Freethought & Rationalism Archive

llDayo · 07-16-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

You are incorrect. I am not talking here young earth or old earth. I am assuming that the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I'm talking here the obvious natural explanation that should be taught and used in schools and in pubic that we are observing in nature.

To make it very easy to understand, let us use say, Species A,

Species A may had changed to Species A000122 for the span of 100 million years, and changed again to Species A0002323334 for the span of 200 million years and again changed (big change) to Species A2222 for the span of 500 million years but it did not change to Species B or C or D!

THERE is no SPECIES whatsoever that we had witnessed to change from Species A to Species B or C or D either in history of the earth in fossils or the present times. All the so called facts are/were fabricated explanation by Evolution Theory scientists and proponents or were labeled incorrectly by ET scientist by using circular reasoning.

The hard fact that we are seeing is that ALL SPECIES had interrelated and are interrelating from/to their surrounding/habitat/places to live with respect to their time of existence.

So are you saying all species have remained the same since the formation of the earth, that we've just changed a little bit at a time but remained the same? So humans have been around for 4.5 billion years? So, where are all the old human fossils that should have been leftover since before the dinosaurs?

samurai · 07-16-2007, 07:44 PM

[QUOTE=llDayo;4621856]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

So are you saying all species have remained the same since the formation of the earth, that we've just changed a little bit at a time but remained the same? So humans have been around for 4.5 billion years? So, where are all the old human fossils that should have been leftover since before the dinosaurs?

I am not saying that all species have remained since the formation of the earth. It is already beyond the topic of limited explanation of natural science for we are already passing the ORIGIN OF SPECIES and of course, of LIFE, of UNIVERSE and of EVERYTHING.

The best logical answer for that is: I don't know

but

I have a supernatural explanation for that:

1. from EVOLUTION Theory that all species had originated from mindless and heartless nature accdg to Darwin

2. from CREATION Theory that all species had originated from the loving and powerful God accdg to the Bible.

Then, choose.

Smullyan-esque · 07-16-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

There is only one reason why you could not provide your qualifications: They do not exist.

Here, let me give you mine: My highest attained degree was a Masters in Mathematics, Magna cum Laude, from the University of California at (I'm keeping this anonymous). I took advanced courses in Physics, Philosophy, Computer Science, and Creative Writing. Since then, I have worked as a faculty member at (I'm keeping this anonymous, too) college in California, and I am currently the Vice President of the Academic Senate. I keep myself as current as is possible for a lay person by keeping up my subscription to Science News.

I didn't need to go find any documents, or look up the difficult words online anywhere. If you actually have some training in science, there is absolutely no reason you can't just come out and tell us what it is. I find your pretentious ignorance galling, and I am hereby asking you to put up or shut up!

Assuming that you had been trained in science, the best that present science have, but it doesn't mean that what you've learned is the actual natural explanation of science. YOU'VE LEARNED supernatural science, you mastered it, and still countless when faced with natural explanation.
For example, I mastered the Bible but it is still countless when faced with natural explanation in science for I studied supernatural explanation of science! It is the same way with you. You studied supernatural science and it doesn't makes any sense at all. And you should not be proud of it. You should be ashamed of it!

Let us make it simple. Science is a noun. But we need adjectives to describe it. Anybody can make an adjective for it. What will you choose, natural or supernatural?

Since you did not answer the challenge in any meaningful way, I must assume that you have no credentials of even the lowest level in science.

Do you think that perhaps the opinion of a poor student on the subject of science might be somewhat less than insightful?

Smullyan-esque · 07-16-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Yes, certainly. I DO want you to be specific. Tell me specifically how you explain fossils...

The study of fossils are broad, be specific.

Try again.

I understand that you find fossils to be difficult to explain. But at least make the attempt! One might get the impression that you are a cowardly samurai. Even the beginnings of an overall explanation would be something more than this clumsy attempt to dodge the question.

samurai · 07-16-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Assuming that you had been trained in science, the best that present science have, but it doesn't mean that what you've learned is the actual natural explanation of science. YOU'VE LEARNED supernatural science, you mastered it, and still countless when faced with natural explanation.
For example, I mastered the Bible but it is still countless when faced with natural explanation in science for I studied supernatural explanation of science! It is the same way with you. You studied supernatural science and it doesn't makes any sense at all. And you should not be proud of it. You should be ashamed of it!

Let us make it simple. Science is a noun. But we need adjectives to describe it. Anybody can make an adjective for it. What will you choose, natural or supernatural?

Since you did not answer the challenge in any meaningful way, I must assume that you have no credentials of even the lowest level in science.

Do you think that perhaps the opinion of a poor student on the subject of science might be somewhat less than insightful?

As I had told you that the word "science" is a noun. You can make it, "supernatural science", absurd science", "foolish science", "illogical science", "logical science" or "naturalistic science" or what...

There are almost 7 billions humans on earth. Assuming that 7 million of them claimed that they knew science, then, what will be your rule to distinguish the correct science?

As I had told you again that you may had all the best learned/aquired science in our times, but they are all supernatural and mythical. So it doesn't make any sense in our logical and natural science. So your credentials are still void.

samurai · 07-16-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

The study of fossils are broad, be specific.

Try again.

I understand that you find fossils to be difficult to explain. But at least make the attempt! One might get the impression that you are a cowardly samurai. Even the beginnings of an overall explanation would be something more than this clumsy attempt to dodge the question.

The topic here is evolution theory. If you could ask me some concrete and specific question with regards to this theory in the study of fossils, then, maybe we can discuss.

GenesisNemesis · 07-16-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

1. from EVOLUTION Theory that all species had originated from mindless and heartless nature accdg to Darwin

Yup. "Mindless and heartless" nature. It's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

2. from CREATION Theory that all species had originated from the loving and powerful God accdg to the Bible.

I would never worship a "loving" God who flaunts around His power by creating a Universe but doesn't do anything at all to give us world peace.

samurai · 07-16-2007, 09:46 PM

[QUOTE=GenesisNemesis;4620821]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

If you ignore the obvious, gradual progression in the Fossil Record. How do you explain that? The Flood?

There is no such kind of "gradual progression" in the fossil record. It was only an invention and scripted explanation by ET believers to prove, in circular reasoning, that this theory is correct.

Imagine that every discovered and unearthened fossils are all the same: they were already developed. For if they are not yet developed and still in the process of progression, those species willl never be found on earth!

What we had observed in nature was that all species are all unique to each other but INTERRELATED in some parts, either biological or chemical or physical or whatever...

but they are not evolving.

samurai · 07-16-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

1. from EVOLUTION Theory that all species had originated from mindless and heartless nature accdg to Darwin

Yup. "Mindless and heartless" nature. It's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

2. from CREATION Theory that all species had originated from the loving and powerful God accdg to the Bible.

I would never worship a "loving" God who flaunts around His power by creating a Universe but doesn't do anything at all to give us world peace.

That is your choice. That is good. But you had chosen supernatural choice, too! Then, you are not different from Creation Theory proponents...then, why don't you help me delete Evolution Theory in public and in schools and replace it with INTERRELATION???

Chuck Rightmire · 07-16-2007, 11:07 PM

Samurai: I tried to give you an out which you didn't accept. Frankly, interrelations is inevitably true because all species do exist on the same world. The same is true that there is an historical relationship between animals from the very beginnings to today. How is it that you can admit that it is not a young earth, that species are related and yet not see that they developed one from the other through a long series of steps?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2007, 11:07 PM	#370
Chuck Rightmire Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 451	Samurai: I tried to give you an out which you didn't accept. Frankly, interrelations is inevitably true because all species do exist on the same world. The same is true that there is an historical relationship between animals from the very beginnings to today. How is it that you can admit that it is not a young earth, that species are related and yet not see that they developed one from the other through a long series of steps?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.