I am soooooo grateful that you have entered my life. I have been saved! Halelluah!!

What the fuck ever. I do not believe that you have read Gish and Morris or you would not have said they are idiots. I guess anyone who opposses your viewpoint is an idiot. Gish and Morris are both VERY scientific and propose some good food for thought. An unbiased person would ponder some of the theories. Unless you are so vehmently AGAINST something (which it appears you are) you would pause and put down your bible of evolution for one second and realize that...

IT IS NOT TRUTH
EVOLUTION IS A THEORY
NOT FACT

I see here a fanatasism equal to religious ferver.

Yes, and it's yours. I have done nothing but attempt to correct your obvious misunderstandings of evolution.

You also misunderstand the scientific use of the word "theory"
No, evolution is not "fact", it is a theory. But then, gravity is also not a "fact". It too is a theory. But you won't see me jumping off a twenty story building.

Creationism however, is rubbish.:1orglaugh

Now that is some science for you! Hey, lets ditch the topic and switch to name calling. That is cool. I am game.

Your a fucking cock sucking asswipe with no common sense. How 'bout if I fuck with your obvious reference to sucking cock name?

Your religious zeal towards evolution is showing, Blowing Joe. Now why don't you go back to playing with your lego's and get off dad's computer [obvious slander towards age and maturity]

I can dream can't I :321GFY

Now I understand why your handle is drunkmonkey. You obviously have a lot of evolving to do.

your the one from the monkey, remember? Hell, your proud of the FACT that your great grandaddy was a monkey. Shit, you probably carry a picture of BJ and the Bear in your plastic batman wallet wishing for the good ole days.

oh shit! I just saw in your sig that you push Clickcash! Damn, you do come from monkey's! No, no, wait, you must come from snakes to affiliate with them skimming mofo's.

and thus, we discover the REAL reason for the objection to evolution. Not scientific... but ego. I'm still waiting for that list of books on evolution you've read. hahahahahahahaaha

But I won't hold my breath. I suspect you've never set eyes on one.

Evolution cant not be called a theory, it's part of our daily life, it's reality. As environement gradually changes, some genes that code for certain behavior of physical traits get deleted or mutated to suite the new environment. Evolution is very gradual, takes generations before some new traits are intoduced, but without it the life on Earth would not survive.

It's very distressing to have your arguments demolished isn't it? When you grow up and learn to read I can suggest some other books on evolution for you.

who also at one time believed the world was flat,
the moon was made of cheese,
the sun circled the earth,
and so forth and so on

don't be so closed minded, ass. And don't persecute those who are not.

the only thing you demolished is belief that there is intellegent life on your end of the internet

and, hey, can you suggest some good affiliates too while your at it :1orglaugh

I doubt you can spell your name. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Nero? We have a new one? Or the old one got tired of gardening?

Your shitting me, right? I could show you a snapshot of my fucking library. But, hell, what is the point to list all of the books I've read. Shit, you have read Gish and Morris and consider them ludicrous. Do you honestly think that if I listed another author then it would matter?

Of course they are ludicrous. They are both fundamentalist Christians who have no real scientific qualifications to speak of.

I guess that a PhD in biochemistry from Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering is pretty damn ludicrous. Man, those fucking Christians are an ignorant lot.

Lets get back to the flaming. It was much more enlightening.

And tell me, how does that make them qualified in biology or palentology?

And where was Morris' degree in Hydraulic Engineering from? Come on, tell us?

Neither of them are qualified in the appropriate fields which was my point. And they are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the old Testament so their agenda is quite clear.

So are you a Christian?

hey guys.. closed system or not entropy isn't a uniform occurrance while the overall entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, local areas can decrease at the expense of an increase elsewhere..

and no.. the solarsystem is not a closed system.. from the mere fact that we can observe the light that has travelled here from other systems that should be obvious

this does not have to degrade into name calling..

I did call him a moron much earlier on in response to a moronic post of his. But if you examine the thread I think you'll discover who has been calling who names.

I was arguing the topic until our primate friend, drunkmonkey, started hurling abuse.

This proves that you have not read anything by Dr. Morris. His books deal in the flood and the Hydraulics behind a catastrphic event using water. Very good stuff. Hence the degree in HYdraulic Engineering FROM The University of Minnesota.

Out of curiosity, can you outline the theory of creationism?

there are plenty of transitional forms... you have to pretty much not want to accept what you've asked for when you get lists like joe has provided... you asked for them.. you got a tiny fraction... "you can't then go.. oh well... yeah they look like transitional fossils... but... you know... theres lots of weird things out there..." and not look like you're trying to push the bar even further away after having that argument proven wrong.

Errr... that the world was created by an intelligent designer and that all species are fixed and immutable. Oh, and that the fossil record was laid down by a catastrophic flood. How's that?

Now can you do the same for evolution?

yes lets... theres not enough water in the whole solar system to cover the earth entirely... next..

Good point. However, the laws of thermodynamics (especially when you throw entropy in the mix) can be applied to either side of the argument. We all know that left to itself, everything eventually decays. We all also know that life could not exist if that were true. So how is this applied? It can work for both sides of the argument and the debate of closed systems and open systems is arguable as well. In reality, there is no closed system because everything in the universe affects everything else. The key is energy and transference in quantity.

My argument is that a person cannot say that the creationist theory is not true because it just isn't no more than a person can say that the evolutionist theory is not true because they say it is not. Both have valid arguments. And both deserve study.

The universe is a closed system. Evolution on earth is possible because of the energy the sun provides in the form of heat and light. That is the bottom line. You are not making any sense monkey.And where is the outline of evolution I asked you for?

Hey Bhutocracy, do you live in Brissie?

the facts are everywhere.. overwhelmingly so... you have to try... REALLY, REALLY hard to bend and twist the evidence to make it not so.. no one disputes the FACT of evolution.. they quibble over the minor details..
the only people that don't are the ones more willing to believe that a big guy in the sky borrowed water from other galaxies or poofed some into existence to cover the earth.. go on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics when by their own logic a seed could never become a tree without god intervening and making it so.. rather than looking at these mundane and obvious things and going.. "oh yeah thats seems likely"
they these elaborate and untenable fabrications to work around obivous evidence... but they can't look at a half bird, half lizard and go .. "oh yeah.. looks like a transition to me" it reminds me of the scene in that horrible joan of arc movie where dustin hoffman is chastising "joan" about how she found that sword in the field...he goes through about five ways.. a swordfight that disarms a guy and his sword is thrown there.. a sword falling off it's holster from the back of a horse as a guy was riding through it.. a guy getting grumpy and just chucking his sword out.. all these mundane and very probable and obvious things and he says to her "out of all the hundreds of plausible explanations for a sword coming to be in a field you chose this one - " and theres music and a sword descends slowly from heaven in a splay of light to lay in the field.... its human nature to want to believe in these thingss..

i would never argue that there is no god.. or creationist theory is definately not true.. only that they are very highly unlikely.
personally i love reading creationist ideas.. i just think that evolution is entirely more tenable. by a factor of many, many times.

byron

I guess that the definition of transitional is subjective. Assuming the vastness of the fossil records there is a suprising lack of "incomplete" animals making the transition from one species to another. Finding the fossil of a monkey with a large and less sloping forhead to me does not prove a theory. Neither does a bird with teeth. No more than finding a mammal that lays eggs or a bird that has wings but cannot fly prove to me that they evolved from anything. It stands as a possiblity but not a fact.

Close to Nimbin! Good stuff. I like Byron but don't get there often! :thumbsup

on your last point on thermodynamics.. how does it contradict life? everything does eventually decay.... and EVERYTHING will most likely eventually die out in billions of years.. when theres no more energy left and what not..

but many many of these "possibilities" inexorably do point in one direction..

Trust me when I say that the last thing that I want to believe is that there is some "big guy in the sky". I always am amazed (which is how I got involved in this debate) at how people associate creationism with religion. You are obviously not one of the people who do this. You stated that creationism is possible but highly unlikely. That is a statement worthy of kudos. I, however, am the exact opposite. I see evolution as highly unlikely. It is a debate worthy of study. I do not subsribe to the fact that if you give anything enough time then anything can happen. This may be fact but it will be unprovable for mankind unless we live for millions of years or create a time machine.

There is nothing which explains the fossil record itself other than a flood. Over millions of years the earth would have been overpopulated with humans. Radioactive dating is only applicable with the theory of uniformitarianism. And if that theory is correct then large prehistoric dinosaurs could not have lived. Dinosaurs would need huge amounts of lush vegetation and extreme tropical conditions worldwide. The earth is slowing down by approximately 1 second every ten months. That means that it was going faster in the past. If it was declining at the same rate then millions of years ago it was spinning so fast it could not support life. The salt in the oceans is increasing. Over millions of years it would be much more salty than the 3.6% it currently is. The earth's magnetic fiels is getting weaker...

There are a ton of things which are not properly addressed by evolution yet are addressed by creationism. I do dispute the FACT of evolution. I see the theory of creationism able to explain things scientifically more than the theory of evolution.

It is all in the symantics of the closed system and entropy arguments. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased.

It all depends on how you use the word entropy and closed system. this has been a raging debate for years. See "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Charles B. Thaxton.

:) just wait.. we're neck and neck with that other post.. im not sure i want to do all the work (with you and joe) to get him a dvd player :).. i don't want to sound too horrible to the guy that started it because normally i don't mind.. but that was a fire and run-away attempt to start a debate.. he hasn't even replied.. im being manipulated into getting him a dvd.... mate.. start a new thread (just so it's not me going after a dvd)

then again sleazy has won about ten dvd's and he's replied all throughout that thread.. so this is probably longer by 20 posts... *sigh*..

no shit! Who was that masked man that started this post? I think we just got hit by a drive by attempt at a DVD! Wish I would have thought of it :)

bhutocracy, I have enjoyed your posts. I think I am going to go to bed but I think we should start our own post tomorrow and continue the discussion if you are game. Hell, we could even win a DVD ourselves. I am sure there are enough people on your side of this argument to keep me typing for three years.