|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
Sound familiar? ''Okay, so here is a summary of the arguments of these folks against evolution:1. Mere chance cannot create complex living organisms. 2. The fossil record is full of gaps, it doesn’t show species changing gradually to other species. 3. The theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 4. If life arose through evolution, why can’t scientists create life in the laboratory?'' Weak...a strawman/caricature of the arguments against evolution and then a response to that strawman.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
Nope, our "universe" is in a shoe box under a bed that belongs to a kid named "God". Personally I prefer a computer simulation within a simulation and so forth. Star Trek The Next Generation Episode: Ship in a Bottle (end of last act) "As far as Moriarty and the countess know, they're halfway to Meles II by now. This enhancement module contains enough active memory to provide them with experiences for a lifetime." "They will live their lives and never know any difference." "In a sense, you did give Moriarty what he wanted." "In a sense, who knows? Our reality may be very much like theirs. All this might just be an elaborate simulation running inside a little device sitting on someone's table." (all leave, except Barclay, who apprehensively tests his environment...) "Computer, end program." (Nothing happens, and Barclay smiles)
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Sound familiar? ''Okay, so here is a summary of the arguments of these folks against evolution:1. Mere chance cannot create complex living organisms. 2. The fossil record is full of gaps, it doesn’t show species changing gradually to other species. 3. The theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 4. If life arose through evolution, why can’t scientists create life in the laboratory?'' Weak...a strawman/caricature of the arguments against evolution and then a response to that strawman. Not weak at all. Versions of these tactics have been used on this thread. How many comments have there been along the lines of ''pure chance cannot...?'' The caricature being the creationist version of evolution. Evolution is a proven principle. The evidence, if actually considered, is undeniable.
Last edited by DBT; 07/31/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
[1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now? Don't get stuck in three dimensions.There was no "where," He just was and still is. settle man, I made no mention of the creators realm being limited to a 3D interpretation, so again,.. 1/. where was the creators realm of existence before the universe came about? and...2/. where is the creators realm of existence at this moment? [ie;] Is the christian heaven with father and son a realm outside our current universe? - Where is this somewhere place-destination called Heaven or the Fathers House? - Is it in exactly the same place it was before the universe came about? Jesus did go away/ go somewhere when he ascended, yes? and when he returns for the judgement he will have come from somewhere , yes?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
That's another problem, Jesus is said to have promised to return in power, come to judge the world within the lifetime of those standing before him. The first Christians waited for that event, but it did not happen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
BIble Says they saw him physically ascend-go away and Bible says they will the see him coming on his return. thus He didn't depart-dissapear in an instant beyond 3D time and space puff of God magic.
he also did not depart for heaven anywhere near the speed of light,
even at the speed of light Jesus would currently only be 2000 lights away, while our Milky Way galaxy is 53,000 light years in size....then there's the rest of the immense universe to traverse before you can get to the gates of heaven...
...lest of course heaven is much much closer than some believe?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Jacobs ladder has the Angels decending and ascending between heaven and earth. God's throne being said to rest upon the dome of the sky, which is based on the cosmology of that time and place.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,428
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,428 |
...lest of course heaven is much much closer than some believe?
Rrrrrr, many here think it's very very far, for some. LOL
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Why would a Being capable of creating a universe, create evil or create hell?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6 |
No sh** Sherlock. I'm a scientist, and I am not a creationsit. But I can still see it, plain as day. In fact, I'm guilty of it myself.
"Sherlock?" What exactly do you see, and what exactly are you guilty of? You need to be more precise. How many scientists publish papers on creationism? What scientists happen to contemplate in private is irrelevant to science. Thank you, Galileo. Or do yiou fancy yourself more a Leonardo? It has nothing to do with me. You are trying to deflect away from the argument and onto the poster, an attempt to make it something personal. A common ploy and a sign of failure. My original point had everything to do with you, me, and most everyone posting on this thread. And to remind you, that was: most people who participate in these arguments start with an unshakable belief, and look for evidence that corroborates that belief. They take that evidence wherever they can find it. Then you shifted the argument to the scientists who developed the theory of evolution, none of whom were included in the point I was making. I understand how and why they came up with the theory but there's not a single person commenting on thes thread who's followed that path and done what they did. Everyone commenting here is depending on the work/research/writings/publications of someone else to form and bolster their own opinions. But by trying to shift the point I was making to the originators of the theory, you placed yourself in their company and I'm here to tell you you're not in their company, you're riding their coattails just like everyone else who supports the theory. Hence the "Galileo" comment. I've observed these threads on evolution since I joined this site. They were going on before I joined and they'll be going on after I depart. Lots of good points made on both sides but the one thing I'm certain of is that not a single person has switched over to the other side based on what's been said. So it's entertaining to see people such as yourself attempt to "prove" their points, on both sides. I gave up on arguing these points a while back, it's fruitless. I know what I believe, and why, and that's good enough for me.. I also know that I don't have all the answers, none of us do.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
In Brief ''Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack. Creationist arguments are notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science and evidence. Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.'' Notice the caricature "creationist". The use of caricatures is a give away that the proponent of the term doubts he can win on the merits. (If an atheist intellectual has doubts about Neo-Darwinism surely he is not a creationist, but I digress). Hundreds of studies do not verify that evolution can create life form inorganic matter or that it can create whole new body plans from pre-existing ones. They prove the opposite. Indeed, life itself and new body plans are the product of coded genetic information and Neo-Darwinism cannot account for either the inception of that information or its increase. It is true the neo-Darwinian establishment (liberal judges) have ruled that teaching the controversy is unconstitutional, but that utterly begs the question. Their decisions are poorly decided and evince a poor grasp of science. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was understood by its Framers to prohibit discrimination against homosexual marriage. This is nonsense too. Get the point? Arguments against evolution are not "notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of science". Intellectuals with the highest academic pedigrees (David Galernter, David Berlinski, Stephen Meyers, Phillip Johnson, James Tour, George Gilder and many, many others with the highest of IQs and credentials do not "misunderstand" evolution. Its more likely they understand if exceptionally well and hence come by their doubts honestly. The very question-begging, misrepresenting and caricature indulging nature of DBT's post suggest a lack of confidence in his own position, otherwise, he'd employ better arguments.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
Here is one of those scientists DBT claims "don't understand" evolution. James Tour is one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world. Its far more likely Tour understands evolution exceptionally well, certainly much, much better than DBT and yet Tour doubts the neo-Darwinian creation myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour.
Last edited by Tarquin; 07/31/19.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
Sound familiar? ''Okay, so here is a summary of the arguments of these folks against evolution:1. Mere chance cannot create complex living organisms. 2. The fossil record is full of gaps, it doesn’t show species changing gradually to other species. 3. The theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 4. If life arose through evolution, why can’t scientists create life in the laboratory?'' Crdationists sound pretty simple minded to me. Hrere wre the answers: 1. It can and it does. The mechanisms by which life evolves, including some of it becoming more complicated, are well understood. We don't yet know how inorganic stuff became simple life (see question 4) but wee shure know how organisms evolve wonce they exist. 2. There are many cases of species changing into other cpecies, and fossils keep getting found that are "missing links" between different forms. "Gaps" get smaller with each discoveery. 3. Creationists don't understnd simple physics. The second law of thermodynamics says that in a CLOSED SYSTEM, every process produces more disorder. Thus, say the cretionists, a simpler thing cannot eveolve to a more complex, or orderly, thing. Not true. The closed system includes the organism AND the earth. The organism itself can become more complex. If the second law of thermodynamics precluded evolution, it would also preclude making automobiles out of raw materials. 4. This argument is like saying, in 1900, that birds can't fly because scientists haven't figured out how to make things that fly in the laboratory--yet. Yet birds fly.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Here is one of those scientists DBT claims "don't understand" evolution. James Tour is one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world. Its far more likely Tour understands evolution exceptionally well, certainly much, much better than DBT and yet Tour doubts the neo-Darwinian creation myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour.Oh, I’ve already linked some of Tour’s videos and his impressive credentials. The brain trust around here has already ruled that he is dummy with a poor grasp of the subject.
Last edited by JoeBob; 07/31/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
''Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack. Perhaps not exclusively but as an alternative theory. All theories should be under constant attack, that's the scientific method. For goodness sake I saw an article sometime this month where Einstein's General Theory was confirmed yet again.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
Excellent presentation by world renowned chemist James Tour on why evolution has not (and probably cannot) explain the origin of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
As I understand it evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It deals with what happened after that.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
As I understand it evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It deals with what happened after that. Evolution is a non-starter unless and until it can explain how life began but all evolutionists believe that in principle evolution explains the origins of life. It is the only naturalistic theory available to them and they dogmatically insist its up to the task, but in reality all they have is hand-waving and speculation against extremely improbable odds.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,926 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,926 Likes: 2 |
Two separate and different subjects/fields of study/arguments.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
194 members (160user, 280shooter, 1OntarioJim, 257 roberts, 222Sako, 2500HD, 20 invisible),
1,699
guests, and
942
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,372
Posts18,488,335
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|