AMMO Kid said:
As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument). But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago." It's formed on observational science. Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species. A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...
I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.
Of course amino acids can't survive in water. That's why we use them to stabilise the pH value of solutions, and quite a high amount of them is floating around in our bloodstream. Also, we extract some from the food we eat since our bodies can't produce them themselves.
But of course, blood and digestive liquids contain no water. That's why we never ever have to drink anything.
Oh, and did you ever have a common flu? Lots of RNA floating around in your body, not counting the high amount of RNA you probably expelled at high speed through your nose, neatly encapsuled in protein shells. Of course, that's only the RNA that isn't produced anyway in your own body, as blueprint for building proteins so you can, you know, live and think and stuff. Although you don't seem to have that second part figured out yet...
As for the bones, that has already been answered. I think by DracoSuave, who is now considered - by me - an unsung hero carrying the light of truth through this thread. Also, his avatar shows a nice-looking guy (himself?) wearing a top-hat. You can't argue against someone wearing a top-hat ;-)
monfang said:
So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?
Yes, a book where it is stated that the Greeks supposedly had great paleontologists who, during the Greco-Roman era, were supposedly able to figure out dinosaur behavior without the aid of computers that we only recently been able to think of though the use of Computer simulations. and NOWHERE else had anyone else had even the thought of such a thing possible.
Her statements requires that the Greeks and Romans had knowledge that we only recently figured out though machines. Something I call a stretch of the imagination.
The Greeks and Romans might have... you know, guessed? Also, no one I ever heard of "figured out" gryphon behaviour. Apparently, the knowledge of these early paleontologists wasn't that amazing. They dug up some old bones, misinterpreted them and made up stories about their origin. Not exactly scientific, but at least they didn't outright ignore, reject and condemn any evidence that might counter their assumptions. The Greeks created the basic principles of modern science after all. So, thinking about it, you are currently ignoring about two millenia of developments in philosophy, science, mathematics and technology. Leave your desk now, as I said before, you are not allowed to use 21st-century technology anymore!
monfang said:
Hmm. I don't believe I can win this. By win, I mean convince you to change your mind. It might be for the best though. Ah well.
Lets shift gears. I can't convince you that Evolution is full of holes, so I will convince you that Creationism isn't. We'll start with treating Creationism like a science. First off, you can't. It isn't a scientific theory. It's a theory based on the same train of thought that Sherlock Holmes and detectives use. By using the facts that we see before us, we look for the truth. Often times, the wildest and craziest theories are often the truth.
"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.."
Ok, lets start with the impossible. Based on experiments that are still being advertised in school science books, Miller and Urey experiment, conditions in pre-life Earth made the amino acids that formed life. HOWEVER, the facts recorded show that it is impossible. First off, life requires 20 amino acids to survive. The Experiment only formed 15 at most. Also, there is always a third of those acids are left handed. Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.
"... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."
I'll wait for a response before going on. Maybe I'll make a topic just for this.
Oh yes, thanks for pointing that out. Correct, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be true. The thing is, though, that you applied this way of thinking incorrectly.
The creationist argument (all of them so far) are more along the lines of:
"I don't understand this, so it must be wrong".
So actually, in your case that quote should be:
"If you ignore the obvious, whatever remains, however improbable, must be defended by all means".
I don't want to tell you anything about amino acids right now. type it in any search engines, read whatever pops up. Use a proper search engine, though, not one tailored to creationist thinking, if anything like that exists.
kidd25 said:
first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm
also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
Your profile states that you are American... don't people speak something similar to English over there (rational Americans, please don't be offended. I just make the distiction between English as spoken in England and American, since these languages are different in many aspects)? Your posts are really hard to read, far beyond dyslexia.
You said we are made from earth (I think). That's astoundingly close to the truth, since all lifeforms consist of elements that occur naturally outside of lifeforms. Although that doesn't necessarily mean we were created by someone who mashed together some clay and breathed on it. Of course, everything that exists (as a physical object) must consist of something. You could just as well say we are made of the remains of stars (which is far closer to the truth and, at least in my opinion, a lot nicer than the clayman story)