Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 255
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I would have thought the presence of fossils by itself would be enough to refute biblical Young Earth creation.

    Surur
    Nope. In fact the presence of fossils actually confirms creation.

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i6n.htm

    Taking their work even further, Krauss and his team added enough sediment to the tanks to bury the submerged carcasses. Then, they placed weights on the mud to increase the pressure, as a naturally buried body would experience if accumulating lake sediments gradually covered it. The team left the bodies in place for 3 years.

    When the researchers unearthed their samples, they found that the patterns and extent of preservation of the faux-fossil birds were remarkably similar to those seen in actual fossils millions of years old. This resemblance suggests that the remains of ancient birds might have begun their process of fossilization in just such a way, Krauss notes. The team's findings may enable scientists to better interpret fossils and deduce the environments in which they formed, he adds. 6
    It took only 3 years to make a million year old fossil!

    Science has shown (read the whole article) that fossilization happens very quickly.
  2. #162  
    Has it occurred to you that if fossilization was such a rapid process the world would be littered with modern fossils of our grandparents, their dogs and cows etc all over the place.

    Surur
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Exactly my point! The Evolutionists have things that they point out and say "Look! This points to evolution!" The Creationists also have things they point out and say "Look! This points to creation!" Neither can be proved nor disproved, and so those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation each have a faith in the things they have been taught. Evolution is a religion, not a science.
    You are partially correct. Creationism can not be disproven - that is why it is not science.

    However, evolution (hypothetically) CAN be disproven. The theory of evolution would make very clear that under conditions Y, then you will have result X. If X does not happen, then the original theory is disproven.

    That is how science works. You state a hypothesis is such as way that it can be tested via experimentation. If the tests come back disproving it, then you either discard the hypothesis, or modify it based on new evidence.

    If evolution were true, we would see everything in the world pointing to it. Yet, the layers of soil and rock that scientists around the world use for dating fossils has not been found completely intact, and where it was found it is upside down from what they say it should be. Evolution also breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that all thermodynamic systems go from order to chaos. If evolution were true, then are we the least ordered (complex) being on the planet?

    First of all...links please? Secondly, I am not a geologist, so I have no in depth idea about how layers of earth may shift....but gee, I am guessing subduction may have something to do with it. Subduction There are huge amounts of shifting in the earth's crust, so I would predict here are a wide number of disruptions.

    And the idea that evolution breaks the law of thermodynamics is basically confusing the 2nd law. The truth behind the matter can be read here. In short, you are arguing apples and oranges when using this argument. According to that argument, crystals couldn't form because they are more organized than the random distribution of particulate minerals. Yet we see crystals forming all the time - want me to tell you a simple experiment?
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Nope. In fact the presence of fossils actually confirms creation.

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i6n.htm


    It took only 3 years to make a million year old fossil!

    Science has shown (read the whole article) that fossilization happens very quickly.


    Read the research. The research states that a body must be BURIED very quickly in order to begin the fossilization process, not that the process itself is very quick. It doesn't say anything for how long the process takes.

    And as for them creating a million year old fossil, they didn't. They created a 3 year old specimens that had similar TRAITS to a million year old fossil. It is entirely possible that if that 3 year old specimens had remained in the ground longer, it would have become a fossil. But no where does he say he actually created a 3 year old fossil.

    Chris
  5. #165  
    Next we will hear how the world is really flat and has "4 corners"...

    Surur
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, at what age in the womb can you consider an emryo or fetus human life?
    At about 10 weeks, the embryo develops into the fetus, with its pig-snout and tail.

    Does having a reptilian brain count as being human? The fetus doesn't develop higher brain function beyond this point until about 6 months with brain function able to be verified at about 7 months.

    Minimal viability is generally accepted at 22 weeks, as a fetus at 22 weeks only has ~15% survival rate due to its lungs not being well developed. 50% of these which survive will have suffered permanent brain damage.

    Viability which can offer the potential for real life to a child begins at 26 weeks.

    90% of all abortions in the US are performed prior to 13 weeks.

    Source: www.cdc.gov
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/23/2007 at 07:05 PM.
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    At about 10 weeks, the embryo develops into the fetus, with its pig-snout and tail.

    Does having a reptilian brain count as being human? The fetus doesn't develop higher brain function beyond this point until about 6 months with brain function able to be verified at about 7 months.

    Minimal viability is generally accepted at 22 weeks, as a fetus at 22 weeks only has ~15% survival rate due to its lungs not being well developed. 50% of these which survive will have suffered permanent brain damage.

    Viability which can offer the potential for real life to a child begins at 26 weeks.

    90% of all abortions in the US are performed prior to 13 weeks.

    Source: www.cdc.gov
    Great. But, uh, isn't this thread about "partial-birth" abortion? Where the mother carries the child nearly to term? So by your own posting you are saying that partial-birth abortion is taking the life of a human being.
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Read the research. The research states that a body must be BURIED very quickly in order to begin the fossilization process, not that the process itself is very quick. It doesn't say anything for how long the process takes.

    And as for them creating a million year old fossil, they didn't. They created a 3 year old specimens that had similar TRAITS to a million year old fossil. It is entirely possible that if that 3 year old specimens had remained in the ground longer, it would have become a fossil. But no where does he say he actually created a 3 year old fossil.

    Chris
    Right. Exactly. If they had buried that specimen and a paleantologist had come along later and found it, he probably would have said something like, "This has all the characteristics of a million year old fossil, so it must be!"
  9. #169  
    Back to partial birth abortions - again, I think they are horrible if performed on healthy mother and her healthy baby within. But here is yet another example of a women who had one done and in reading the article I cannot see why I should be opposed to the procedure in this case.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18278305/site/newsweek/
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    You are partially correct. Creationism can not be disproven - that is why it is not science.

    However, evolution (hypothetically) CAN be disproven. The theory of evolution would make very clear that under conditions Y, then you will have result X. If X does not happen, then the original theory is disproven.

    That is how science works. You state a hypothesis is such as way that it can be tested via experimentation. If the tests come back disproving it, then you either discard the hypothesis, or modify it based on new evidence.
    So, what tests have been performed about evolution? What tests can be performed to test evolution. According to the scientific method, which you just stated, something has to be able to be tested to fall under science. There is no way you can test evolution. Or maybe I'm wrong. A bit of irony here: You know, scientists for decades have been trying to create life in the laboratory to prove that life was not created by an intelligent being.


    First of all...links please? Secondly, I am not a geologist, so I have no in depth idea about how layers of earth may shift....but gee, I am guessing subduction may have something to do with it. Subduction There are huge amounts of shifting in the earth's crust, so I would predict here are a wide number of disruptions.
    Okay, I'll give you that, but as far as the paleantologists are concerned dinosaurs died out millions of years before man, right? Then how do human footprints end up right beside dinosaur footprints in Dinosaur Valley State park? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

    And the idea that evolution breaks the law of thermodynamics is basically confusing the 2nd law. The truth behind the matter can be read here. In short, you are arguing apples and oranges when using this argument. According to that argument, crystals couldn't form because they are more organized than the random distribution of particulate minerals. Yet we see crystals forming all the time - want me to tell you a simple experiment?
    According to the article you posted above, it states that evolution is possible if the entropy decreases in an object while the entropy increases in it's surroundings. If evolution is the case, why then do we not see new species of animals evolving before our eyes? The crocodile is a great example. Why hasn't the crocodile evolved into a bi-pedal reptile? They have found fossils of crocodiles from "millions" of years ago, and they look exactly the same as crocodiles of today, only larger (and this can be explained by the fact that reptiles continue to grow their entire lives, so what would a 200 year old crocodile look like? the fossils from"millions of years ago). Why no change? According to evolution, the species (since it seems to be one of the fittest) would have evolved and changed over time.
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Great. But, uh, isn't this thread about "partial-birth" abortion? Where the mother carries the child nearly to term? So by your own posting you are saying that partial-birth abortion is taking the life of a human being.
    See my earlier post regarding this procedure's misused politically created/motivated/loaded term partial birth abortion. This term is inappropriate and not used, whatsoever, in clinical texts.

    Almost all Intact D&X procedures take place during the 2nd trimester. In 1973, Pre-Roe, 1.7% of all reported abortions were @ 21 weeks. As of 2003, this figure has dropped to 1.4% which includes Hysterotomy/Hysterectomy and Non-surgical.

    Induced labor may occur, due to a traumatic event or the like to the woman >26 weeks, but all reasonable efforts will be taken to deliver a live birth. Abortions at 26 weeks, as a matter of preference simply do not happen in any legal facility.

    Source: www.cdc.gov
  12.    #172  
    I am amazed and just gotta say something. Backbeat, everyone knows why partial birth abortion is not used in a clinic and yes, it is a very appropriate term as it depicts exactly what the procedure is. Why worry about a "feel good" term, say it like it is.

    The other posts on evolution are just putting holes in almost everything you have posted. Keep up the good work; maybe someday you will convince us.

    Ben
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I am amazed and just gotta say something. Backbeat, everyone knows why partial birth abortion is not used in a clinic and yes, it is a very appropriate term as it depicts exactly what the procedure is. Why worry about a "feel good" term, say it like it is.

    Ben
    Keep up the religious propaganda, Ben.

    When the facts are in, there is no such thing as partial birth abortion in its inflammatory meaning.
  14.    #174  
    Religious propaganda? Please explain without your usual posing. The description is exactly what it is.

    Ben
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #175  
    Ben, would you please read what you're responding to a little more thoroughly prior to regurgitating the statements you made on Page-1? It would help further the discussion.

    Thanks.
  16. #176  
    Either we argue all abortion, partial birth abortion or evolution, but we cant do all three at the same time. I am not amazed however that the biggest opponents of these therapeutic abortions are also so anti-science.

    Surur
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Either we argue all abortion, partial birth abortion or evolution, but we cant do all three at the same time.
    how we do get distracted.

    I am not amazed however that the biggest opponents of these therapeutic abortions are also so anti-science.

    Surur
    Hmm..as far as that statement goes, I have tried to back up what I say with scientific articles. I am not anti-science. I think science is great. God made science, so why should we fear it?

    I do agree that we should keep this topic to what the title is, so I will no longer post about evolution.
  18. #178  
    I am not amazed however that the biggest opponents of these therapeutic abortions are also so anti-science
    Hmmmm. A "pro science" (I suppose) member describes science as being advanced by hypotheses being disproven. But when one raises a question s/he is labeled "anti-science"
  19. #179  
    Shopharim, I am still waiting for your list of alternatives to dilation and extraction, and why they are better.

    Surur
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Shopharim, I am still waiting for your list of alternatives to dilation and extraction, and why they are better.

    Surur
    Oh. Pardon me. I misunderstood something. You wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I don't understand your response fully. The above reasons (uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, heart failure and things like maternal cancer needing urgent chemotherapy may only have onset in the later pregnancy and preclude labor and abdominal surgery. ) would necessitate late term abortions for the health and safety of the mother, and dilation and extraction is really the only way to do this besides inducing labor, which would be undesirable for someone with .... (uncontrolled diabetes, maternal hypertension, heart failure and things like maternal cancer needing urgent chemotherapy may only have onset in the later pregnancy and preclude labor and abdominal surgery. )....Surur
    I figured since you offered that inducing labor was an option the that D&X was not of necessity.

Posting Permissions