hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  23

  Noah and the flood

  by Iwonder17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.

  is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?

  also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  And thank you hoobrus, and BA, for your drive by posting.

  And, thank you for yours.
• 
  23

  Noah and the flood

  by Iwonder17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.

  is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?

  also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.creationresearch.org
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Guy is too lazy to drag his stuff here, or even use his own words.

  Most of what I have typed here have been my own words.

  Why should i go there to see what is likely piffling dumpings;)

  Please don't then.
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  3) And the biggest reason of all: creation does not reveal a moral, loving Creator behind it all. Good Grief! If a scientist made an alligator with ten foot legs, we'd say he was an evil nutcase but that's what "God" did with dinosaurs! And there's mosquitos and liver flukes and guinea worms and cancer and other horrors wonderfully made (!) to adapt to their surroundings! I guess you could say I believe in some sort of ID but not with a personal Creator.

  Your reasoning assumes that things like cancer were a part of the original created world, and not due to the consequences of the fall. see for example "Did God make Pathogenic Viruses? etc. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3772/

  How can non-creationists say for sure that cancer, parasites, suffering, and death, are bad when such things (acccording to most of them) were part of the processes that brought man into existence? Furthermore, how can they make judgements on what is moral when (according to them) their sense of morality is the product of an evolutionary process which selects soley on short-term survival value and not on moral value.
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Of course it's scientific. The theory of evolution makes predictions. It is falsifiable.

  The book "The Biotic Message" demonstrates from evolutionists themselves the unfalsifiable state that evolution now exists in. "The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science." http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  It is observable. Don't you remember the news article from this past summer where bacteria were observed gaining a new trait? Not merely adapting, but gaining the ability to metabolize citrate? Look it up. Further proof of evolution in the lab.

  First of all, most of the "examples" of evolution in the lab (even "beneficial mutations") given have been shown to be actually de-evolutionary: see for example: "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm Instances of even claimed adaptation by information gain are a small subset of the rare"beneficial mutation" category. (Which is itself a very small subset of all mutations). Darwinism and the Deteroation of the Genome http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp As to the claim of bacteria "gaining the ability to metabolize citrate" as an example of "proof of evolution in the lab" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  So, evolution as "change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic,

  evolution as an overarching ideology isn't?

  "Change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic, however defining such change as "evolution" in the context of the evolution discussion/debate, and using this a proof of the "fact" of evolution, is frankly a trivial semantics only "victory".

  In reality "change in inherited traits over time" is better defined as "what population genetics studies".
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  ‘ … the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ 4

  Any biologist will agree that this is a problematic defintion to start from. "Evolution" is not a theory, darwinism, otoh, is, common descent is, etc. Evolution is an observed fact, defined by wikipedia as "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next". So, I'd like to see the context of this quote and the reason why the author uses this particular textbook (and not a dictionary, encyclopedia, general introductionary textbook) to build his critique on.

  I think that many biologists would consider the definition "… the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." as an accurate summary definition of what is meant by "evolution" in the context of creation-evolution discussions. It certainly parallels the overall version of history presented in textbooks and dedicated "evolution" books.

  Furthermore, prominent evolutionists know full well that creation scientists accept the fact that "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" occurrs, yet they still accuse these scientists of "rejecting evolution" since they don't accept the overall evolutionary version of history. Thus even evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is "really" it is much more than mere "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next".
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  No observational data?

  it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.

  Next time read the article more carefully. (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155) It is not saying that no type of "adaptation" has been observed but rather how such types of observed change really offer little support for the evolutionary version of history. Also see the article on fish adaptation in response to fishing here: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1267/
• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Is evolution scientific ?

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155
• 
  98

  Another fossil link found

  by Caedes in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7736786.stm.

  the earliest turtles known to live in water have been discovered on a scottish island.. the 164 million-year-old reptile fossils were found on a beach in southern skye, off the uk's west coast.

  the new species forms a missing link between ancient terrestrial turtles and their modern, aquatic descendants.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  Creationists at least have a certain naive honesty where they simply deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for the history of our universe and declare their holy book to be true. The ostensibly more rational theists or deists have a more insidious approach, where they simply find a gap in our current knowledge and assert that the only thing that can fill that gap is a god, an intelligent complex entity whom they further declare - to avoid the infinite regress - to be an exception to the very rule that supposedly requires his existence.

  And what "rule" would that be?