? Tsk, tsk. Abiogenesis and Evolution are two distinctly different disciplines. Don't agree? Take it up with universities, science halls, peer review groups, and Scientists in general.

2. Again, there is simply no case of "something from nothing" where abiogenesis is concerned. After the earth cooled, the basic building blocks of life, the most abundant substances in the universe, were present.

3. Sorry, but there are fossil examples of transitory species as well.

4. Too bad you have to convince yourself that science is a matter of "beliefs", but that merely goes to show how far away from reality you must stand to support your beliefs.

5. So in other words my list was spot on, thanks for letting me know.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Here's the deal.
Footprints does not follow Creationism.
Footprints does not accept Evolution.
What footprints does is argue for the sake of argument, all the while claiming to view things "objectively" rather than "subjectively".
Claiming that ID has just as much validity as Evolution, yet still using "creationist" and "evolutionist" as insults.
All probabilities (except the point he argues against) are equal in his eyes.
It is pointless to attempt to debate a person who takes no stance on any issue other than to argue and boost his own ego.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Here's the deal.
Footprints does not follow Creationism.
Footprints does not accept Evolution.
What footprints does is argue for the sake of argument, all the while claiming to view things "objectively" rather than "subjectively".
Claiming that ID has just as much validity as Evolution, yet still using "creationist" and "evolutionist" as insults.
All probabilities (except the point he argues against) are equal in his eyes.
It is pointless to attempt to debate a person who takes no stance on any issue other than to argue and boost his own ego.

Agreed.....

 

[footprints]

That was not an answer from a creationist, your's was. You completely ignored the point because you have nothing to come back with, typical.

Your creationists views do not concern me.

Once again, throwing the word belief around like its going out of fashion, grow up.

My apologies if fact and truisms annoy you.

Never heard of transitional fossils have you? They are avaliable all over Australian muesems.

Not only have I heard of them, I have witnessed them and I have handled them. It really does take a lot of imagination to put them in the category of transitional fossils as they pertain to the slow, slow, state of evolution as proposed by the theory of evolution. Each fossile in question was discernably different to the one before it.

No you didn't. We raise the same points over and over again and your best answer is to ignore these points, and focus on a perceptionally based answer which means interpreting cultural history. What a great way to establish facts

My apoligies if facts of science don't align with your belief patterns.

You obviously don't know what a creationist is.

Is it me who does not know what a creationist is? Hmmmm, wonders will never cease.

Have you met man of faith? He's just as short sighted and close minded as you are.

I haven't had the priviledge of meeting you in person yet. I thought you would have known that.

 

[footprints]

I'm not interesting in "winning debates" with you people. Until you Creationist/IDers understand fully the Scientific Method, and bother to educate yourself, you will remain fixated on your beliefs like a leech on bar skin.

I just like showing the world how far you people have to twist reality and ignore facts to uphold your scripture and beliefs.

BTW, list something for me to disagree with. I already listed some of my disagreements with the Noah myth. I could do the same for Genesis 1 too. But I'm not going to waste the time if your not going to debate the list.

At typical answer from a creationist. Deny all science to support your own view.

If you want to believe that life just popped out of thin air, and didn't need physics or chemistry to support it, well what can I say, this is your belief. Sorry I am not into supernatural beliefs, but I understand you are.

The fossil records to date show completely different species, easily unidentifiable to each other. Not the slow, slow transition as proposed by the theory of evolution.

Many people cling to imaginary power of beliefs, don't be concerned that you do.

LOL check list. Do you mean your perceptional prejudice. I already dealt with that. You keep that rubbish, I don't want anything to do with it.

1. "I know you are, but what am I" argument? Tsk, tsk. Abiogenesis and Evolution are two distinctly different disciplines. Don't agree? Take it up with universities, science halls, peer review groups, and Scientists in general.

2. Again, there is simply no case of "something from nothing" where abiogenesis is concerned. After the earth cooled, the basic building blocks of life, the most abundant substances in the universe, were present.

3. Sorry, but there are fossil examples of transitory species as well.

4. Too bad you have to convince yourself that science is a matter of "beliefs", but that merely goes to show how far away from reality you must stand to support your beliefs.

5. So in other words my list was spot on, thanks for letting me know.

Sorry I am not interested in your creationist beliefs. Only the facts which science provides.

I am not sure whether you realise it or not, how far you personally have twisted reality to suit your own fantasy, but I have recognised it for a long time.

 

[footprints]

Here's the deal.

LOL here is the deal tumbleweed.

Footprints does not follow Creationism.

Footprints doesn't follow Creationism...... amazing you have something correct.

Footprints does not accept Evolution.

Footprints does not accept Evolution....... Back to being wrong again, that is more like you. I would have thought you could have put two and two together based on your quote below, that I accept all probablilies as equal. Guess two and two are hard to add up sometimes.

What footprints does is argue for the sake of argument, all the while claiming to view things "objectively" rather than "subjectively".

Footprints argues for the sake of argument..... I think this is your way of saying if I have something to say, I will say it then sit back and watch as the backlash happens with everybody who wants to argue against what I have said. Argument means to disagree with you and not accept your word on face value.

Claiming that ID has just as much validity as Evolution, yet still using "creationist" and "evolutionist" as insults.

I do not see creationist or evolutionist as insults. This is your own mind speaking.

All probabilities (except the point he argues against) are equal in his eyes.

This doesn't even make rational sense, albeit I am sure logical in your eyes. All probabilities are equal, so therefore rationally and logically I cannot argue against a probability, albeit may only be speaking of one probability at any one time. Which only to an irrational, closed mind, would conclude I don't have similar views the other way round.

It is pointless to attempt to debate a person who takes no stance on any issue other than to argue and boost his own ego.

It is pointless to debate a person who has no belief to cling to. I am sure to you pointing out reason and logic, is promoting a persons own ego.

 

[AxisMundi]

Sorry I am not interested in your creationist beliefs. Only the facts which science provides.

I am not sure whether you realise it or not, how far you personally have twisted reality to suit your own fantasy, but I have recognised it for a long time.

As I noted, I'm not interested in changing the closed mind of people like yourself.

However, there may be someone who might be salvageable who might be reading our exchange.

The more outlandish you get, the more it helps us save others from your brand of self-imposed lunacy.

 

[footprints]

As I noted, I'm not interested in changing the closed mind of people like yourself.

However, there may be someone who might be salvageable who might be reading our exchange.

The more outlandish you get, the more it helps us save others from your brand of self-imposed lunacy.

LOL, from a person who labels me a creationist, I find the above very amusing. I am sure logical and reasonable people will figure the rest out.

You have your belief patterns Axis, other people have theirs. Each belief, yours not excluded, has the probability of being correct.

 

[AxisMundi]

LOL, from a person who labels me a creationist, I find the above very amusing. I am sure logical and reasonable people will figure the rest out.

You have your belief patterns Axis, other people have theirs. Each belief, yours not excluded, has the probability of being correct.

Intelligent Design requires a Creator Deity, no other entity would have the power, knowledge, or omnisentience to accomplish such a task.

ID was a theosophical exercise crafted by the ancient Greek Philosophers that was recently brushed off by Christian fundamentalists in an effort to get their religious doctrine back into public schools to indoctrinate children by attempting to graft science onto religion, and in doing so also attempting to substantiate their religion and the Creation myth by the same rather Frankenstein like surgery.

Whether you are a part of that agenda or not, you are indeed a Creationist due to either of my statements above.

Intelliegent Design simply equals Creationism.

 

[darkendless]

Your creationists views do not concern me.

Nothing does, you're stuck with your opinions and refuse to accept anything that puts you outside your comfort zone.

My apologies if fact and truisms annoy you.

When you present some they may be an issue. Until then i can only wait.

Not only have I heard of them, I have witnessed them and I have handled them. It really does take a lot of imagination to put them in the category of transitional fossils as they pertain to the slow, slow, state of evolution as proposed by the theory of evolution. Each fossile in question was discernably different to the one before it.

Well its taken 4 billion years to get to hear. Patience is a virtue sir.

My apoligies if facts of science don't align with your belief patterns.

Hahaha.... when have you presented science here? I presented geology and you brushed off the subject and went on another tangent. You still have nothing to say using facts, you never do.

Got something to say yet to counteract my issue?

Is it me who does not know what a creationist is? Hmmmm, wonders will never cease.

Yes it is, clearly.

I haven't had the priviledge of meeting you in person yet. I thought you would have known that.

Wow, your petty little games probably do an injustice to your real age.

 

[footprints]

Intelligent Design requires a Creator Deity, no other entity would have the poser, knowledge, or omni sentience to accomplish such a task.

ID was a theosophical exercise crafted by the ancient Greek Philosophers that was recently brushed off by Christian fundamentalists in an effort to get their religious doctrine back into public schools to indoctrinate children by attempting to graft science onto religion, and in doing so also attempting to substantiate their religion and the Creation myth by the same rather Frankenstein like surgery.

Whether you are a part of that agenda or not, you are indeed a Creationist due to either of my statements above.

Intelliegent Design simply equals Creationism.

Your rationalisation of your own perception and the justification you now offer for being irrational, illogical and a clear predisposition of jumping to false conclusions, shows a lot in your character as to your ability to critically reason.

Your inability to take responsibility and accountability for the false conclusion and false accusations projected against me, speaks highly of your character and nature.

Just because your judgement is wrong in one thing though, doesn't mean your judgement is wrong in everything. Who knows your beliefs could be right, time and science will ultimately prove your belief wrong, or right.