Awww, Melih - what have you done? The dust was settling and you’ve gone and stirred it all up again.
Happy??
[attachment deleted by admin]
I knew my misspent youth thinking about time and universe would come handy one day 
Melih
Hmm nice one Melih but the problem of infinite regress in the ‘how was it created’ question is still not solved just deferred. Interestingly this one applies both to science and religion.
- if you believe in a single material universe how did it come into being, or was it always there?
- if you believe in a god how did the god come into being? Or was it always there?
- if you believe in a multiverse who created the multiverse? Or was it always there?
I guess the advantage of the multiverse is that it cannot be contradicted by big ■■■■ evidence, tho’.
Incidentally I guess (maybe you can confirm) that the multiverse hypothesis does not imply a true singularity as the start of a universe, just a very small space/time continuum. If it does imply a sngularity (a start to time as well as space) through which no information could pass, then it would probably be an untestable hypothesis, and thus not qualify as a scientific theory.
Best wishes
Mouse
I take your comments focus on the only aspect you are interested whenever you cast bird, reptiles an what else in a figure of speech to state your feelings
I have no clue why you seem focused on a figure of speech that in and of itself was used simply to convey the idea that a speciation event is not instantaneous. The fact that I used ‘half-bird’ is neither here nor there. It was not intended to portray any deeper significance.
having spent hours debating the ID’ers at my school debating society, I am only too aware of the tired old arguments they are happy to regurgitate at any given opportunity. One of which is the misconception regarding speciation.
Sooner or later I’m sure someone will drag the eye and the bacterial flagellum into the argument, as evidence for ID, they always do. It’s all down to listening to loons like William Dembski and Michael Behe.
As for the references of Eve et al, I misconstrued your post, I believed you were talking about a different event.
Thought that asking explicitly if you saw reason to extend ‘half-bird’ considerations to an earlier post of mine was clear enough whereas there I explicitly invited everybody to provide a different placement of reptiles, sea creatures and birds on a time-line spanning hundreds million of years.
It goes without saying, that having borrowed Archaeopteryx as “true bird” from somebody else referenced AnswersInGenesis article, different placement could be provided if selection criteria differs.
Thought obvious that anybody mentioning archaeological evidence that birds predates reptiles would also provide a blatant way to refute whatsoever idea that bird derived from reptiles ancestor though the main request was focused on the more general aspect of organizing archaeological evidences over a timeline.
And related to other considerations that by no means are limited to the ones I enumerated.
Oh, how much time it takes to counter everything. 88)
There are also works by Creationists and “ID’ers” too. And I assure you, they have more knowledge than me.
It doesn’t directly create new genetic information, but it insures the best mutations survive.
A purpose for God?
All created things have a purpose. Uncreate and eternal beings do not.
Biblical creationism is testable. While I would agree that the Bible does not offer an exhaustive look at any one field of science, God has given us some testable, verifiable accounts of history, biology, and human nature. One can examine what it says about the ancient world and discover that these statements are accurate. If it is accurate in those areas, then why would we suddenly disconnect it from the real world when it, quite obviously, makes testable statements about geology (the Flood), the universe, and the origin of life?
There are a few ‘creationist’ scientists, they do not in general publish in peer reviewed scientific journals. Indeed there is relatively little written by this small band. Very few other scientists believe their arguments are credible.
It doesn't directly create new genetic information, but it insures the best mutations survive.I am not sure what you mean by directly, but if I understand correctly you are basically conceding this point? You are probably also aware that there is strong evidence that genetic material can be incorporated from different organisms and re-used and re-interpreted over time by the host organism. This is another method by which the complexity of a given organisms code can increase with time.
A purpose for God?All created things have a purpose. Uncreate and eternal beings do not.
If you really believe this, and you wish to argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Then you need to explain how the application of a purposeless intelligence can yield testable predictions. Otherwise we must conclude that creationism is not a scientific theory.
Biblical creationism is testable. While I would agree that the Bible does not offer an exhaustive look at any one field of science, God has given us some testable, verifiable accounts of history, biology, and human nature. One can examine what it says about the ancient world and discover that these statements are accurate. If it is accurate in those areas, then why would we suddenly disconnect it from the real world when it, quite obviously, makes testable statements about geology (the Flood), the universe, and the origin of life?
OK so now I think we are shifting from intelligent design to the bible’s description of the events that, according to the biblical narrative, marked the beginning of the earth and species and the sequence in which these events occurred.
Endymion has I think debated with you extensively on these points, so I will consult his arguments to prevent us going over old ground.
Best wishes
Mouse
I find the opposite shocking. Man prefers to have a theory where he has no importance and there is no morality, instead of a where a God loves us and made us in His image (and where we are important, because God values us).
I am from the US. And I am happy that America is not as far gone as Europe. But it is getting close…
Just because it is accepted as fact does not mean it is a fact. 
The day Darwin gets on any of our currency, I’ll view it as I view the time when Obama won the Nobel Peace prize.
Evolution? Simple? Scientists concoct many different things in response to challenges by creationists. Also, they try to find the histories of species. They also try and come up with some complicated way of how anything began in the first place (that isn’t quite evolution, but evolution needs something to “start it”).
Compare that to creationism: In 6 days, everything was made. The universe, and the ant.
The fact that most scientists are evolutionists/Darwinists does not mean creationism is incorrect.
As for Creation scientists, check out this page: Bios | Answers in Genesis
The ICR has technical papers too, and other articles. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=12
Maybe I should have said not at all. I concede with you that natural selection does not itself change organisms and life-forms, but it is a system to “keep” the right mutations.
Organisms can “share” genetic code, but overall, it does not produce “more”.
Can I see some of this strong evidence?
This “intelligence” has desires and wants. He wants something to love. That is His purpose for creating us.
Suggestions and ideas proposed by creationists are as testable as ones by evolutionists, or more so.
Erm…I don’t think it was anywhere near settling. 
Boy, you guys are easily shocked.
People in Europe should be aware that almost every poll taken during the last 100 years in US on the subject of evolution has never resulted in less than 44% of US adults believing that Darwin was wrong. A recent poll in 2001 indicated that 45% US adults agreed that God created human beings (pretty much in their present form) within the last 10,000 years or so.
Now this is shocking. Every single atom in our bodies (and everything around us for that matter) was either forged (created) in the heart of a massive star (much bigger than ours), during a supernova explosion or during the actual big ■■■■ itself. We are quite literally made of stardust.
In the piece on Discovery they said that almost all the fossil imprints of the Archaeopteryx have come from the same area in Germany and in the same type of rock. They showed how you could take a piece of the same rock from that area and grind it into a paste, then put anything you wanted in it to make an imprint and then let the paste dry. After it was completely dried, All the dating methods currently in use would show the age of the rock to be the same as any other piece from that same area. It was very interesting.
I am one of those 45% who believe that Man, in his current form, has been created no more than 10,000 years ago. That does not mean , however, that the Earth itself is only that old. The materials we’re made from don’t matter. It’s how those materials were put together that does.
The evidence of God is all around you. Do you really believe that everything you see in all it’s diversity is a result of random chance? If it all happened by blind evolution there would be far fewer species in existence than there are. Only the ones suited to the environment would have survived. Another thing; how can our unique awareness of ourselves and the things around us and our abilities to shape the world as we want be a result of evolution? Even our physical form puts the lie to the evolution theory. What would be the advantage in an ape losing 80% of it’s physical strength and it’s protective covering of hair? How would this produce greater odds of survival? The answer is simple, it clearly wouldn’t.
As far as Intelligent Design being a scientific theory goes, that’s just ludicrous. You can not prove supernatural events by natural means, period. All the scientists trying to explain things like the fall of Jericho and other events in the Bible like the 7 plagues are just wasting their (and everyone else’s) time. God can do anything He wants and is not bound by natural laws at all. The meaning of the word supernatural is over and above or outside of nature. That fits God and his works perfectly.
For the most part, science consists of theories built on theories on top of suppositions based on a guess. There are established observable and provable things of course but they are in the minority. Darwin took observable adaptation of species to their environment and extrapolated that into a theory of the origin of species. It is still nothing more than that and as I have said, every single chain of “evidence” for any currently existing species having once been something else is as full of holes as a block of Swiss cheese that has been blasted by a 12 gauge shotgun. Darwin deserves credit for discovering natural selection but nothing more than that.
I too am glad that the US has not become as decadent as Europe, yet. We have however, already gone too far down that road.
I have no doubt they provided with such impression and whereas even fiction can be considered interesting kudos to them for limiting to describe how to fake a fossil though this apparently induced you to to pass such specious argument (Affirming the consequent) to claim forgery for some other fossil
In attempt to provide some grounds to what you heard from Discovery I posted a Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia link that outlines past disputes on that topic and also provides publicly available references
They actually produced a fake Archaeopteryx fossil. They did not say that the existing fossils were frauds, they simply provided a basis for the possibility and a support for the people who believe that they are. Given the philosophical disposition of the owners of the network, that may not have been their intention but it can be construed as the result.
The Archaeopteryx, if it existed, was created by intelligent design the same way that everything before and after it was. God just simply made later modifications to the original or eliminated it and made something entirely different. Creation has been a series of stages, each one setting the groundwork and base for the next. I suppose you could say that’s evolution, but it’s been directed, not random.
With the rise of relativism, people have taken to polls to see what is popular and currently accepted.
Many people say one thing (and believe it on the surface), but “deep down” are not so sure.
Now this is shocking. Every single atom in our bodies (and everything around us for that matter) was either forged (created) in the heart of a massive star (much bigger than ours), during a supernova explosion or during the actual big ■■■■ itself. We are quite literally made of stardust. :)
What does this have to do with that poll?
Maybe we were all forged in an alien city’s sewer system out of their and their pets’ waste. 88)
Obviously if even their claim of successfully faking an Archaeopteryx fossil was actually confirmed this would make only theirs an Hoax.
Their intention (or unproved success, or even success) to fake a fossil by no means can be used to affirm the consequent and by virtue of such specious claim invalidate all the different Archaeopteryx fossils.
If Discovery piece was actually relevant (eg finding was submitted, reviewed and integrated as a cornerstone in the corpus of scientific literature ) I guess by now you would have been able to provide a more reasonable and verifiable reference.
Whereas claims are open to question, hearsays can be supposedly reported matters not if misrepresented or stripped of other relevant details and are unlikely to provide reasonable grounds to prove any viewpoint.
IMHO there is already enough of arguments that transcend human comprehension for this topic and any purely personal beliefs on what Discovery supposedly suggested about every Archaeopteryx are no reason for sliding on such slippery grounds leveraging on completely unverifiable information (unlike eg a written source) ever more whereas it looked like there was supposedly no way for anybody to verify if such claims would have been also relevant/eligible to change how Archaeopteryx is regarded in the relevant field of research (regardless any philosophical disposition of any network) .
Absolutely nothing. Why is it shocking to you because it’s on-topic?
As I said, the poll statement was for the Europeans. I’m surprised that you seem to be bristling over it. I certainly meant nothing derogatory by it (what do you think it means?). It was merely meant to be informative. I don’t think I was being relativistic either, it was for enlightenment.
Because of the 45% I’m assuming you mean me. If so, huh? I don’t think I gave even the slightest indication of what my religious tendencies were or were not. For all I know the big ■■■■ was started by a lit fuse and all the galaxies were created to forge mankind, what I find awesome and fascinating is how it was done and what it is, ie. the materials that don’t, as you said,… erm… matter (or was that humour on your part?) for the origins of the universe.
Decadent? Why do you believe Europeans are decadent?