What Do We Really Know About Our Beliefs?

ixoye_8 said:
what does who arrested him matter ???
Click to expand...

Because it demonstrates the point that at the time, the people who disagreed with Galileo did so from an authoritarian/scriptural literalist POV, not from a scientific one.

different species can reproduce, but the new specie cannot sustain itself ..
Click to expand...
So if we have two populations that are unable to breed with each other, but can fully reproduce themselves, are they different species?

on earth .. yes (earth means land)
in the water .. no
why, do you think the water would drown a fish ???
Click to expand...
First of all, crabs, lobsters, and trilobites aren't fish. Second, a necessary consequence of flooding the entire globe would be a massive input of sediment to the sea floor. That's why young-earth creationists insist that trilobite fossils and the like are all evidence of the flood. But by the same reasoning, there should be crabs, lobsters, and other modern sea floor dwelling organisms mixed in as well. But there aren't. Ever.

Why not?

your NEVER is incorrect ..
Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
Click to expand...
Source please.

Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer. What does "let the earth bring forth" mean to you?
 
RiverJordan
Because it demonstrates the point that at the time, the people who disagreed with Galileo did so from an authoritarian/scriptural literalist POV, not from a scientific one.

fine .. the secular world disbelieved it as well ..
even though it was written it was round in scripture..

So if we have two populations that are unable to breed with each other, but can fully reproduce themselves, are they different species?

just make your point please ..

First of all, crabs, lobsters, and trilobites aren't fish. Second, a necessary consequence of flooding the entire globe would be a massive input of sediment to the sea floor. That's why young-earth creationists insist that trilobite fossils and the like are all evidence of the flood. But by the same reasoning, there should be crabs, lobsters, and other modern sea floor dwelling organisms mixed in as well. But there aren't. Ever.

I never said they were .. but like fish, they live in the water and as such would not have drowned ..
water gushed forth from below the sea floor .. that would keep that area clear ..

Why not?

I doubt that is so .. give me a minute and I'll find where they have ..

Source please.

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/

You didn't answer. What does "let the earth bring forth" mean to you?
God SPOKE and plants grew ..
the Hebrew word used is yatsa' which means "to issue" .. the same word translated as "flowed" in the verse below .. however the Hebrew says yatsa' yatsa' .. which means issue and be able to issue .. thus the beginning of all ..

Gen 2:10 Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.
 
Last edited:
Ixoye, isn't it interesting how there are some people who despite the evidence and facts, will never concede defeat / apologize / give credit / thanks / reach a consensus. They simply move on to the next ''fact''.
 
ixoye_8 said:
fine .. the secular world disbelieved it as well ..
even though it was written it was round in scripture..
Click to expand...
No, the "secular world" had already accepted Copernicus' earlier work. It was only religious authorities who refused to recognize reality, largely out of authoritarianism and scriptural hyper-literalism.

So if we have two populations that are unable to breed with each other, but can fully reproduce themselves, are they different species?

just make your point please ..
Click to expand...
Please answer the question and we'll proceed. Is there a reason you're refusing to answer?

I never said they were .. but like fish, they live in the water and as such would not have drowned ..
water gushed forth from below the sea floor .. that would keep that area clear ..
Click to expand...
So you don't believe any aquatic organisms at all were killed in the flood? The young-earth creationist organizations are wrong?

Source please.

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/
Click to expand...
This is what the website states regarding modern organisms being found mixed in with ancient ones, "Professor F.S. Holmes (paleontologist and curator of the College of Charleston’s Natural History Museum) described the fossil graveyard in a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences: “Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards.”"

That's far too vague to be of any use. The author then imposes his own viewpoint onto this quote, but that's it. In looking through original surveys and studies of the fossil fauna of that area, I don't see any mention of what this website is claiming. (HERE, HERE, and HERE)

You didn't answer. What does "let the earth bring forth" mean to you?
God SPOKE and plants grew ..
the Hebrew word used is yatsa' which means "to issue" .. the same word translated as "flowed" in the verse below .. however the Hebrew says yatsa' yatsa' .. which means issue and be able to issue .. thus the beginning of all ..
Click to expand...
Right, God spoke and then everything proceeded on its own. God created by letting the earth bring forth things.

ok .. trilobites are not extinct ..
Click to expand...
????? They aren't? Where can I find some living today?
 
KingJ said:
Ixoye, isn't it interesting how there are some people who despite the evidence and facts, will never concede defeat / apologize / give credit / thanks / reach a consensus. They simply move on to the next ''fact''.
Click to expand...
Who are you referring to?
 
I wanted to make sure first. So you've directly accused me of basically ignoring facts and just "moving on", I expect you to back that accusation up with some specific examples. After all, you wouldn't accuse someone of something without basis, would you?
 
KingJ said:
Ixoye, isn't it interesting how there are some people who despite the evidence and facts, will never concede defeat / apologize / give credit / thanks / reach a consensus. They simply move on to the next ''fact''.
Click to expand...

indeed .. I'm still waiting for the proof of evolution that was claimed ..

just a lot of circular reasoning ..

Trilobites and graptolites are what they call an “index fossil”. They’re supposed to have evolved from bacteria from 4 billion years ago and went extinct 500 million years ago. They are supposed to be our ancestor. They call it an index fossil because if they find fossils with trilobites then they “know” that the fossil is approximately 500 million years old and they use that to determine the age of the strata layer it was found in. The major problem with this is that they’ve found living graptolites! They’ve also found fossils with known modern materials along with trilobites. How in the world do you account for that and still say that they can be used to determine the age of anything?
 
I think the funniest thing is the term "micro-evolution" ..
it was made up as a intermediate term to try and substantiate the unprovable .. when in reality what is claimed as such, is only adaptation, mutation and genetic drift which are natural occurrences within a specie and have NEVER been proven to lead to evolution ..
 
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?


Dating the rocks
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
1) When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2) After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and
3) The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.
The potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating method is often used to date volcanic rocks (and by extension, nearby fossils). In using this method, it is assumed that there was no daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they formed. For volcanic rocks which cool from molten lavas, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Because argon is a gas, it should escape to the atmosphere due to the intense heat of the lavas. Of course, no geologist was present to test this assumption by observing ancient lavas when they cooled, but we can study modern lava flows, and they have proven their assumption is FALSE.

The K–Ar (potassium-argon) dating method
Fossils are almost never dated by radiometric methods, since they rarely contain suitable radioactive elements. A common way of dating fossils (and rocks which do not contain radioactive elements) is by ‘dating’ an associated volcanic rock. This is commonly done using the K–Ar method. It depends on the rate at which radioactive potassium decays into the gas argon.
The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the ‘clock’ begins to ‘tick’ the moment that the rock hardens. That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate. However, it is well-known that if a radiometric ‘date’ contradicts a fossil-derived (evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous. See Lubenow, M., The pigs took it all, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995.

FLOW DATE
SAMPLE LAB CODE K–Ar ‘AGE’ (million years)

11 February 1949
A R-11714 <0.27
B R-11511 1.0 ± 0.2

4 June 1954
A R-11715 <0.27
B R-11512 1.5 ± 0.1

30 June 1954
A #1 R-11718 <0.27
A #2 R-12106 1.3 ± 0.3
B #1 R-12003 3.5 ± 0.2
B #2 R-12107 0.8 ± 0.2
C R-11513 1.2 ± 0.2

14 July 1954
A R-11509 1.0 ± 0.2
B R-11716 <0.29

19 February 1975
A R-11510 1.0 ± 0.2
B R-11717 <0.27
 
pretty funny .. brand new rock in 1954 was 3.5 million years old ..
they ASSUME there is X amount of parent material to begin with and they ASSUME no leaching occurs to fix a date .. that's what you call disingenuous or JUNK SCIENCE ..

they KNOW there is no way to know if any of the 3 arbitrary assumptions are so .. yet these pseudo-scientists claim dates as "a fact" of their monkey religion ..
 
Last edited:
no natural mechanism, then all you have is faith in a theory ..

I for one would like to know how you define natural mechanism. Apparently early bombardment doesn't seem to qualify in your book.

random bombardment of elements not EVER to be shown in these cosmic bodies does not qualify ..

you see, to show "plausibility", you must show a GREAT MAJORITY of the building blocks of life on these cosmic bodies .. not just a few .. and also a means for them to bind and a means for acquiring the correct order needed .. the odds on the order I am guessing are a trillion to one .. if not more ..

a natural mechanism is defined as "without help" ..

DNA forms because the "command code" to replicate .. where is this command code" in these random "building blocks of life" come from prior to assembly ??? .. life exists ONLY because it has data to tell it to .. what tells sperm to "swim" ??? .. you see, this is NOT random, but a specified order of assembly ..

you see, God "outsmarted" the scientists by making human life not able to procreate without two existing parents .. a human cannot come into being by itself without two donors first .. PLEASE EXPLAIN how the "building blocks of life" can become a human without two parents ..

which came first the egg or the chicken ???

the egg cannot exist without both rooster and chicken .. thus no random assembly is possible .. all humans carry both chromosomes ..

coincidence .. I think not ..

according to Penn State University, a human DNA sequence, if it were a half an inch of a twine, would stretch from New York to the the west coast of California.

the very smallest thing out of place could easily caused mankind from ever reproducing even if there was a way mankind could have his entire sequencing correctly assembled randomly to begin with ..

a single nucleotide change can lead to inheritance of sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or breast cancer. A single nucleotide difference can alter protein function in such a way that it causes a terrible tissue malfunction. Single nucleotide changes have been linked to hereditary differences in height, brain development, facial structure, pigmentation, and many other striking morphological differences; due to single nucleotide changes, hands can develop structures that look like toes instead of fingers, and a mouse's tail can disappear completely.

I would love to hear how this EXTREMELY COMPLEX sequencing was assembled to begin with ..

let's start with the enriching primordial soup petri dish that had the correct temp, and elements .. so what was mankind ??? .. a bacteria which sequenced itself to become mankind ???

first you need to show HOW it is possible for all the correct building blocks to be present at the same time ..

then HOW all the correct building blocks could bind together ..

then HOW they could all bind CORRECTLY ..

then HOW these building blocks achieved animation ..

next you need to show HOW it is possible for a for a bacteria to become a fish/animal (transcend classifications)

next you need to show HOW it is possible for a animal to become a primate (transcend family)

next you need to show HOW it is possible for a chimpanzee to become a man (transcend specie)

We have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48 ..
Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins, chromosomes don't just up and vanish. In fact, it's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes ..

BTW: scientist have never been able to create a natural primordial soup needed in the binding process they think randomly happened .. as far as I know, they just "gloss over" this now (gave up) and just "say it happened" even though this is the key to evolution ..

sweep it under the rug, no one will notice we can't connect random life without it ..

in other words, scientist say "life began randomly and naturally" (natural mechanism) .. yet scientist cannot prove life can begin naturally ..

quite a leap of faith, and very unscientific without showing any plausibility ..
 
Last edited:
ixoye,

You're jumping all over the place and ignoring most of what I posted, including a few important questions. Let's please not jump to 10 new subjects until we've covered the one's we were already discussing, all right?

In my last post to you, I asked a few questions...

So if we have two populations that are unable to breed with each other, but can fully reproduce themselves, are they different species?

So you don't believe any aquatic organisms at all were killed in the flood? The young-earth creationist organizations are wrong?

As far as living trilobites as you claimed, the website you linked to says, "Very primitive looking creature that resembles a trilobite." You do understand that "resembles a trilobite" is not the same as "is a living trilobite", don't you?

I don't mind covering the other things you brought up, but not until we're finished with the above.
 
i am not an expert on scientific matters, one thing that evolutionist have never been able to produce or prove is an ape that evolves into a man... yet, the word evolution is used so frequently as to make the population think that a simple adaptation is evolution hence affirming the scientific field of their claim, even though it is a fantasy claim. Since most people trust in science to be above reproach and they keep hearing the word evolution hence they blindly believe that anything the science field says it is it must be. Keep on repeating the same thing and it becomes truth eventually...
 
RosaVera said:
i am not an expert on scientific matters
Click to expand...
So how did you come to such firm conclusions on scientific matters then?

one thing that evolutionist have never been able to produce or prove is an ape that evolves into a man
Click to expand...
Because "an ape turning into a man" isn't evolution...at all.

... yet, the word evolution is used so frequently as to make the population think that a simple adaptation is evolution hence affirming the scientific field of their claim, even though it is a fantasy claim.
Click to expand...
So even though you're a self-admitted non-expert on science, you've decided you're qualified enough to declare all of evolutionary biology a "fantasy claim"? How does that work?

Since most people trust in science to be above reproach and they keep hearing the word evolution hence they blindly believe that anything the science field says it is it must be. Keep on repeating the same thing and it becomes truth eventually...
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that for most people who never actually study the biological sciences, it does come down to trust. But for those of us who do study biology, it's a matter of seeing the data and evidence for ourselves and reaching what is quite honestly, a very, very obvious conclusion.
 
RiverJordan said:
ixoye,

You're jumping all over the place and ignoring most of what I posted, including a few important questions. Let's please not jump to 10 new subjects until we've covered the one's we were already discussing, all right?

sure, I 'll play your little game with you .. agreed ..

In my last post to you, I asked a few questions...

So if we have two populations that are unable to breed with each other, but can fully reproduce themselves, are they different species?

I would think so ..

So you don't believe any aquatic organisms at all were killed in the flood? The young-earth creationist organizations are wrong?

perhaps some did from sediment, the majority of them would not by an increase of their natural living environment .. as to YE orgs .. your blanket statement is faulty ..

As far as living trilobites as you claimed, the website you linked to says, "Very primitive looking creature that resembles a trilobite." You do understand that "resembles a trilobite" is not the same as "is a living trilobite", don't you?

you do understand they RESEMBLE the fossils .. I also resemble fossils of man ..
the website was just unwilling to say they ARE because they are leaving that up to science to make that connection .. so if they are not, and look identical to the fossils, then what are they ???

I don't mind covering the other things you brought up, but not until we're finished with the above.

so conclude it, so I can press you on the GIANT holes in the highly implausible incomplete theory of evolution ..
Click to expand...
 
RosaVera said:
i am not an expert on scientific matters, one thing that evolutionist have never been able to produce or prove is an ape that evolves into a man...

but they do try, and have been caught in many of their hoaxes ..

yet, the word evolution is used so frequently as to make the population think that a simple adaptation is evolution hence affirming the scientific field of their claim, even though it is a fantasy claim.

I have never seen a theory that has NEVER been proven not abandoned after over 150 years, they hold on to so hard .. you know the motive obviously is outweighing the science ..

Since most people trust in science to be above reproach and they keep hearing the word evolution hence they blindly believe that anything the science field says it is it must be.

therein lays the problem .. never before (except in evolution) has so many hoaxes and poor interpretation of data and unscientific methodology been misapplied ..

Keep on repeating the same thing and it becomes truth eventually...

that is their hopes because of the motivation behind it ..
Click to expand...
 
ixoye,

Since we agree that if two populations are physically unable to interbreed, yet they each can reproduce within their own populations, then they are different species, then you should read this...

http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/7/1022.abstract

Basically, whenever a certain two different species of goatsbeard (genus Tragopogon) come into contact with each other, they produce a hybrid offspring that is unable to interbreed with either of the parent species, but fully reproduces on its own. The newly evolved species is actually more robust and fit than the parent species.

So according to the criteria we agreed to, the evolution of new species is an observed fact. I have many other examples of the observed evolution of new species from many different taxa (insects, birds, lizards, fish) if you're interested.

perhaps some did from sediment, the majority of them would not by an increase of their natural living environment .. as to YE orgs .. your blanket statement is faulty ..
Click to expand...
Sorry, but young-earth creationist organizations frequently attribute trilobite fossils to the flood. Answers in Genesis (HERE, and HERE) and the Institute for Creation Research (HERE) are the two most prominent examples. Another one is HERE.

you do understand they RESEMBLE the fossils .. I also resemble fossils of man ..
Click to expand...
Because you are a man. You don't resemble a man, you are one.

the website was just unwilling to say they ARE because they are leaving that up to science to make that connection
Click to expand...
Right, and no scientist has made that connection, so your claim that trilobites are not extinct is false.

so if they are not, and look identical to the fossils, then what are they ?
Click to expand...
The website you linked to says what it is. It's a Serolis isopod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top