Hobbits are a real species

[senatortombstone]

Bad news for the god created Adam and Eve people.

how so?  This new species is probably a midget that died, much like suppsoed neanderthal man was nothng more than a poor old man suffering from arthritits and rickets.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

This is a common, rather miseducated misconception. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share common ancestors.

If you are going to debate in this aggressive manner, you might as well read up on what you are arguing about beforehand, at least lightly.

Hey I provided the disclaimer *or whatever primate they say we evolve from* after all scientists keep changing the history of descent everytime some hick digs up a chicken bone.

for real though, what is the or one of the common ancestors of men and monkeys/apes?

[senatortombstone]

What happened to our missing links?  what is the full chain of descent?  no one knows.  I'll tell you why, there is no chain of descent, none.  The cryptotaxonomy is full of gaps that will never be filled.

Jfern, do you honestly believe that all matter in the unvierse was compressed into the space of a hydrogen atom and suddenly exploded and formed every element galaxy, star and planet?  Do you believe that all life on earth is the result of a puddle of chemicals becoming alive after being struck by lightening or as a result o comets depositing amino acids on earth?

Look if you want to abandon God and morals just be honest and do it, but don't perpetuate a lie that brings other people down, stop lying!

[senatortombstone]

The problem with what you offer is that no one can possibly argue with a devoted religious person; religion is entirely based in faith. If you expect us to argue with your religious views, we are not going to. This is fruitless.

I will debate anyone.  When I discuss evolution, I start from the beginnings: the big bang and primordial earth.

There is no way that the Big Bang about it.  How on earth can matter just compress itself into an atom and then you know that scientists believe that there has already been several big bangs and big crunches?  There is no proof, just big conclusions from very limited observations.

BTW, in order for a big crunch to occur there has to be a change in the laws of physics, specifically the laws of gravity.  Gravitational pull has to become very strong, all of a sudden and on its own, to re compress the matter.

Life on Earth starting when lightening struck chemicals which formed into amino acids, which lined themselves up to form the first unicellular organism?  Dude, that did not happen, okay. that sounds like something out of a cartoon. 

The Bible records history very accurately from the beginning, the Bible has a precise and gap less chain of descent from Adam to Jesus, 56 generations, I believe.  The old testament accurately predicted the life of Jesus and the condition of this world today is exactly how the New Testament describes it.  Unruly children, mockers, scoffers, bold homosexuals, world at war, etc.  The Bible even predicted in 2nd Peter that people would deny the account of creation and the flood.  It's all there you just choose not to believe it.  I wish you would change your mind, but oh well, that is your bad.

[senatortombstone]

God has no evidence, evolution has plenty.

There is absolutely no evidence for macro-evolution and spontaneous generation.  none whatsoever.

micro-evoltution and linguistic evolution has plenty of evidence though.

The Bible is evidence of God, our existence is evidence of God.

Jfern, you should really choose your words carefully, whether or not you believe it, you will one day be made accountable for all of them.  I pray you come to know the truth.  I thank you for your time.  I must go to bed and pray to the Father, and you should go to bed and pray the atom and the ameoba.  gute Nacht, schlaf gut bis der Tag erwacht!

[senatortombstone]

The Bible is evidence of God

If I write a book with the words, "There is no God," does that provide evidence for the non-existence of God?

Indeed. I could write a book with complex, intertwined history, predictions, and geneaology, with fantastical stories about miracles and faith, but it wouldn't make it true.

No offense, but those are terrible examples.  The Bible was written by several different authors over the course of nearly 2000 years.  If you wan to deny the facts contained in it, fine, but by that same logic I can deny the existence of major historical figures such as Alexander the great and Julius Caesar.  Afterall, none of us were there to see any of it, so it could be all one big hoax.  By that logic, 100 years from now you could deny that there were any world wars because there woul non longer be survivors or chldrn or grandchildren of survivors.  If you're not there you cannot prove it.

I especially get a laugh out of people who compare the Bible to a fairy tell or ancient pantheon that is only remembered in TVs hows and comic books.  Christianity is not a fairy tale it is reality, a very grim one for those who deny it.  The Bible has changed many corruptible people throughout the years.  Did you know that the man who wrote Amazing Grace was a slavetrader.  Then one day he had a religous experience and stopped what he was doing, wrote amazing grace and became an abolitionist?  What book was he reading?  SOmehow I don't think it was the origin of the species.  Did you know that General Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, the cruel andfeard KKK leader became a Christian during the last few years of his life and supported black advancement?  Whose life has ever been changed by reading Origin of the Species or one syphilitic psycho Nietzsche ramblings? (he should have wriiten "Der Wille zum Penizillin")

It takes a lot more faith to believe in the many wild cosmology and evolutionay theories out therethan it does to believe in God and creation.  With God we have a purposeful designer, with evolution, we have pure chance coinicidence governing everything.

[senatortombstone]

No offense, but those are terrible examples.  The Bible was written by several different authors over the course of nearly 2000 years.

So, it being old and written by many makes it true? Sorry, but there are other holy books out there that are old and written by many people, but apparently they aren't accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a ton of archaelogical evidence for all those events, not just written word. As for stuff in the Bible, there's far from a great amount of evidence, especially for some of the old testament stuff - Noah, for instance. You'd think there would be a junkload of evidence that the world was once entirely flooded, and furthermore there are millions of species in the world - how could Noah fit two of all of them on an single boat? It was four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high - no way in hell that it could have held two of every animal species on the planet. How is that even logistically possible?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly the reason I could never take up your brand of Christianity. I absolutely refuse to worship a god that would send people to hell simply for not believing in him, completely disregarding what type of person they are - that type of God is unjust and evil. Many other Christians believe that their God saves all good people, regardless of their religion - meaning he judges them on who they are, not what whether they hold a particular religious belief while they were alive. That's the kind of God I could respect - he's reasonable. If they are right then I'm in no danger, and would gladly worship their God in the afterlife. If you are right I'll be sent to hell simply for not worshiping him in life, so I'll be glad to give your God the finger as I'm going down to hell. But I find it more likely that neither of your sides are right about God, so I'll just keep up with the agnostic thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? What's your point? Others used the Bible as justification for slavery. Other religions caused other people to change for the better. Christianity doesn't have exclusive rights to making people better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, you ignore the possibility of God having been active in evolution and other proposed scientific theories - you've no doubt heard of intelligent design. Also, *poof* it exists is what takes more faith in my opinion.

I am not insecure about my beliefs, therefore I don't require the condenscending of skeptics who say "a God might've been involved, but not your God"

If it's proof you need, then look no further than the state of the world, a state which the Bible predicted 2000 years ago.

The Bible predicted everything:  the denial of God and creation, the wars, the disrepsect for authority, everything is described in the Bible.  I cannot help it if you don't believe it.  I wish you would, but I cannot make and God won't either.
 
The Bible says hat the ways of God are foolishness to the world.  Therefore if an unbeliever calls me a fool for believeing in God then I know I am on the right track.

But I am finished with this debate, for now at least.

[senatortombstone]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

It isn't on the rise as an accepted theory, it is just that religion is on the rise and more people are turning off their minds again.  Like in the Dark Ages, when christianity was rampant.

Here is one famous example.  He is the visible tip of the iceberg.  There are more former atheists moving on to the Intelligent Design bandwagon.  Most of them don;t make the news, however.

John, Biology is a subset of Chemistry which is a subset of Physics.  All of them have to obey the same standard rules that all of physics must obey.  This includes systems not getting more complex unless acted on by an outside source.

I read about this guy.  He seems pretty arrogant to me and I am not impressed.  It took him 81 years to figure out there was a God?  I don't even have 1/100th of his education and I've known that snce I was a child.  To make matters worse he is still denying the Authority of the one true God of the Bible.  I don't think he has another 81 years to come to that conclusion, let alone 81 days, so I'll pray for him.

 

[senatortombstone]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

What? First off, I think that's supposed to apply to physics, not biology. Second, it can be contended that outside forces were present in evolution, regardless of what the statement above is supposed to apply to. For instance, the creation of amino acids in the primordial earth - the chemicals were initially in a less complex form, and the various forces on the planet(heat, other chemicals present, and whatnot) would have provided the proper conditions. Second, a central part of evolution, natural selection, in highly dependent on outside forces - say a change in climate causes species to die off, and other to have parts of them die off while those with the traits needed for survival live. Then there's mutation - mutation can happen due to outside forces as well, such as radiation. The whole reason evolution would need to happen is because the world changes, and since it does change life must change with it or die off. If the world did not ever change, you would see very little change in the composition of the world's biota.

I think y'all are thinking of entropy, which is disorder.  Haven't we gone over this before.  In any spontaneous process, entropy increases.  this is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  So, in physics, things do ALWAYS move from a more ordered state to a less ordered state.  Think:  a pile of bricks will not become a building spontaneously, but a building will become a pile of bricks spontaneously.  And the same is true in biology.  Physics is just smaller bits of chemistry, just as chemistry is smaller bits of biology.  If a Law holds for physics, it must also hold for biology, or we have a really big problem on our hands.

Once again, I'll repeat:  Religion and science do not compete.  they operate in different realms.  I have talked to priests who have no qualms with the Big Bang, and scientists who have no problems with the existence of gods and afterlives and spirituality. 

Why must the Left always insult religion?  Why must the religion refuse to accept scientific evidence for the origins of species?  I make it for the same reason.  Exactly the same reason, in fact.  I just haven't figured out what that reason is, being that I'm neither Left nor Religious. 

One other point.  Perhaps some of you have heard of Shiva.  One of the three manifestations of god in what the Hindu call "the trinity"  Shiva is the Destructor.  Entropy, as it were.  Hindu have absolutely no weird juxtapositions when studying physics, and the origin of the universe.  Christians and Jews and Muslims needn't either. 

"free yo mind, and the rest will follow"
 --90s black music lyric (I can't remember the artist)

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

[senatortombstone]

http://www.halos.com/

Here is a site featuring Robert V Gentry's study of Polonium Halos which prove the young age of the Earth.  Keep in mind that Gentry is a brilliant scientist who began his research as an evolutionist and became a creationist.

[senatortombstone]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

[senatortombstone]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

It's up to Gentry to prove his claims. Science doesn't work by making everyone prove that you're wrong.

Gentry has already proved his claims and all attempts to refute them thus far have failed.

http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm

Why has the scientific communtiy censored this creationist's work?  Do theyhave soemthing to fear from his findings?

[senatortombstone]

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

Okay.  I appreciate the response.  I hadn't heard of Gentry.  I'll take a look at it. 

You know about the Miller-Urey experiment, I assume.  There are plausible explanations about how proteins can organize out of the primordial soup.  And on the surface it looks contradictory to the Second Law, or that Shiva was sleeping that day, or something.  But you have to remember to consider universal entropy, not the entropy of the system.

I also think it's reasonable not to get too hyped up in groupthink, by the way.  I think it's probably best that you're a little skeptical about theories.

I've heard of the miller-urey experiment and I don't doubt its conclusions.  However showing something that can be done in a laboratory does not mean it occurs naturally in nature, only possibly that it coud have.  I don't know if "could have" is scientific.

i saw a special on 60 minutes about the genetic engineering of tomatoes and salmon.  scientists inserted a gene from a tomato into a fish and the fish grew double its normal size.  I believe that is what happened in a lab; i have no doubt it can be done.  However, i fail to see how that could happen in nature.

[senatortombstone]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Uh-oh, it looks like you've got crationists in your own back yard.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

[senatortombstone]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Uh-oh, it looks like you've got crationists in your own back yard.

Other countries have tiny numbers compared to the US.  Even heaviliy religious countries like Poland have far fewer creationists.

Creationists in Japan are about as rare as a saber toothed tiger.

So, what does that prove.  Being the majority, doesn't mean they're right about evolution.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

Bad question; evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.

2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

Bad example; finch beaks are an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, which senatortombstone is attempting to dispute.  I know of no person who disagrees that microevolution is fact.  Macroevolution is an entirely different matter.

The credit for bad arguments and faulty reasoning go to both sides of the debate, sadly.

Let me take this opprotunity to say that I knew that my arguement was faulty before I made it.  I had intended for it to go elsewhere and create a trap, but i realized after the post that the logic was flawed and i never bothered to edit.  Oh well.

But still, you ahve to wonder, if humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  Why did one species stay primitive and the other evolve into various intelligent forms and how is that comparatively intelligent pecies like homo erectus died out while dumbass monkeys and apes survived?

you'd think that if anything there would be several intelligent humanoid species today.


Another thing about evolution that puzzles me is why we don't see new drastic mutations in the human population. 

I understand that in order for a mutation to be passed on, the gene pool must be small in order ofr that change to over take the species. 

I realize that if an evoloved human wer to be born her/she would not be able to signifgantly improve or change the gene pool. 

However, with several millions of births every year you would think that eventually an evolved human would be born.  In today's era of technology and widespread communication, such a person would eventually be discovered.

How is that we don't see any dramatic changes in Humans with a gene pool of 6.5 billion but expect a species to evolve when their numbers are only in the hundreds?

If dramatic changes don't occur in such large numbers, it is very doubtful that they do in small numbers.

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

How does totally brand new information enter into the DNA?  Isn't a mutation merely the rewriting of previously existing information?

New information has to come from some where. 

i bet that in 1000 years Windows XP will have evolved into an errorless operating system.

[senatortombstone]

What do you mean eventually an evolved human would appear?
Humans have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Typically there are around 60 mutations in each generation. There's evolution of new genes going on all the time, it's just that most of these don't make a significant difference, since only 0.000002% of the stuff is different.

Again, just microevolution.  Cell mutation isn't rare at all, nor is it disuputed, nor does it prove much.

Humans having 3 billion base pairs of DNA would seem to imply some sort of intelligent design, because it's a little risky to believe that something so complex would occur after nothing but mutation after mutation.  Of course there's also the tricky one about where that first cell came from.

don't be daft, dude!  The frst lving cell was formed when 20 different types of amino acids combined after emerged from a puddle of chemicals that was struck by lightening.

If you believe anything else, you're living in the dark ages.