The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-03-2015, 01:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: What tangible evidence do you have that life proceeded as described in the creation myth?

Cuz it sez so in the Babble. Which iz pracally like the oldest book ever, n' God wrote it.

[Rotobeast]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests/

[Rotobeast]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm

Darn phone wouldn't let me put both links in the same post. :angry:

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 01:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: Actually, that's a fact. The earliest bird fossils go back to 150 million years ago. The earliest mammal fossils go back to 220 million years ago.

Man evolved from a primate ancestor, but all life traces back to early prokaryotic organisms. Those were present in both sea and on land.

What tangible evidence do you have that life proceeded as described in the creation myth?

Don't you mean discovered fossils? Maybe somebody just hasn't turned over the right rock yet.

Where did this "prokaryotic organisim" evolve from? I assume from a protocell, but unfortunately, a central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach. (so it's a fact that we cannot prove this, we just got to believe that it is close). 

Just as much as you have for your theory of Evolution.

The more science learns, the more it confirms the scripture.

And once again you didn't answer the only question asked: Did man come from the sea or the trees or are you one of those both people or can you not be sure?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-03-2015, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The more science learns, the more it confirms the scripture.

LOL

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't you mean discovered fossils? Maybe somebody just hasn't turned over the right rock yet.

Where did this "prokaryotic organisim" evolve from? I assume from a protocell, but unfortunately, a central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach. (so it's a fact that we cannot prove this, we just got to believe that it is close). 

Just as much as you have for your theory of Evolution.

The more science learns, the more it confirms the scripture.

And once again you didn't answer the only question asked: Did man come from the sea or the trees or are you one of those both people or can you not be sure?

You mean the scripture where the earth and seas were created BEFORE light and light before the Stars and the sun?


That scripture?

Or do you have a special one that says something different?

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 11:14 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests/

(08-03-2015, 11:17 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm

Darn phone wouldn't let me put both links in the same post. :angry:

Its still the water and the chemicals more than the clay.

But I'm sure this is "proof" for people who think the sun was created by God before the Earth because it doesn't say that in the Bible.  

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 11:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did this "prokaryotic organisim" evolve from? I assume from a protocell, but unfortunately, a central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose

Actually, thats a question for biogenesis, not evolution. And I have answered your question. But you have not answered mine. So let's try this again:

What tangible evidence do you have to show that life has proceeded as described in the creation myth?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 12:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: Actually, thats a question for biogenesis, not evolution. And I have answered your question. But you have not answered mine. So let's try this again:

What tangible evidence do you have to show that life has proceeded as described in the creation myth?

I did answer it when I said I have just as much "proof" as you; it is called faith. You have "faith" in your theory and I have faith in my belief. As for tangible evidence; I have eyes. I  can show numerous examples that casts doubt on the theory of evolution, most predominately would be the lack of transition fossils. Evolutionist will just put a bunch of extinct ape fossils beside each other and say "see, evolution".

So let's pretend I can't read between the lines. Did man come from the trees or the sea? 

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I did answer it when I said I have just as much "proof" as you; it is called faith. You have "faith" in your theory and I have faith in my belief. As for tangible evidence; I have eyes. I  can show numerous examples that casts doubt on the theory of evolution, most predominately would be the lack of transition fossils. Evolutionist will just put a bunch of extinct ape fossils beside each other and say "see, evolution".

So let's pretend I can't read between the lines. Did man come from the trees or the sea? 

[Rotobeast]

(08-03-2015, 12:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Its still the water and the chemicals more than the clay.

But I'm sure this is "proof" for people who think the sun was created by God before the Earth because it doesn't say that in the Bible.  

They clay provides safe harbor from outside interference.

I'm not a big debater in the whole "things happened exactly this way", as man is fallible and certainly could have made errors in God's Word.
I'm also a believer in the idea that Council of Nicaea made selective choices with the Texts, to mold society in to their ideals.

For note, I find this rather interesting....
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

[GodHatesBengals]

"YOU JUST HAVE FAITH IN REALITY"

[Rotobeast]

(08-03-2015, 01:35 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: "YOU JUST HAVE FAITH IN REALITY"

I truly enjoy the fact that you give God credibility, within your screen name.
You even capitalized it.
Bravo !
 

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 01:35 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: "YOU JUST HAVE FAITH IN REALITY"

Why did man the lives in cold climate lose the hair that covers his body as he "evolved"? Seems to kind of go against the "reality" of evolution doesn't it?

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 01:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: They clay provides safe harbor from outside interference.

I'm not a big debater in the whole "things happened exactly this way", as man is fallible and certainly could have made errors in God's Word.
I'm also a believer in the idea that Council of Nicaea made selective choices with the Texts, to mold society in to their ideals.

For note, I find this rather interesting....
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

And that's all I meant.

Was it clay in the bible? Dirt? What is the translation?

But for someone who can't admit that the story they are trying to wedge into science says the earth was made before "light" and the sun came after that they would look and say "The bible is right!".

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did man the lives in cold climate lose the hair that covers his body as he "evolved"? Seems to kind of go against the "reality" of evolution doesn't it?

He started wearing clothes.

Next.

[Rotobeast]

(08-03-2015, 01:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: And that's all I meant.

Was it clay in the bible? Dirt? What is the translation?

But for someone who can't admit that the story they are trying to wedge into science says the earth was made before "light" and the sun came after that they would look and say "The bible is right!".

That was part of the reason I included my link.
It is said that the translation in which Judas "betrayed" Jesus actually should have merely been "handed over".
Whether it be translation or decision on canon, man goofs quite a bit.
The important thing is that you are brought to a better life, whether it be faith in a book, a rock, the sun, or science.
Faith produces chemical components within our brain that leads to a happier, healthier life.
I'm quite sure that arguing said faith is detrimental to that benefit.

Whether it is technically clay, dust, or dirt..... does it truly matter ?

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I did answer it when I said I have just as much "proof" as you; it is called faith. You have "faith" in your theory and I have faith in my belief. As for tangible evidence; I have eyes. I  can show numerous examples that casts doubt on the theory of evolution, most predominately would be the lack of transition fossils. Evolutionist will just put a bunch of extinct ape fossils beside each other and say "see, evolution".

Faith is not evidence. There is plenty of tangible evidence available showing evolution as the way life progresses. Evidence that can be held, evidence that can be studied. There is no such evidence for creationism. So you do not have just as much evidence as me. You have none. And fossils are not the only tangible evidence for evolution.

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did man the lives in cold climate lose the hair that covers his body as he "evolved"? Seems to kind of go against the "reality" of evolution doesn't it?

Not if the evolution of his brain allowed him to invent other ways to keep warm, such as using the skins of the animals he hunted. Humans had already become less hairy when still in warm climates. The evolution of man's brain allowed him to spread farther afield, even into colder climates where other more tropical species would not survive because they used brain power to overcome the temperature obstacle and adapt.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-03-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did man the lives in cold climate lose the hair that covers his body as he "evolved"? Seems to kind of go against the "reality" of evolution doesn't it?

Actually it makes plenty of sense to people who actually listened to their biology teacher instead of sleep through class and grow up to watch Kent Hovind videos on YouTube.