Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 232 (129023)
07-30-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by AdminNosy
07-30-2004 1:33 AM


Re: Adam's atoms
The decay of Adam I was talking about was that his lifespan decayed, first from eternal, then to about a thousand years. I never even thought about some direct radioactive decay for the man. The link was in association, that, hey, if a whole man full of atoms, and water, and gook, and brains, etc. can suddenly have a 'decay' rate (ie death, expiry,termination, then, since it possibly happened at the time of the split, why, by extension, would not all physical creation now be likewise affected. Perhaps the wording was fuzzy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by AdminNosy, posted 07-30-2004 1:33 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Loudmouth, posted 07-30-2004 5:59 PM simple has not replied
 Message 229 by AdminNosy, posted 07-30-2004 6:07 PM simple has not replied
 Message 231 by jar, posted 07-30-2004 6:25 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 232 (129024)
07-30-2004 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
07-30-2004 12:05 AM


'book of clues'
You have no evidence for evolution. What evidence you think you have is only your error in veiwing it the wrong way. What evidence there is, we both have (except for the bible, and creator, which you seem not to want to include) so all that remains is to properly interpret it. This is impossible in your case without the 'book of clues'. Which is why you must resort to childish 'na na na na nya, everybody's against you, evolution's king of the castle' type of arguements.!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 07-30-2004 12:05 AM jar has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 232 (129025)
07-30-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
07-30-2004 5:51 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
quote:
The link was in association, that, hey, if a whole man full of atoms, and water, and gook, and brains, etc. can suddenly have a 'decay' rate (ie death, expiry,termination, then, since it possibly happened at the time of the split, why, by extension, would not all physical creation now be likewise affected.
Actually, decay rates would have had to been higher in the past to make sense of the data in the field. And by higher, I mean by 1 million percent. If radioactive decay rates were directly linked to human lifespans, then the earth would date to only 4,000 years instead of 4.5 billion years.
Also, lifespans have nothing to do with the atoms that make up your body, at least not directly. Lifespans are controlled by your genes. Evidence of this is experiments where genetically engineered mice outlive their normal counterparts by a factor of 3. This same thing has been done in fruitflies as well, except in the fruitflies extended ages were acquired through artificial selection.
So, for your lifespan/decay rates argument to work you need to figure out why they would be in direct contrast to each other and the the genetic link between lifespans and genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM simple has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 229 of 232 (129026)
07-30-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
07-30-2004 5:51 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
Perhaps the wording was fuzzy.
No, the wording had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It had no thought behind it at all. It is gibberish pretending to be something intelligent.
If you wish to continue to be able to debate I suggest you demonstrate that you can actually read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 232 (129028)
07-30-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by mark24
07-30-2004 4:41 AM


little retard bubble
quote:
That teeny little scientific rule that requires evidence is a problem for you?
You can't evidence God physically, so He must be exempt from the usual criteria, otherwise you simply piss in the wind, and get all wet. You may not see Him blowing, but you ignore Him at your own loss.
quote:
science requires evidence except for god which it must simply accept as being true. It's not consistent, equitable, or logical.
It is the essence of logic, and it is certain science will adapt.
quote:
There is no scientifically valid evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING banged out miracles.
Only because johnny come lately so called science, whose underlying philosophy is to count everything out that is of the spirit, doesn't chose to believe eyewitnesses, who gave their life as proof it was true. It is a well known fact that He and they did bang out miracles. Unless you have a time machine, you can't detect this, and have only your disbelief. This does not change the facts, just because there was no real science much to speak of then, unless we count the 'wise men' who were said to purse true knowledge, and it led them smack dab to the Messiah!
quote:
Science is a process by which we inductively derive a hypothesis, & with the exception of anything arkathon wants to be true, we must have evidence for & deductively test that hypothesis
Since you are so lame at testing for spiritual things, they can not fall under your current scientific handicap requirement of only physical, touchable, etc. Otherwise the fair sounding 'we must be able to test it' becomes nothing in this world more than a filter to filter out God, and His creation. Once they are filtered out, you have insanity, when it comes to cosmology (big bang, speck) and orgins (granny bacteria, mother of all living, and her rodent like offspring who sprung out whales, and all mammals!) Sure you still might be able to come up with nikes, and a bunch of other things, but you may not get out of your little retard bubble in the big picture like that!
quote:
as a point of fact, the Dark Ages are long gone & were filled with the kind of christianity you long for.
No, they were in as much darkness as the evos in today's retard bubble! Probably more stinky, as they falsely laid claim on God.
quote:
he moment you make an exception for something scientifically, it becomes pseudo-science.
The moment you don't make an exception to trying to fit the Almighty in a little box of physical criteria, you become science falsely so called!
quote:
The reason god can't be included in science is because there's no evidence
True, not in the 'physical only' allowed in the retard bubble of course He won't go in there. He's a Spirit! And besides, even though His fingerprints are all over creation, and eyewitnesses coming out of the woodwork, you don't want to acknowledge the evidence in the physical that we do have!
quote:
This reduces your argument to being against a scientific methodology that requires evidence.
That requires physical evidence for a spiritual God, yes. He's a well known exception to your rules, and philosophy of science.
{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}
[Note: This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by mark24, posted 07-30-2004 4:41 AM mark24 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 231 of 232 (129029)
07-30-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
07-30-2004 5:51 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
The decay of Adam I was talking about was that his lifespan decayed, first from eternal, then to about a thousand years.
First, you have no evidence other than the mention in the Bible that there ever was an Adam. Second, in the mention in the Bible there is no indication that his lifespan would have ever been eternal. Third, there is no indication in the Bible that Adams lifespan was shortened in anyway.
And once again you bring up the split. You have never offered any evidence that there ever was a split.
Do you have any evidence for anything?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM simple has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 232 of 232 (129030)
07-30-2004 6:36 PM


Topic Closed
You may take this to Suggestions and Questions if you feel this is uncalled for.
The frequent use of the word retarded seems to hint at where this has gotten to. I see no recent progress in this thread.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024