Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Newsweek Poll: 90% Believe in God - Evolution? Not So Much.. High Five! « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21579
Online
« #150 : April 09, 2007, 09:42:30 AM »

Unfortunately for Dal, most of his arguments are pretty well refuted, but he seems not to be aware of this. I was a disciple of the Darwinian religion at one time, but as the evidence was put in front of me, I could tell that it didn't match reality. Today that camp seems to just make up things left and right to put their theory on top. They should have learned from Piltdown man, but they can't seem to stop.

They haven't been refuted, the Discovery Institute has responses but those are a long way from refutation since most of them are, well wrong.

Let's run this little bit o' fun for the bible types - you use the days don't mean one day thing to jump the young earth thing :

BTW, I'm not sure how you gameplan that since Genesis 1:13 and 1:19 both explicitly state a day is an evening and morning which sort of cuts vs you but we'll work the they were looooooong, morning and evenings. Le'ts go to the rest of the tape:

Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." That's interesting since fruit bearing trees are actually a relatively new evolutionary feature - the Cretaceous period are the first clear fossils. Ooops, god whiffs on that account since it isn't until later god comes up with land animals (1:24) so rather bugs fly or crawl there shouldn't be bugs before fruit plants in the fossil record, and there are.

Genesis: 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Well whales are a much later evolutionary creature and are the descendents of the cows that are mentioned the next day in Genesis 1:24. We also know birds are the outcome of the land reptiles so, once more, god apparently forgot the order he did things in.

You can argue about evolution but I guess now you have to try and take down radioactive decay as a measurement because the age of the strata the fossils are found in don't lie.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #151 : April 09, 2007, 12:53:30 PM »

I am open to abiogenesis. Just not here. IMO, I don't think that's what happened here.

Why not here, the same problems happen anywhere you want to have it happen. That's why your stand is so puzzling. You either gets the cooking primoral soup on Earth or on Glazxxon XIV. One way or the other you have to think it is possible so why is there better than here?

You're right. Life had just as much a chance of popping up here as it did anywhere else. However,
if I go by Crick, (as one example) then it seems like the timeframe doesn't make sense. He was...
"uncomfortable with the narrow window of time between the date the earth cooled enough to be
habitable and the first appearance of life in the fossil record."

Maybe on some other planet with intelligent life (Planet Z), the timeframe DOES make sense.

Dal wins some big points with an uppercut and his two latest posts.

BucHarbour's mouthpiece fell out.

Onto Round 13...

1sparkybuc

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7269
Offline
« #152 : April 09, 2007, 02:15:25 PM »

Evolution is a proven fact. Any museum of natural history has evidence you can lay your hands on. You can touch it.

If a man and his dog are killed by a roadside explosive device, their splattered remains rot together wherever they end up. They are both dead and will stay that way for eternity. Once life is over, it can't be restored. Not 2000 years ago. Not now.

2000 years from now people will still be waiting for the second coming of Christ. The percentage of people who still believe will be considerably smaller and the rest of us will find more rational reasons to behave like human beings should. It is real simple. Treat others like you want to be treated. It's a very pleasant way to live. It really is.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #153 : April 09, 2007, 02:24:23 PM »

2000 years from now people will still be waiting for the second coming of Christ. The percentage of people who still believe will be considerably smaller and the rest of us will find more rational reasons to behave like human beings should. It is real simple. Treat others like you want to be treated. It's a very pleasant way to live. It really is.

I believe that the Apocalypse has to happen first before the return of Christ.

IMO, the two are connected to a natural/cyclical, cataclysm (2012?). Over thousands of
years, the original message had been misinterpreted and now has people expecting the
return of Jesus.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
« #154 : April 09, 2007, 07:36:30 PM »

Evolution is a proven fact. Any museum of natural history has evidence you can lay your hands on. You can touch it.

If a man and his dog are killed by a roadside explosive device, their splattered remains rot together wherever they end up. They are both dead and will stay that way for eternity. Once life is over, it can't be restored. Not 2000 years ago. Not now.

2000 years from now people will still be waiting for the second coming of Christ. The percentage of people who still believe will be considerably smaller and the rest of us will find more rational reasons to behave like human beings should. It is real simple. Treat others like you want to be treated. It's a very pleasant way to live. It really is.

One, micro evolution is proven. Macro is NOT proven.

Second, hundreds of people, including those who despised Christ, saw him, alive, after his crucifixion. The disciples gave their lives to a lie that gained them absolutely nothing? I doubt that.

>>Ugh.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #155 : April 09, 2007, 07:54:19 PM »

Second, hundreds of people, including those who despised Christ, saw him, alive, after his crucifixion. The disciples gave their lives to a lie that gained them absolutely nothing? I doubt that.

What you meant to say was, "Hundreds of stories and accounts that were written years (and sometimes decades) after the death of Jesus claimed that they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion."

How many of those stories are first hand accounts? I still need to read that link you provided. I will.

BucHarbour, what is your opinion of the hundreds of people who have come forward and claimed
that they were taken aboard a craft by a non-human?

I am very curious about abduction stories but IMO, there isn't enough evidence to prove their
stories. But some of those accounts are written/shared on the same day or day after the
event when the memory of the person is clear. And psychiatrists who examine some of
them say that these people are suffering from PTSD and have obviously experienced
something.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
« #156 : April 09, 2007, 08:33:38 PM »

Ok Dal, time to take the gloves off and start pounding away at your information, starting with the transitionals you mention, all of which are avian, supposedly derived from Theropods.

Here is an article from Science Mag that pretty much sums up one of the bigger problems with these transitionals. It points out that the hand and feet of the avians (Arch., Coel., etc...) are derived from different digits than the Theropods. Furthermore, the ribs and pelvis of Archaeopteryx do not support the lung style of Theropods, and do support modern bird lungs, designed for increased stamina, and similar to mammals. None of these "transitionals" have the right structure for the reptilian lung system that Theropods had, and that all moder reptiles retain (funny, you'd think Evolution would redesign those lungs to let reptiles chase their prey longer). They also all had the modern avian body style as opposed to the Theropods seesaw design. Not to mention that the transition would require the re-elongation of already foreshortened limbs. But hey, Mother Nature must have mood swings or something.

Then, of course, you start looking for a philosophic argument that could, in reality be explained by any number of reasons. Just because some atolls didn't have more advanced life...who cares? Big whoopdeedoo! Could be for any reason. Who says God had to populate those islands? And why would he have to, which is what you seem to suggest?

Further, you clearly don't grasp message theory. I don't know why you do, but the bible stated God left messages in all of His creations. With me so far? Now if that is so, how do you send that message? I mean, really, while real Unguided Macro Evolution won't result in "perfect" animals, you'd think it would take care of some of the dead wood on them, yet these curiosities remain. And, of course, you glossed right over the bit about being able to speak because of the current design of our airways. But hey, why let some little detail like that pounce on your philosophical argument. The reality is that animals are designed the way they are for some reason, and we don't know what it is. I mean, how did we just end up with domesticated species which are so different than the non-domesticated animals that are similar (wolves vs. dogs for example)? How did domesticated plants just pop up all of a sudden? What was the evolutionary reason behind that? Did ignorant cavemen manage to do things our best scientists are only now getting any kind of grip on? Heck, we can only adjust the given traits within a kind (such as gm corn), but we haven't been able to just produce totally new veggies that have never been seen before. Yet, our ignorant hick ancestors had the foresight to just interbreed veggies like mad until *poof* common veggies were born! Tada! Call me a wee bit skeptical.

I can continue on and on with this. I love it, because I know the answers. When you truly look at the fossil data, it doesn't support the theory. Many of the missing links simply weren't what scientists tried to claim they were. The whole dinosaur-to-bird theory has had problems for the last several years, but they cling to it, grasping away, unwilling to let go of something that clearly appears to be wrong.

Oh, and by the way, I know of the Discovery Institute and it's writings, but I haven't been to their site in about a year and a half, and I can find tons of research material completely separate from them, as well as material separate from creationists and ID'ers. Many of the most choice quotes about the huge problems in Macro Evolution come straight from some of Evolutions best scientists. Ironic, isn't it? Most honest Evolutionary scientists will admit that there are problems that must be solved. Of course, many are starting to clam up and put a lot of bogus information out there to fight off ID, because ID is gaining a lot of mindshare quite quickly.




>>Ugh.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
« #157 : April 09, 2007, 08:40:55 PM »

Second, hundreds of people, including those who despised Christ, saw him, alive, after his crucifixion. The disciples gave their lives to a lie that gained them absolutely nothing? I doubt that.

What you meant to say was, "Hundreds of stories and accounts that were written years (and sometimes decades) after the death of Jesus claimed that they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion."

How many of those stories are first hand accounts? I still need to read that link you provided. I will.

BucHarbour, what is your opinion of the hundreds of people who have come forward and claimed
that they were taken aboard a craft by a non-human?

I am very curious about abduction stories but IMO, there isn't enough evidence to prove their
stories. But some of those accounts are written/shared on the same day or day after the
event when the memory of the person is clear. And psychiatrists who examine some of
them say that these people are suffering from PTSD and have obviously experienced
something.

Having a love of science fiction, I am not against ET's. Some of the evidence looks good, but some of it is seriously lacking. It's hard to fathom that the Earth is the only planet that would have life, although new science has begun to show that the areas of the galaxy where life could survive (radiation hazards and others) is not nearly as large as they originally thought. I don't recall anything in the bible that says God only created life here, so it doesn't go against my current beliefs anymore than it did my beliefs when my faith was virtually lost. The only real issue I see in the ET debate is that we haven't found any radio signals or other transmissions to prove their existence which I think is not a good sign. We're radiating all kinds of information into space that could be picked up and could be shown to be non-natural. You would think any other civilization that has occurred would have gone through that same stage and that we would pick up some of their signals.

The sci-fi fan in me still hopes to find out that we are not alone. Quite frankly, the odds are almost as astronomical that we are not alone as that life just *poof* magically came from soup de stuff and turned into my little buddy (my son). We'll see.

>>Ugh.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #158 : April 09, 2007, 10:07:38 PM »

BH,

You didn't answer my question. I asked about the hundreds (at least) of people who claim
to have been abducted. Their stories sound crazy but how do the stories of hundreds of
people who allegedly saw Christ alive after he was killed, compare?

How do you decide which "crazy" stories to believe?

I certainly don't BELIEVE the abductees. But I think something happened to them and
some of them have scars from the experiences. Self inflicted? Possibly. I keep an
open mind and realize that a lot more evidence has to surface before we believe
the stories as fact. I know one thing: if the government were to ever admit
that UFOs were here, the abduction door would swing wide open.

I'm agnostic on the abduction subject.

I don't have a problem with UFOs being non-human and no radio signals being
picked up. We're assuming that the UFOs are ET and not from another
dimension and we're also assuming that they developed radio like we did.
It's very possible that they communicate via telepathy and never had
a need to invent it.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #159 : April 10, 2007, 02:03:47 AM »

I read the information at the link BH. Very similar to what I read in "The Case for Christ."

Question: If the Romans felt that Jesus had overcome death, why isn't it written about
in Roman records?

In that article, they end it with...

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

I guess I'm a fool. Not a good way to end an attempt at presenting evidence for a resurrection.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21579
Online
« #160 : April 10, 2007, 09:47:37 AM »

1. Ok Dal, time to take the gloves off and start pounding away at your information, starting with the transitionals you mention, all of which are avian, supposedly derived from Theropods.

Here is an article from Science Mag

2. Then, of course, you start looking for a philosophic argument that could, in reality be explained by any number of reasons. Just because some atolls didn't have more advanced life...who cares? Big whoopdeedoo! Could be for any reason. Who says God had to populate those islands? And why would he have to, which is what you seem to suggest?

3. Further, you clearly don't grasp message theory. I don't know why you do, but the bible stated God left messages in all of His creations. With me so far? Now if that is so, how do you send that message? I mean, really, while real Unguided Macro Evolution won't result in "perfect" animals, you'd think it would take care of some of the dead wood on them, yet these curiosities remain.

4. I mean, how did we just end up with domesticated species which are so different than the non-domesticated animals that are similar (wolves vs. dogs for example)? How did domesticated plants just pop up all of a sudden? What was the evolutionary reason behind that?

Oh, and by the way, I know of the Discovery Institute and it's writings, but I haven't been to their site in about a year and a half, and I can find tons of research material completely separate from them, as well as material separate from creationists and ID'ers. Many of the most choice quotes about the huge problems in Macro Evolution come straight from some of Evolutions best scientists. Ironic, isn't it?


This is gloves off?

1. Science article from 1997 mentions that the author is cited in:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5358/1915
partial skeleton of a primitive bird, Rahona ostromi, gen. et sp. nov., has been discovered from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. This specimen, although exhibiting avian features such as a reversed hallux and ulnar papillae, retains characteristics that indicate a theropod ancestry, including a pubic foot and hyposphene-hypantra vertebral articulations. Rahona has a robust, hyperextendible second digit on the hind foot that terminates in a sicklelike claw, a unique characteristic of the theropod groups Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae. A phylogenetic analysis places Rahona with Archaeopteryx, making Rahona one of the most primitive birds yet discovered.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/4/486
Recent fossil finds of Late Cretaceous feathered dinosaurs in China have demonstrated that feathers appear to have originated in taxa that retained a significant number of primitive nonavian features. Current evidence strongly suggests that birds are theropod dinosaurs, and that the most primitive known feathers are found on non-flying animals.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/4740
Article deals with the 1-2-3 shift in theropods to the 2-3-4 of avians.

Are all later articles that confirm the evolutionary pathway. Gotta keep up on what is happening in the field. Frankly the fact that the transitions aren't the same as theropods nor avians isn't a problem for evolution, it shows the change in progress.

2. You think biogeogpraphy is a philosophical argument? really? Interesting. Once more all you've got is "god didn't have to" and yet god did have to everywhere else. Very, very strange. My theory explains it, yours makes excuses.

3. I get message theory, I think the message is "We're desperate for an argument". Evolution doesn't need to clean up anything. You continue to prove you don't get it. Any trait that doesn't affect your ability to survive (vestigal traits) and reproduce is meaningless in evolutionary terms. Imperfect features (eyes) are also acceptable in evolutionary terms since they don't have to be perfect, just marginally better than what came before or else marginally better suited for their environment. You still can't explain why god's message is built around these useless and flawed traits or why he built man in his image and his perfection has an enlarged prostrate and a blind spot at the optic nerve but he chose to gift the octopus without such a flaw. Maybe the octopus was built in his image.

4. Domestication isn't even really an issue. In wild wheat the seeds fall off automatically. this sucks for making bread since your seeds are all over. Some plants have a mutuation where the seeds don't fall off.  The latter trait is obviously more desirable for cultivation so when people are harvesting they use the non-dispersing seeds as the basis for the next generation. Human selection combined with a natural mutation to create a domesticated version of the crop. DNA makes it easy to tie wild wheat to domestic wheat and even to locate domestication in the Near East

As for dogs, Dmitri Belyaev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Belyaev) did a nifty experiment with foxes where he bred foxes that liked humans, barked, licked their humans and had flopy ears. All traits of domestic dogs that vary from wild animals. Now, rather humans began breeding programs or, more likely, some animals have less fear of humans and so, for example, fed at human garbage piles and became part of human society. Those individuals as they bred would also reproduce the Belyaev experiment. Cats are much the same story as wild cats moved into grain silos to hunt the rodents that followed grain there. While rodents were a pest cats were a welcome invaders and the selection for tolerance of humans would have continued apace.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
« #161 : April 10, 2007, 09:22:02 PM »

This is gloves off?

1. Science article from 1997 mentions that the author is cited in:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5358/1915
partial skeleton of a primitive bird, Rahona ostromi, gen. et sp. nov., has been discovered from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. This specimen, although exhibiting avian features such as a reversed hallux and ulnar papillae, retains characteristics that indicate a theropod ancestry, including a pubic foot and hyposphene-hypantra vertebral articulations. Rahona has a robust, hyperextendible second digit on the hind foot that terminates in a sicklelike claw, a unique characteristic of the theropod groups Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae. A phylogenetic analysis places Rahona with Archaeopteryx, making Rahona one of the most primitive birds yet discovered.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/4/486
Recent fossil finds of Late Cretaceous feathered dinosaurs in China have demonstrated that feathers appear to have originated in taxa that retained a significant number of primitive nonavian features. Current evidence strongly suggests that birds are theropod dinosaurs, and that the most primitive known feathers are found on non-flying animals.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/4740
Article deals with the 1-2-3 shift in theropods to the 2-3-4 of avians.

Are all later articles that confirm the evolutionary pathway. Gotta keep up on what is happening in the field. Frankly the fact that the transitions aren't the same as theropods nor avians isn't a problem for evolution, it shows the change in progress.

2. You think biogeogpraphy is a philosophical argument? really? Interesting. Once more all you've got is "god didn't have to" and yet god did have to everywhere else. Very, very strange. My theory explains it, yours makes excuses.

3. I get message theory, I think the message is "We're desperate for an argument". Evolution doesn't need to clean up anything. You continue to prove you don't get it. Any trait that doesn't affect your ability to survive (vestigal traits) and reproduce is meaningless in evolutionary terms. Imperfect features (eyes) are also acceptable in evolutionary terms since they don't have to be perfect, just marginally better than what came before or else marginally better suited for their environment. You still can't explain why god's message is built around these useless and flawed traits or why he built man in his image and his perfection has an enlarged prostrate and a blind spot at the optic nerve but he chose to gift the octopus without such a flaw. Maybe the octopus was built in his image.

4. Domestication isn't even really an issue. In wild wheat the seeds fall off automatically. this sucks for making bread since your seeds are all over. Some plants have a mutuation where the seeds don't fall off.  The latter trait is obviously more desirable for cultivation so when people are harvesting they use the non-dispersing seeds as the basis for the next generation. Human selection combined with a natural mutation to create a domesticated version of the crop. DNA makes it easy to tie wild wheat to domestic wheat and even to locate domestication in the Near East

As for dogs, Dmitri Belyaev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Belyaev) did a nifty experiment with foxes where he bred foxes that liked humans, barked, licked their humans and had flopy ears. All traits of domestic dogs that vary from wild animals. Now, rather humans began breeding programs or, more likely, some animals have less fear of humans and so, for example, fed at human garbage piles and became part of human society. Those individuals as they bred would also reproduce the Belyaev experiment. Cats are much the same story as wild cats moved into grain silos to hunt the rodents that followed grain there. While rodents were a pest cats were a welcome invaders and the selection for tolerance of humans would have continued apace.

Oh man! You didn't? Wow...I can't believe you wrote what you wrote.

Let's start with the "feathered" dinosaurs from Liaoning province. This area has been rampant with falsified fossils, starting with Archaeoraptor. Dr. Feduccia, a top evolutionist and one of the top experts in fossils, has long cautioned about the specimens coming out of this area of China. The fossils that were brought in were purchased from that region, and they still had keratin on them, for the feathers, which would be highly unlikely, as proteins don't normally remain after millions of years, even under preservation conditions.  Further, these fossils are only 124-128 million years old while the oldest undisputed bird, Archaeopteryx, is 153 million years old. Once again, evolution going backwards. Both Caudipteryx and Protoarchaeopteryx, both "feathered" dinosaurs from that area, were found to date between 120-145 million years and to be more primitive than Archaeopteryx. We seem to keep going backwards. What the heck is with this Evolution anyways?

Then you cite Rahona ostromi, which was dated at 70 million years. Well, here we go again.

Then to top it off you cite a paper on the phase shift theory, which the very authors clearly state has problems, of which there are many, and even lists the littany of issues that need to be resolved, including other issues with the dino-to-bird theory. You don't seem to understand that there are quite a large number of evolutionary scientists that aren't convinced at all by the evidence submitted so far, and believe the theory to be incorrect.

As I have said, the evidence really isn't there.

As far as point 2 on your list, you are continuing to argue a point that can fit ID, Creation, Intervention, and Evolution all in one. That's what I keep trying to tell you. The argument is a non-starter. Evolution could have led to no large animals or it could have led to large animals coming out of the sea onto the atolls. ID and Creation could have a designer, or God, wanting to put those animals there, or not, but we have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING HIS INTENT. Same with Aliens, via the Intervention theory. Maybe they didn't like putting animals all alone by their lonesome on those islands. Or they could have if they wanted. Again, this argument is philosophical but you argue it like it proves something. It doesn't prove anything other than, for some reason, those animals weren't there. Again...big whoopdeedoo.

As to point 3, as I sit here chuckling, you just proved my point. In evolution traits that are hindrances and serve no useful function should be weeded out by evolution. But they are still there. And, amusingly, you turn right around, in the same paragraph and say that imperfect features conform to evolution. Which one is it? Of course, this is THE biggest problem with evolutionists today: they simply change the goal posts of evolution to make it possible for anything to point to evolution (yes, I'm being simplistic, but it's a common issue these days). Man is not said to be God's "perfect" creation. Just created in His image (which can mean a rough sketch, not necessarily a 10 megapixel photo). Message theory basically means that if everything was perfectly designed, with no oddities, it would only allow such things to be pointed out as perfect examples of evolution working to it's fullest. By placing completely useless items, or hindrances that could, in theory, be easily improved on, it points to a non-evolutionary origin, as evolution should have weeded out most of that stuff to some degree or another.

I clearly over-simplified the domesticated species. Just think about Dolphins as an example of what I am talking about. Dolphins just happen to fight all instincts of survival, on a regular basis, to protect humans from sharks. I'm sure we had some brethren somewhere running around breeding dolphins many centuries ago (doubt that!). As far as your wheat example goes...wheat is still wheat. Just because we bred out the worst traits in favor of the best traits doesn't mean that the original wheat evolved from something else. When I'm dealing with domesticated species, I am referring to the fact that they had no progenitor before the species that we began to cultivated and breed to the types we have today. Before the "wild" species, there was nothing. How did that happen again? Same with corn and others. You have to be careful with mixing the two issues. All we have seen is proof of Micro Evolution, in this case guided by humans.

>>Ugh.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
« #162 : April 10, 2007, 09:28:00 PM »

I read the information at the link BH. Very similar to what I read in "The Case for Christ."

Question: If the Romans felt that Jesus had overcome death, why isn't it written about
in Roman records?

In that article, they end it with...

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

I guess I'm a fool. Not a good way to end an attempt at presenting evidence for a resurrection.
Well, the ending line is written by a true lawyer. What can I say?

As far as the evidence is concerned, the Romans weren't about to acknowledge that Christ arose from the dead. All the physical evidence is pretty well documented in a number of places, and pretty much undisputed. The sheer number of eye witness accounts is pretty large, but the physical evidence backing the eyewitness testimony is what does it for me. The abductions don't really have any physical evidence that can be confirmed and linked to the testimony. Not too mention that in our technologically advanced civilization, it's easy to drug someone up and fake this stuff and have them utterly convinced. Not too mention that these are piecemeal accounts, while the observation of Christ was one in which a number of groups of people saw the same thing at the same time. Little harder to dismiss that.
 

>>Ugh.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Online
« #163 : April 10, 2007, 10:17:03 PM »

As far as the evidence is concerned, the Romans weren't about to acknowledge that Christ arose from the dead.

Ok, I'll give you that one. I didn't know the answer so I asked.

All the physical evidence is pretty well documented in a number of places, and pretty much undisputed.

Ok, I'll bite. What physical evidence of the resurrection is there?

The sheer number of eye witness accounts is pretty large, but the physical evidence backing the eyewitness testimony
is what does it for me.

Well, the sheer number of witnesses for the UFO phenomenon is in the thousands. And many
of those witnesses are military or former government who had the experience while working
for our government. And many of these sightings were picked up on multiple radars with
mutiple military witnesses in multiple locations.

And many cases (three thousand plus) have physical evidence left behind that can be tested.

The abductions don't really have any physical evidence that can be confirmed and linked to the
testimony.

Plenty of witnesses have scars and scoop marks. In my book, that's physical. But since the
claims are considered outlandish, most assume that the abductees did it to themselves. 
There's one case where biological material was left behind. Pubic hair. And it was a
very unique pubic hair according to the DNA tests.

Not too mention that in our technologically advanced civilization, it's easy to drug someone up and
fake this stuff and have them utterly convinced.

You won't get an argument from me on that. Many of these abductions may be Earthbound in
nature. One specific researcher believes that all of the abduction stories are black budget
projects.

Not too mention that these are piecemeal accounts, while the observation of Christ was one in
which a number of groups of people saw the same thing at the same time. Little harder to
dismiss that.

As far as abductions, there have not been large groups seeing them occur. But large
groups have had UFO sightings. There have been groups of people who claim to
have been taken aboard the same craft and tell the same story. And the majority
of abduction stories all follow the same storyline: the abductees are taken and
sexual material is taken from them. It's rather consistent. Is it physical in
nature? I have my doubts. But the scars are hard to explain.

The is just as much evidence for abductions being real as there is for Jesus being
resurrected. The resurrection story is all eyewitness from what I know.

The is a ton more evidence for the reality of UFOs (unknown, physical objects)
being here than for Jesus being resurrected. With UFOs you have photos,
videos, radar, trace (physical) evidence, and eyewitness (individual and large
groups and from the private sector and military professionals) testimony.
And much of that is shared right after the sighting. Not 30 years after
the fact. And we have thousands of first hand accounts.

If you're going to dismiss eyewitness testimony, then be prepared to dismiss
a lot of the biblical stories.

"It is reasonable to believe and to affirm that extra-terrestrials exist.
Their existence can no longer be denied,for their is too much evidence
for the existence of extra-terrestrials and flying saucers as documented
by UFO research. To assert categorically that they are illusions and
hallucination, or that eyewitness testimony accounts are not credible,
is wrong....This would have serious consequences for religion itself,
since religion is founded on an historical incident, on the birth of Jesus
Christ....of whom we have knowledge through testimony, the Gospels."

~ Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Roman Catholic theologian of the Vatican
Curia, a close friend of the pope and long time exorcist for the Archdiocese
of Rome... (Bio lifted from Wikipedia)

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21579
Online
« #164 : April 11, 2007, 02:01:38 PM »


1. Let's start with the "feathered" dinosaurs from Liaoning province.

2. As far as point 2 on your list, you are continuing to argue a point that can fit ID, Creation, Intervention, and Evolution all in one. That's what I keep trying to tell you.

3. As to point 3, as I sit here chuckling, you just proved my point. In evolution traits that are hindrances and serve no useful function should be weeded out by evolution.

4. I clearly over-simplified the domesticated species. Just think about Dolphins as an example of what I am talking about. Dolphins just happen to fight all instincts of survival, on a regular basis, to protect humans from sharks. I'm sure we had some brethren somewhere running around breeding dolphins many centuries ago (doubt that!).


Yeah umm, you still don't "get it". You keep showing this over and over again.

1. All the fossils are bad? Funny how, oh I don't, everyone seems to think they're good fossils. Fedducci's The Origin and Evolution of Birds does reject dino-bird evolution but instead has a different evolutionary path for avians. He doesn't doubt evolution just the specific path proposed by most - I know, I've read the friggin' book. Feduccia argues they came from reptilian ancestors “basal thecodonts” so he's still on the reptiles to bird kick just not the same one everyone else is on. He's also not accepted by most people who work with Dinos since his speciality is modern avians. Experts think his analysis of the fossil record is inaccurate. More importantly, the fact that someone disagrees with someone else is pretty much par for the course. Creationists love this stuff but since this is science and not faith there will be differences of opinions and when people make less than 100% certain statements it is because science isn't theology.

Worse is that is your assertion that "the oldest undisputed bird, Archaeopteryx, is 153 million years old". No, Archaeopteryx isn't a bird and this reflects, again, your lack of understanding of the subject matter. It has the following "bird" features: Feathers, Opposable big toe, wishbone, an elongated pubic bone that is directed backward but it has an even longer list of non-avian features that are disctinctly reptlian: no beak, teeth, trunk region vertebra are free, bones are pneumatic, neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds, long bony tail with many free vertebrae and no pygostyle, ribs are fixed, while the pubis is avian the pelvic girdle is reptilian, nasal opening far forward, claws on 3 unfused digits, fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg, foot bones free among many others. It is clearly not a "bird" and none of these fossils are what we'd explicitly call birds. They reflect the transitions creationists want but, of course, creationists want one transition because they don't get the nature of evolution being a long-term change.

2. You still don't get biogeography - well you do to the extent that you fall back on the typical creationist bunk "Who knows why god does anything". The problem is that he just chose to do it in the one place evolution says it wouldn't be. Biogeography isn't an issue for evolution since evolution doesn't claim animals should be everywhere and, in particular with mammalian evolution, the direction has been land -> sea and not vice versa so island colonization is not expected. Elephants on atolls would be proof of *poof* god put them there but their abscence is totally expected from an evolutionary viewpoint.

There's also the large marsuapial problem in Australia and the lack of placental mammals are in Australia. Evolution explains this by noting that placental mammals have an advatage over marsuapials and so run the marsupials off except where marsupials are isolated and not asked to compete with the placentals in placs, oh I don't know, like Australia. I guess god didn't want fill in the gaps or he knew kangaroos would be a cool tourist attraction.

Humans and apes are another great example. Humans are most closely related to apes and they should therefore have geographic affinity for those locations. Bingo, where do we find the oldest hominid fossils? Africa where the great apes live. Why would god do such a thing just to keep it straight with the DNA?

We see the same trend with equines where all the 58m years the fossils of horse ancestors are all found in close proximity to one another. You never see transitional form X in Asia and Y in Australia for example.

3. No your comment "traits that are hindrances and serve no useful function should be weeded out by evolution" shows that you don't get the subject. First, things that serve no function are evolutionary neutral. If trait X doesn't affect your ability to pass on your genes then evolution doesn't care. Human eye color would be an example of a trait evolution doesn't care about. Now if women stop sleeping with anyone but blue eyed men you'll see an evolutionary shift because it does matter. Hindrances will get weeded out but only if those hinderances stop the ability to pass on your genes. While prostrate problems are a hindrances they don't stop you from reproducing. Choking is a suck thing but not enough of us choke to matter in species level terms. Homosexual; rape is a poor way to reproduce but, if it works no matter how clumsy it is, it will survive. Evolution doesn't make better animals it just rewards animals who happen to survive. You don't have to be perfect, just good enough to work.

ID has the design problem because it claims "intelligent design" so it does have to answer for design flaws since the "proof" of this bogus theory is that things are so well "designed" it can't be random - the watchmaker theory. So when we find random features that serve no function (body hair on humans, legs in whales) presents an unintelligent limit (blind spot in human eyes not in other eyes) or something downright goofy (reproducing via homosexual rape) those things are a problem for an "intelligent" design concept. In terms of random mutations and good enough to work evolution those traits make sense not only because they do not stop gene transmission but they also point to inherited traits -human ancestors were more fuzzy like apes at some point, whale ancestors were land animals.

4. Dolphins are less likely helping humans than attacking sharks. Many dophins in the wild have scars of shark attacks and dolphins are both territorial nd aggressive so those things make them likely to attack a large predator in their area. Plus, the sheer fact that something does something to help us hardly implies domestication which is really a rather more complex set of traits.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
  Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Newsweek Poll: 90% Believe in God - Evolution? Not So Much.. High Five! « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools