jar1961,

“you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...”

Well, look at all the evidence for our other theories: Gravitational theory, Atomic theory, Quantum theory, Germ theory, Cell theory, Electromagnetic theory, evolutionary theory, etc. etc. All of those are theories in science b/c they are all supported by large amounts of empiracally backed factual observations that produced falsifiable and testable predictions. The only reason you doubt evolution relative to other comparable theories is b/c if conflicts with your religion.

”Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....

Scopes is a failure? The Scopes trial was wehn evolution began to become taught in schools, how’s it a failure? If anything the over zealous religous folk are the ones who lost that battle.

How is ‘Lucy’ a failure exactly? You have no problem yammering how things are wrong, flawed, and so on, but provide no details as to why. Jar, we have more specimens than just ‘Lucy’. Lucy is old news, she was found over 30 years ago, we’ve found many others since then. Go back to the vids I provided earlier and take a look at some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

That’s a nice skull collection showing the clear transition over time and it will no doubt become more complete over time. The idea of a 'missing link' is a antiquated as thinking the earth is flat. How people like yourself can ignore actual physical evidence you can hold in your hand is perplexing.

‘Carbon dating radically flawed...”

It is? Good thing we have some 4 dozen other dating methods I guess.

“PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!”

That’s not what PE suggests either, do you even read anything you so openly critique? No where in PE does it state that a frog overnight becomes an ape. Here, read for a change. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

jar1961,

“It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion….. matter can neither be created or destroyed”

Origins of matter huh? You mentioned the first law regarding matter/energy and how neither can be created or destroyed, which is accurate, but this brings the next logical question. ‘If something exists as matter does and requires no causation for to exist in the first place, as the first law demonstrates, why then does one inject ‘god made matter’ into the equation in the first place? Its an entirely illogical argument.

Something like matter that requires no causation for it’s existence is devoid of creation in the first place, so to ask what causesed (sic)it is a logical fallacy.

“and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured (sic) the baby from the slime”

um, this is a strawman argument. For one, it doesn’t represent how evolution is suggested to work at all. No where in evolutionary biology is it stated that bacterium instantly transformed or out poofed a fully formed human child, this is a pure misunderstanding of the facts entirely. You’re strawman entirely ignores a key principle of evolution, which is DESCENT with modification. There is not instant ‘goo to you’ in evolution, rather the process is cumulative from species to species. Stating that bacteria could (somehow) give birth to a human demonstrates how inept and ill read you are with regards to biology, never mind evolution.

“how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time”

Why don’t you read up on ‘Y Chromosome emergence’, it’s all there. You assume too much. The first cells were asexual and swapped genetic information via Horizontal Gene Transfer, just like bacteria do today.

“Im not going to debate with you”

Well you haven’t responded to any of the evidence I submitted earlier, so it’s hardly a shocker.

“(sic) Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...”

No, the believer doesn’t win, as Pascal ignored the details involved. Pascal ignored all the other 3000+ possible gods one could worship and thus you could be believing the wrong one this whole time and in the end Ball or Amen Ra will still send you to hell. So, you better believe in Amen Ra and the feather of truth’ or you’re going to hell. Pascal also didn’t account for believing for beliefs sake and ignored that a god wouldn’t see through disingenuous ‘hedge betting belief’ in which case the god would still send the person so their hell anyway as their belief wasn’t sincere to being with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

ABout Evolution: Yes Topekan... you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...

Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....
Carbon dating radically flawed...
PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!

I admire the atheists..it takes more faith to believe in whatever it is they believe than for the Christian....

FOR AGENTORANGE: Give it a break will you? You've impressed us with your knowledge... right wrong or otherwise.....It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion.... matter can neither be created or destroyed... .. and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured the baby from the slime... and how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time...

Im not going to debate with you.. and I couldn't care less about your countervailing arguements ..... I've ministered to the atheistic community for almost 10 years..... your arguements are stale.... and when one doesnt fly you go to ludicrous theories like punctuated equilibrium.. .

Last note... NOte to atheist.... your intellectualizing and your rationalizing seems applicable save for one point.... Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...

I

agentorange

Re:What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.


All these things can be said about you.

star2,

What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.

agentorange

Re:My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.

This is a Christian site. What do you expect to get from Christians who know their God?

"I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine,"

Ahhhh, how cute....almost poetic.

"what do you do for a living? "

You assume too much, what makes you think only one person is using this account? Dun dun dun!!

My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.

With no love, I say spare me the indignant routine. If you're too lazy, limp and ill read to repond to intellectual enquiry then you're not much of a thinker in the first place.

Agent Orange,

I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine, but I got to ask you, what do you do for a living? I have dealt with many intense athiests and believers in other religions, but I must admit, your pointless energy into a battle that has no end but in death is quite entertaining.

With all love I say, GET A LIFE!!!

Topekan,

Here, I'll leave you a link so you can read it for yourself why only natural explanations are deemd Science. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Topekan,

I wasn't refering only to radiometric dating, but more so towards all the science questions which are in scuh IQ tests and require basic understanding of them to answer. but it's quite hard to answer them and do well if you reject them. Ever more hilarious is how she claims she got a 120 IQ at age 10!! Riiiight.

"Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. "

How do you figure? It makes falsifiable predictions, it thus falls within the confines of the scientific method. using the evolution as a theory we make predictions like about chromosome 2 fusion and locatios of fossils based on past finds and what do you know, they reafrim the theory. If evolution is wrong, then there were a lot of hominids wandering around 2+ million years ago for it to be wrong as well.

"Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation'"

Oh boy, sorry pal but ONLY NATURALISTIC explanations cane be used as Science, look it up according to the scientific method. Secondly, we don't have to wait for anything, we have the fossils, we have the DNA which conforms to them. We have the fossils, we win.

“When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical
Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.”

Oh, so now you’re telling us that your boasting of a ‘120 IQ’ was from when you were 10 years old then, do I have you right? Star, you’re digging yourself an ever deeper hole, get a clue. Can you even back this claim up, or is it more empty rhetoric?

“Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.”

Oh I agree star, however many of the things tested in standard IQ tests require basic understanding in biology, and other such Sciences that you overwhelmingly deny. It’s quite hard to claim you did so well on an IQ test when some of the testing is related to things that you deny on face value.

“My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.”

More like your faith is your only refuge and sanctuary against the wave of reality that would otherwise come crashing down on your empty rhetoric. The wave is the evidence and with your faith you hold it all back, not very logical star. There is a reason apologetics exist, think about it.

“You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.”

Losing what battle Star? Here I am presenting evidence upon evidence and your only retort is, 'I got faith’. Mmmmkaaay. Go ahead, refute how light speed is a constant and the universe is 13.7 billion years old as a result, try me.

I have taken IQ tests, and have never seen a question on radiometric dating. As far as denying evolution being tantamount to rejecting science, that's malarkey (a fine scientific term). Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. Until that can be done it remains an untested hypothesis. Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation' and 2) it takes millions of years so it can't be tested is not science, it's dogmatic assertion, which makes it not science, but religion.

agentorange

You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.

agentorange

Re:Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?

When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.

Re:On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating

Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.

You make such foolish statements because you are the very least frustrated because you cannot control me in what I believe. My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.

God is the one who created this universe and everything that is in it. I would be pretty foolish to look else where for understanding on how He did things. No, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does give us clues about how things were done. If you want to know or understand how something was designed or works then go to the one who designed it. God is quite able to help man understand the data we have and to develop models based on His Word that describes what we see. To look for other explanations for observed phenomen will only result in foolish theories.

Re:it's like arguing you're a whiz in science

I never said that I was. All I said was that I had a MS in Applied Math from the Fla Inst of Tech and I was enrolled in but dropped out of the PhD program in Applied Math at Rice Univ here in Houston, Tx. My skills in math have greatly lessened over the 30 yrs since I have been in school and have not used any of it to speak of since I left school.

I flagged myself below to make some corrections/additions.

It's pretty hard to have an IQ of 120 when you reject virutally all the recent advances in science which the tests would be based on! On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating when you rejct it off hand, it's entirely illogical.

it's like arguing you're a whiz in science, but reject virtually all of it. That is entirely confounding logic star.

"No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ"

Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?

TerryH,

“It is very odd that scientist seem to think they can determine age by appearance.”

Yah, well we Sciency types don’t determine the age by mere ‘appearance’ but rather analyze the age itself by numerous methods. Just like your example of the person who looks 40, but in reality after more testing and deeper analysis reveals they are in fact olde, same goes for our earth. We at first didn't suspect it to be that old b/c the human lifetime is quite short compared to geological changes and as a result no one would have argued earth being more than some 20 million years old, which is abot the age Lord Kelvin gave for Earth. However being creationist, Kelvin didn't know about radioactive decay elements that would provide additional heat/energy to the earth and result in it being far older.

Our earth’s appearance changes over time as tectonic plates move (africa and south america are obvious examples) and mile wide asteroids collide with earth and other events that show the very surface has been reshaped countless times as a result.

I’ve asked Star and others to try to explain why light speed (which is a constant) and other testing methods reveals that our Universe isn’t some 6000 years old, but it’s over 13.7 billion years old. Even the distance to our closest galaxy, Andromeda is more than 6000 light years away and yet, you want us to think folks from NASA and other global cosmologists and astronomers are off by that much of a margin?

How can Star explain, or dare I say rationalize, that the universe isn’t actually 13.7 billion years old? I'd love to see you try this one star.

agentorange

No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ. Nothing to write home about for sure.

I place my faith in God and in His Word. If man says something that goes counter to His Word then I reject what man says.

"I am sorry but I will not listen to anyone tell me that mankind and all life for that matter has been on this planet longer than approximately 6000 yrs. The Word of God is my authority not the opinions of man"

Hello, earth to star...who do you exactly think WRTOE the bible? Yes....men. in the end, inspired by god or not, men, faliable men penned it. so the very logic that you use to suggest that other works are 'mere opinon' is a logical fallacy.

Why do you even bother researching anything at all (radiometric dating) if in the end you will come to the conclussion you just did? You state that certain things are flawed before even looking into them and then when you do research them you find them to do quite accurate and in response you simply ignore them and close your eyes, cover your ears in defiance. That isn't logical at all star. You argue god gave you a great brain, well then use it. It's entirely illogical to argue god gave you such a tool to use only not to use it as you do. you don't worship a god, you worship your book and you're an idoltar of it, can't you see that?

With your attitude you'd be better of not researching anything else at all, why even bother star. Like I said, talking to you, is like talking to a brick wall. (flagged myself)