[b]vincent wrote:[/b] [quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] [quote]Then don't play. Go somewhere else. Or if someone does have that kind of free time, I'm not gonna hold it against them. But I don't. I have a life. And we're not on your computer proselytizing you. You're on our server, trying to convince us to believe what YOU believe. You do realize the admins pay for this server? Why should they pay their hard earned money, or deserved donations, to host somebody else's webpage? You want us to see what's on a webpage? Give a link. In fact, I wonder if it's copyrighted. This goes beyond fair use.[/quote] This isn't a copy and paste as a whole, it's actually a well formulated challenge devised by a friend of mine in Virginia, not an article. Secondly i know how web servers are ran, such as hosting, etc I'm a network admin for healthcare services company. What does this have to do with the topic, you're beating around the bush because you can't refute this. Thirdly, links are allover this, have you bothered to actually read it, you're lazy.[/quote] Take the fifth, man. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. If you know this stuff, you know what 'fair use' is, and that what you posted exceeded it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22fair+use%22+legal+definition&btnG=Google+Search At this time, I'll invite you to start a thread, or rework this one, preferably with a starting point for the conversation. I'll also ask you as an equal, a fellow member, to consider editing your p osts 1 & 2, replacing the copyrighted material with a link to the copyright holder's authorized site. And as I believe it would be best for mypraize not to have this copyrighted material on their server, I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore, at least until that's done.

Post edited by: MattBob_SquarePants, at: 2007/01/23 23:49

[b]vincent wrote:[/b] [quote][quote][b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] The second post had all of two links, and neither were to the original article.[/quote] Of course not, because it wasn't entirely a copy and paste job. Still waiting for a refutal man you're dodging...[/quote] Firstly, regardless of whether it was entirely a copy and paste job or not, it was, by and large, plagiarism of copyrighted material for which you're supposed to post a source at the very least. Secondly, I'm not dodging. I didn't have the faintest intent of posting on this topic until MattBob_SquarePants sparked the idea that this might be copyright infringement. Thirdly, I don't think you're dumb. Granted, someone with much more learnedness on the topic will most definitely come along and wipe all this to smithereens, but I don't think you're dumb for believing it :P . Oh, by the way, welcome to MyPraize.

[quote][b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] Firstly, regardless of whether it was entirely a copy and paste job or not, it was, by and large, plagiarism of copyrighted material for which you're supposed to post a source at the very least. Secondly, I'm not dodging. I didn't have the faintest intent of posting on this topic until MattBob_SquarePants sparked the idea that this might be copyright infringement. Thirdly, I don't think you're dumb. Granted, someone with much more learnedness on the topic will most definitely come along and wipe all this to smithereens, but I don't think you're dumb for believing it :P . Oh, by the way, welcome to MyPraize.[/quote] Your logic bewilders me sir. Can you answer the following? 1. How many laws of thermodynamics are there? 2. What are they? 3. Do you know what an open system is and how it relates to the second law? 4. According to your view of the 2nd law, how are babies possible? Since they go from a single cell to multiple cells rather quickly. 5. What is the theory of evolution? 6. What is your explanation for endogenous retroviral inserts? 7. Why is it that humans and primates share the exact same mutation that prevents both groups from producing vitamin C? How do you explain the incredibly small odds that we share the exact same mutation with one of our 'primate' relatives, let alone that they share them with the other primates as well?

[quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] Take the fifth, man. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. If you know this stuff, you know what 'fair use' is, and that what you posted exceeded it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22fair+use%22+legal+definition&btnG=Google+Search At this time, I'll invite you to start a thread, or rework this one, preferably with a starting point for the conversation. I'll also ask you as an equal, a fellow member, to consider editing your p osts 1 & 2, replacing the copyrighted material with a link to the copyright holder's authorized site. And as I believe it would be best for mypraize not to have this copyrighted material on their server, I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore, at least until that's done.<br><br>Post edited by: MattBob_SquarePants, at: 2007/01/23 23:49[/quote] You're arguing semantics son. This isn't what the subject of this discussion is about. I smell a cop out.

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/24 00:47

sad to admit that I actually read all of this.... [b]vincent wrote:[/b] [quote] How the above is remotely possible with a world wide flood? Are we to believe that the flood waters came crashing down into what is today known as the Colorado River and then made such a precise 180 degree turn? Another good and quick question for the flood fans, that I dug up on [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#history]Talk Origins[/url] is as follows: [/quote] I don't really see an attempt to explain this.... it seems to me that flooding tends to be the explanation for many geological features.... large features such as this seem to me to be similar [quote] [b]Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?[/b] [i]Biblical dates ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kin%206:1]I kings 6:1[/url], [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gal+3:17]Gal 3:17[/url], various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C."[2][/i] [b]And, on the same page:[/b] [/quote] I do not believe the accounts of Genesis to be precise, generation by generation family records.... when the Bible speaks of someone being the son of somebody, it is not necessarily that they were born directly to that person... oftentimes, the genealogies of that time would list the more prominent descendants... also, i believe there is something about the word in Hebrew that also refers to "any male ancestor" someone's gonna need to back me up on this though.. I'm not too up-to-date on my Hebrew lol [quote] "How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [[url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+10:25]Gen 10:25[/url], [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+11:10-19]11:10-19[/url]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.[2]"[/quote] again, I believe that we're taking the genealogies in Genesis way to straight-forward, literally..... I do not believe for a second that someone wrote down absolutely every ancestor/descendant of somone... basically, see above explanation [quote] Oh, and before I forget, if you are going to appeal to 'it's because of the fall' or some variation, you need to do better then that. You should give us the exact causes and mechanisms that created the follow-remember you are trying to be scientific, right?[/quote] and remember, we believe in a God that created this world and all of it's physical laws and also who has the ability to function beyond them [quote] "Lions (Panthera leo). As zoologists have long observed, these rank among the most efficient terrestrial killing machines on the planet. The lion's combination of speed, stealth, brute strength and state-of-the-art weaponry is beyond repute. A lesser-known lion fact is that adult males, when they take over a rival pride's territory, seek out and tear apart every one of the loser's cubs. As a result, their mothers come into heat sooner, which lends certain benefits to the males. As before, this instinct is difficult to explain without invoking a design hypothesis. The lions need to track down cubs, positively identify them as someone else's, and only then kill them. How would such an elaborate series of complex instincts…just evolve?"[3] Creationists in general often say that there was no death before the fall. This is an odd statement in light of creatures such as the lions-who if they were truly vegetarian before the fall they would have required a massive amount of evolutionary change in order to become the killing machines they are today. In fact, the sort of change they would require would be macroevolution-as their entire digestive system, teeth, and I'd even argue their skeletal structure would need to be changed (after all, why do vegetarians need to be a strong and swift as lions?). The same vegetarian critique of creationism can also be applied to sharks[4]: [img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:iH69Xfsx3k4J:http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/images/shark-mouth.jpg[/img] [b]Are these sharp teeth for eating seaweed?[/b] Please also explain why a benevolent and intelligent God would create an organism that routinely kills babies from different males? Remember, appealing to 'the fall' isn't an answer. Creationists need to explain [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4122119.stm]why whales get bends[/url] Evolution, of course has a good answer, which is to say that [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]whales evolved from mammals[/url] but creationists naturally can't appeal to evolution for an answer to this question. Was God not benevolent to want to see them suffer from the bends? Or perhaps God didn't have the ability to prevent them from suffering from the bends? BTW-why are whales mammals to begin with? Certainly it would be a much more optimal design to have created them as fish. It would also prevent them from being evidence of evolution, and thus avoid the inevitable conclusion that many people accept that they descended from terrestrial mammals. Was God just trying to trick us? I'm not trying to include a comprehensive list of nature's poorly designed oddities that creationists must-but don't-have to account for. Others have done so and if you are interested in seeing more, please check out the following websites: [url=http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm]organisms taht looked designed[/url] - by Winace [url=http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm]some more of god's greatest mistakes[/url] - by Oolon Colluphid [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html]Why believe in a creator[/url] - by E.T. Babinski (Talk Origins) [/quote] what makes you think that we don't believe that God can use evolution?... I believe that that is altogether likely and plausible [quote] Another question for Creationists is, what is the order of creation (check out this [url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html]site[/url] for the 'order')? Is it the chronology presented in Genesis chapter one or the chronology in chapter two? Since creationism is supposedly a competing scientific theory, I think it's only fair that we should be able to examine the bible-which would have to be infallible in order for creationism to be coherent-right? What other reason would their be to accept creationism instead of all the scientific evidence to the contrary? [/quote] I don't quite see how Genesis 2 would be the chronology of creation... [quote] Also, why would god create similar DNA in species? The stock answer that creationists give that DNA represents a common designer is quite bizarre. Is god trying to deceive us into believing in common descent? After all, there is no reason why god would have created all the animals on earth using the same amino acids. Furthermore there is no reason why primates and man should be anywhere remotely similar-so why are they? Why would god put evidence down that shows evidence of common descent? Especially when there is no reason for us to share similar DNA?[/quote] so, you expect God to have made everything completely different just because we were going to try and find absolutely every single way to "disprove" his existence and creation.... that's why it's called faith [quote] Why Do humans and primates share the same mutation that prevents both groups from producing vitamin C? How can the creationist model explain the incredibly small odds that we share the same mutation with one of our 'primate' relatives, let alone that we share them with the other primates as well? Luck? [/i] The following taken from this Talk Origins Page:[/quote] I believe that the idea of evolution states that in a certain environment with certain extremes will allow certain mutations to become the norm for that species... in a certain environment, wouldn't it make sense for certain species to adapt in a similar way if that was necessary for them to survive? also, we believe God to be all-knowing.... creating species with certain things that would help them survive would make sense for an all-knowing God to do

i am not the "creationist" there are creation scientists you can show this stuff to,you don't think this has been looked at and studied by creationists before. I have nor the time nor the resourses or information to answer this right now.Answer me this how can you explain to me the lack of "cross fossils" in the fossil record tell me this is not strong evidence against evolution,or "fossil grave yards" expain to me the excessive amounts of CARBON-14 which is found in every single fossil.How about the information stored in DNA where did that come from,and much,much more can be added. and if you answer this please don't use some 1000 word copy and paste from Talk Origins or some other web site.

Baryons are the smallest particles of matter in the universe. (Go with me on this). Scientists have calculated the total number of baryons in the universe. 10 to the 84th power. Scientists have also calculated the maximum number of interactions per second. 10 to the 20th power. [b]The 1st cell requires 10 to the 100 billionth power interactions to evolve![/b] Since most people speculate that the Earth is around 15 billion years old, then you would calculate the total number of interactions since the beginning of time. Take how many seconds there are in 15 billion years and multiply that with the total number of baryons in the universe multiplied by the number of baryon interactions per second. (10 to the 17th power x 10 to the 84th power x 10 to the 20th power = 10 to the 121st power. 10 to the 121st power interactions since the beginning of time. The structure of the 1st cell would require 10 to the 100 billionth power interactions to evolve. Since the beginning of time however, there have been only 10 to the 121st power interactions! To find the probability of evolution actually happening, you take the number of baryon interactions since the beginning of time and divide that by the number of baryon interactions needed for the 1st cell to evolve. (10 to the 121st power divided by 10 to the 100 billionth power = 1 over (/) 10 to the 99,999,999,879th power. [b]Which is practically 0!!!![/b] It doesn't matter if the Earth is 100 billion years old there hasn't been enough time, space, or matter for evolution to ever have occured!!!!!!! Evolution must 1st work on the molecular level to work at all!!!! Post edited by: Psalm84_10, at: 2007/01/29 23:13

Post edited by: Psalm84_10, at: 2007/01/29 23:23

[b]Psalm84_10 wrote:[/b] [quote]Baryons are the smallest particles of matter in the universe. (Go with me on this). Scientists have calculated the total number of baryons in the universe. 10 to the 84th power. Scientists have also calculated the maximum number of interactions per second. 10 to the 20th power. [b]The 1st cell requires 10 to the 100 billionth power interactions to evolve![/b] Since most people speculate that the Earth is around 15 billion years old, then you would calculate the total number of interactions since the beginning of time. Take how many seconds there are in 15 billion years and multiply that with the total number of baryons in the universe multiplied by the number of baryon interactions per second. (10 to the 17th power x 10 to the 84th power x 10 to the 20th power = 10 to the 121st power. 10 to the 121st power interactions since the beginning of time. The structure of the 1st cell would require 10 to the 100 billionth power interactions to evolve. Since the beginning of time however, there have been only 10 to the 121st power interactions! To find the probability of evolution actually happening, you take the number of baryon interactions since the beginning of time and divide that by the number of baryon interactions needed for the 1st cell to evolve. (10 to the 121st power divided by 10 to the 100 billionth power = 1 over (/) 10 to the 99,999,999,879th power. [b]Which is practically 0!!!![/b] It doesn't matter if the Earth is 100 billion years old there hasn't been enough time, space, or matter for evolution to ever have occured!!!!!!! Evolution must 1st work on the molecular level to work at all!!!! Post edited by: Psalm84_10, at: 2007/01/29 23:13<br><br>Post edited by: Psalm84_10, at: 2007/01/29 23:23[/quote] Baryons aren't particles, you fail.

I can't beleive we're still talking about this. Evolutionary origin has so many holes in it, it's ridiculous. Take the fossil dating system(please). They date fossils based on what layer of rock they appear in, and they date the layers of rock based on what fossils they find in it. What if I come to you with a piece of limestone, and want you to date it? Well, limestone appears at what? 4 different points I think, on the fossil column. It's so nuts, I can't believe anybody puts their faith in this garbage.

Uh, there is a bit more to the dating system than that. And at least evolution does have some scientific evidence to support it where as creationism has none whatsoever.