In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.
In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.
I can not see this thread solving much. Once again, it takes a larger leap of faith to embrace evolution then creationism.
?
Evolution, just as GG says, is factual. The existence of evolution does not have to mean Ooze to Humans. Evolution covers much more and is irrefutable.
I can not see this thread solving much. Once again, it takes a larger leap of faith to embrace evolution then creationism.
?
Evolution, just as GG says, is factual. The existence of evolution does not have to mean Ooze to Humans. Evolution covers much more and is irrefutable.
Evidence please. Only specific examples of provable evidence counts.
I can not see this thread solving much. Once again, it takes a larger leap of faith to embrace evolution then creationism.
?
Evolution, just as GG says, is factual. The existence of evolution does not have to mean Ooze to Humans. Evolution covers much more and is irrefutable.
Evidence please. Only specific examples of provable evidence counts.
I can not see this thread solving much. Once again, it takes a larger leap of faith to embrace evolution then creationism.
?
Evolution, just as GG says, is factual. The existence of evolution does not have to mean Ooze to Humans. Evolution covers much more and is irrefutable.
If you're going to have a talk about the THEORY of evolution, you need to keep it in scientific terms; because it is a scientific subject. Therefore, while your statement that evolution is "factual" conversationally, scientifically it is incorrect.
Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:
Gravity Relativity (general & special) Plate tectonics ...I could go on.
Functionally these are treated as if they are fact, because we have been unable to prove them wrong, and quite the opposite. Each new discovery actually ends up further supporting these theories rather than disproving them. These theories are also predictable in nature...If A is true, I ought to be able to do B and see XYZ result. ALL of these theories (including Evolution); this is observed.
Allele frequencies in populations change over time. Take it or leave it.
Originally Posted by GunGeek
In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.
There is no conflict between scientific evolution and the Biblical version of creation. Only the timeline is different. Saying it happened in 6 days is metaphorical. No one ever believed that, even Christians when Jesus walked the earth understood that. It seems that some of us have gotten dumber as time passes.
That some sort of evolution happened is irrefutable. Exactly how it happened is yet to be determined and there are many theories. When God wants us to know he'll explain it. Till then I have more important things to worry about.
There is no conflict between scientific evolution and the Biblical version of creation. Only the timeline is different. Saying it happened in 6 days is metaphorical. No one ever believed that, even Christians when Jesus walked the earth understood that. It seems that some of us have gotten dumber as time passes.
That some sort of evolution happened is irrefutable. Exactly how it happened is yet to be determined and there are many theories. When God wants us to know he'll explain it. Till then I have more important things to worry about.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, there remains a very large majority of evangelical Christians in the US who completely believe the young earth theory.
Perhaps I see it differently than some here. To me to jump in feet first with evolution, and just evolution is to deny the existence of God.
Well yes and no. It does contradict the existence of God in the Theist sense of...God as the 3 most prevalent religions claim God to be. But it does not disprove the existence of a creator.
There is no conflict between scientific evolution and the Biblical version of creation. Only the timeline is different. Saying it happened in 6 days is metaphorical. No one ever believed that, even Christians when Jesus walked the earth understood that. It seems that some of us have gotten dumber as time passes.
That some sort of evolution happened is irrefutable. Exactly how it happened is yet to be determined and there are many theories. When God wants us to know he'll explain it. Till then I have more important things to worry about.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, there remains a very large majority of evangelical Christians in the US who completely believe the young earth theory.
now that we're on the subject yet again (will it ever go away?), if the urth is 6,000 years old is it now still a young earth, or has it become an old urth?
when will the change occur in the future, or when did it occur in the past?
that is, by my human age stds, 6,000 years is more than a day?
Biological evolution = Change in the gene pool of a population through the generations by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
That definition does not say man evolved from bacteria. That would be another topic, which is what it seems many here focus on. Saying evolution doesn't exist is a belief, not a theory.
Where did all the salt water fish come from? Maybe they adapted to salt water .... There were all kinds of animals , and insects on the ark, and millions of insects can live in water. Why are a all humans not black??? Here is your answer. It does not take all that long for a race of people to become black. There is no doubt , even the Native American indians are not as dark as they were 200 yrs ago, even the pure blooded indians. . In 1000 yrs I doubt they will be any darker than most white people.
Although I strongly doubt you want a real answer and are just looking for a debate . Here goes my questions to you. If evolution really happened, how did it happen? I never hear a satisfactory answer. I have debated people on this board and asked what does a deer know what to eat? The answer was the ones that ate meat , died, the ones that ate grass lived. My question then is, who told them to eat? To eat what , when to breed, how to repopulate, how the fawns know enough to get milk from mom??? Creationist answer : OH, it's instinct!!! My next question: who gave them the instinct? My question, how did this world even get here? Creationist answer usually goes like this . There was an explosion and the world was created from the energy and that created matter!!! My next question is,, where did the energy come from? You can not get energy from nothing! It has to be created. You can not get rock, heat, energy, liquids, light, or any matter from something else from nothing. It is impossible. If it is not , you show us how, ok! Take NOTHING , and make something out of it and I will believe your theory. Better yet, you make a new world! Make it out of nothing. We all know that God did it. Many just can't admit it like a liberal can't admit President Trump beat Hillary. God did it . He is the superior being that was here before anything. He did it to be glorified and that bothers many people.
Biological evolution = Change in the gene pool of a population through the generations by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
That definition does not say man evolved from bacteria. That would be another topic, which is what it seems many here focus on. Saying evolution doesn't exist is a belief, not a theory.
there's a lot we don't know, but we all have pretty good minds, more or less.
that is, we want to know. whatever it is, then let us find out for ourselves.
all direction pointers point into two directions: the past & the future.
we're in the middle, smack dab, well maybe not? but we're moving forward.
where did life first emerge? and from when did it come? life you say? yes, that's us, amongst others.
a hot vent in the ocean expelling sulfur laden gases, a bit of chemistry, lightening & timing made majic?
or did a comet striking urth with it's inner components shrouded in ice get to earth before burning up?
well, we've got to start or begin somewheres. then we can apply the finely tuned theory of evolution.
a smart moth in the coal smoke skies of ancient england can adapt to the environment to keep from being eaten.
Gents, I have faith to believe in a Creator God, a virgin birth of my perfect and sinless Savior Jesus Christ, and faith to trust in Jesus' finished work on the Cross of Calvary (And by no means any of my own good works), to insure me of everlasting life in heaven.
But I don't have near enough faith to believe in evolution as put forth by the world's supposed educated ones. Adaptation, extinction, even mutation, OK, but not evolution.
Biological evolution = Change in the gene pool of a population through the generations by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
That definition does not say man evolved from bacteria. That would be another topic, which is what it seems many here focus on. Saying evolution doesn't exist is a belief, not a theory.
Natural selection is real. But while natural selection can explain the survival of an organism, it can’t explain the arrival of an organism.
Genetic drift is real, but we know of no examples where it has resulted in any significant changes to populations of animals where it is observed. For instance, bunny is still a bunny, a bison a bison, a finch a finch and so on and so forth.
Where evolution as it is envisioned today falls short is with the mutations. The mathematics working against random mutations is so daunting as to render evolution as it is currently taught impossible. Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
There are two types of people in the world; those who see everything as binary, and those who don’t.
Not sure why you set up the question as you did; there are alternatives not mentioned.
One possible reason why you set it up that way could be that you have a religiously zealous affiliation with Darwinian evolution and have set up a false binary to make that appear reasonable.
I envision it as if you were God, and you were sitting on a mountain top watching a train going by in the valley below. The train is the universe. You can see the beginning and the end. The scientist can go back to the 'big bang' and no further. God provided the 'bang'. Looking at it this way the 'leap' isn't as far.
Gents, I have faith to believe in a Creator God, a virgin birth of my perfect and sinless Savior Jesus Christ, and faith to trust in Jesus' finished work on the Cross of Calvary (And by no means any of my own good works), to insure me of everlasting life in heaven.
But I don't have near enough faith to believe in evolution as put forth by the world's supposed educated ones. Adaptation, extinction, even mutation, OK, but not evolution.
The problem with trying to have a scientific discussion with very religious people is... What is your response when something you believe is verifyably wrong?
Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.
Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
You seem to want to have it both ways. You don’t want to argue that higher animals developed from lower organisms which would have at some point, necessitated huge changes in body plans, while ridiculing anyone who questions evolution as a whole.
If you want to have Evolution, you’ve got to have the whole damned thing. If you don’t, then you’re arguing some outside agency or force or something we don’t understand and you really have no right to ridicule someone who questions the theory as a whole.
One way in which you confirm a theory... Prediction...
A couple of generalizations According to evolution, you should find more primitive life forms the farther back in time you go; and that's exactly what we see. According to evolution, you should see random mutations in DNA; and that's exactly what we see.
A couple of specifics Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
Very specifically - The recent find of the Tiktaalik fossil. Scientists looked at evolutionary theory, the fossil record, and determined:
If we go to this section of Greenland(place), dig down to this level (date), we should find a creature with XYZ features... After 10 years of searching, they found almost exactly what they were looking for, exactly in the geologic layer they said they would find it, and it has most of the physiological features they predicted they would find. It was just luck, and a bonus that they ended up finding one of the most complete fossils in paleontologist history.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
False assumption. Certainly there are some mutations that can be fatal...absolutely.
But how is it you don't notice obvious mutations in existing living animals?
If someone has a mutation that causes them not go grow lungs; that's fatal. If someone has a mutation that caused them to have 6 fingers...Not fatal.
The theory of evolution simply describes the continual and ongoing process of creation over time.
Thank you. God created evolution to mess with us.
Nah, we do it to ourselves by holding on faithfully to the old mistaken notion about how old the Earth is, and that creation was a one time event that happened not long ago. Either one takes it on faith that the Earth was created thousands of years ago in a single event, or one believes in the hard empirical evidence at hand.
would we be better off if things were happening at a bit faster rate, or are things about right?
we know the earth has been through at least four re-designs in the past? anyone agree?
that is, before the dinasours were a few, then that crowd, and now us as the dominants.
wonder what the next re-design will look like? i mean, evolution is evolution, right?
A great case of "observational" evolution (as in, evolution humanity has observed directly), is the case of the Mosquito's in the London subway. They first went down there in the 1860's. Today, those mosquitos are a completely different species (verifyable). We have samples of what they were...We have what they are. We have DNA from both, we can SEE the path of mutations that led to a different species.
The new species looks different, has some different biology... And have changes so much, that the two can no longer interbreed. Humanity has directly observed evolution.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
False assumption. Certainly there are some mutations that can be fatal...absolutely.
But how is it you don't notice obvious mutations in existing living animals?
If someone has a mutation that causes them not go grow lungs; that's fatal. If someone has a mutation that caused them to have 6 fingers...Not fatal.
Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
You seem to want to have it both ways. You don’t want to argue that higher animals developed from lower organisms which would have at some point, necessitated huge changes in body plans, while ridiculing anyone who questions evolution as a whole.
If you want to have Evolution, you’ve got to have the whole damned thing. If you don’t, then you’re arguing some outside agency or force or something we don’t understand and you really have no right to ridicule someone who questions the theory as a whole.
Dude, you really don't know jack about biology. The mutation is expressed in the offspring. The mutation is in the DNA passed from the parent(s). Elementary biology.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
False assumption. Certainly there are some mutations that can be fatal...absolutely.
But how is it you don't notice obvious mutations in existing living animals?
If someone has a mutation that causes them not go grow lungs; that's fatal. If someone has a mutation that caused them to have 6 fingers...Not fatal.
we all know perfectly well there's nothing wrong with a 6 toed cat. they can do very well.
what we're into, seems like, is that for the part of the "chaos" that surrounds us, there's a theory to explain a piece of it. and that theory is called evolution. there's observations, studies, and extrapolations that have occurred that have allowed us to come with terms with what is happening to the natural environment and it's segments or components over a period of time. apparently the dinosaurs lost their ability to adapt for whatever reason. so, it was requiring a re-start.
dinasours couldn't get into space for whatever reason. maybe too slow & clumsy because they were cold-blooded.
they did provide solutions to a lot of other challenges though. locomotion, walking on their hind feet, eating meat, etc. etc.
maybe we haven't given them proper credit for their contribution to our past development that has led us to our current successes?
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
False assumption. Certainly there are some mutations that can be fatal...absolutely.
But how is it you don't notice obvious mutations in existing living animals?
If someone has a mutation that causes them not go grow lungs; that's fatal. If someone has a mutation that caused them to have 6 fingers...Not fatal.
Six fingers isn’t really significant.
I knew a gal with six fingers. It was significant.
That's not a valid argument...any mutation is a mutation. Some mutations can eventually lead to the extinction of a species...and there are many examples of that. But some end up benefiting, and then comes another mutation...In a few thousand years, you have a new species.
In the case of he London subway mosquito, it took less than a century.
would we be better off if things were happening at a bit faster rate, or are things about right?
we know the earth has been through at least four re-designs in the past? anyone agree?
that is, before the dinasours were a few, then that crowd, and now us as the dominants.
wonder what the next re-design will look like? i mean, evolution is evolution, right?
A great case of "observational" evolution (as in, evolution humanity has observed directly), is the case of the Mosquito's in the London subway. They first went down there in the 1860's. Today, those mosquitos are a completely different species (verifyable). We have samples of what they were...We have what they are. We have DNA from both, we can SEE the path of mutations that led to a different species.
The new species looks different, has some different biology... And have changes so much, that the two can no longer interbreed. Humanity has directly observed evolution.
. It is found in the London Underground railway system as its name suggests, but has a worldwide distribution and long predates the existence of the London Underground.[1] It was first described as a distinct species from Egyptian specimens by the biologist Peter Forsskål (1732–1763).[2] He named this mosquito Culex molestus due to its voracious biting, but later biologists renamed it Culex pipiens f. molestus because there were no morphological differences between it and Culex pipiens.[2] Notably, this mosquito assaulted Londoners sleeping in the Underground during the Blitz,[3] although similar populations were long known.[1]
A study from 2004 analyzing DNA microsatellites suggested that Culex molestus is likely a distinct species from Culex pipiens.[1] However, a more recent paper from 2012 argues that it is more accurately 'a physiological and ecological variant of Cx. pipiens ' and should not be considered a distinct species.[4]
would we be better off if things were happening at a bit faster rate, or are things about right?
we know the earth has been through at least four re-designs in the past? anyone agree?
that is, before the dinasours were a few, then that crowd, and now us as the dominants.
wonder what the next re-design will look like? i mean, evolution is evolution, right?
A great case of "observational" evolution (as in, evolution humanity has observed directly), is the case of the Mosquito's in the London subway. They first went down there in the 1860's. Today, those mosquitos are a completely different species (verifyable). We have samples of what they were...We have what they are. We have DNA from both, we can SEE the path of mutations that led to a different species.
The new species looks different, has some different biology... And have changes so much, that the two can no longer interbreed. Humanity has directly observed evolution.
. It is found in the London Underground railway system as its name suggests, but has a worldwide distribution and long predates the existence of the London Underground.[1] It was first described as a distinct species from Egyptian specimens by the biologist Peter Forsskål (1732–1763).[2] He named this mosquito Culex molestus due to its voracious biting, but later biologists renamed it Culex pipiens f. molestus because there were no morphological differences between it and Culex pipiens.[2] Notably, this mosquito assaulted Londoners sleeping in the Underground during the Blitz,[3] although similar populations were long known.[1]
A study from 2004 analyzing DNA microsatellites suggested that Culex molestus is likely a distinct species from Culex pipiens.[1] However, a more recent paper from 2012 argues that it is more accurately 'a physiological and ecological variant of Cx. pipiens ' and should not be considered a distinct species.[4]
Perhaps my example is a bit out of date. I read about it a good decade ago.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
Natural selection IS A KEY COMPONENT OF EVOLUTION! If adaptation is successful across tens of thousands of generations, it becomes evolution; because adaptation never stops. Its a mathematical constant...eventually you'll get to another species...or the species will die off. If you accept adaptation, you have to accept evolution because it's a mathematical certainty over time.
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
You seem to want to have it both ways. You don’t want to argue that higher animals developed from lower organisms which would have at some point, necessitated huge changes in body plans, while ridiculing anyone who questions evolution as a whole.
If you want to have Evolution, you’ve got to have the whole damned thing. If you don’t, then you’re arguing some outside agency or force or something we don’t understand and you really have no right to ridicule someone who questions the theory as a whole.
Dude, you really don't know jack about biology. The mutation is expressed in the offspring. The mutation is in the DNA passed from the parent(s). Elementary biology.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
No, it is not selective breeding. An example of selective breeding would be humans developing food crops or dog breeds.
it's easy to understand that humans are chopping off the heads & tails of the conundrum of life on earth, and how it has advanced after it's early arrival.
speaking of dogs, we are in the dogdaze of summer. so tell all the little brown dogs ya see to be on the lookout for a cool place to escape the heat.
as an aside, remarkably the advancement in the market place of dog-crosses of various established "breeds" is quite profound & successful.
my theory, or definition is: selective breeding is what humans do.
natural selection is what nature does.
btw, nature is a bitch, and she is led by lileth, adams first wife.
Further, mutations would need to occur very early in the life of an organism to change the form of the organism and those types of mutations are ALWAYS fatal in the wild.
What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.
What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.
You seem to want to have it both ways. You don’t want to argue that higher animals developed from lower organisms which would have at some point, necessitated huge changes in body plans, while ridiculing anyone who questions evolution as a whole.
If you want to have Evolution, you’ve got to have the whole damned thing. If you don’t, then you’re arguing some outside agency or force or something we don’t understand and you really have no right to ridicule someone who questions the theory as a whole.
Dude, you really don't know jack about biology. The mutation is expressed in the offspring. The mutation is in the DNA passed from the parent(s). Elementary biology.
He doesn't get that he is describing evolution. I think is problem is time scale.
Biblical Creationism is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of religion. "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heaven's go" Galileo.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
Natural selection IS A KEY COMPONENT OF EVOLUTION! If adaptation is successful across tens of thousands of generations, it becomes evolution; because adaptation never stops. Its a mathematical constant...eventually you'll get to another species...or the species will die off. If you accept adaptation, you have to accept evolution because it's a mathematical certainty over time.
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
No, it is not selective breeding. An example of selective breeding would be humans developing food crops or dog breeds.
Oh, it’s selective breeding alright. Maybe not intentional selective breeding but it ain’t natural either. It’s human directed and human caused.
That's absurd. You could do yourself a favor and read some grade school biology. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. If you don't understand that, it's not Darwin's fault.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
Natural selection IS A KEY COMPONENT OF EVOLUTION! If adaptation is successful across tens of thousands of generations, it becomes evolution; because adaptation never stops. Its a mathematical constant...eventually you'll get to another species...or the species will die off. If you accept adaptation, you have to accept evolution because it's a mathematical certainty over time.
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
No, math is the biggest problem with it.
No JoeBob, you continually embarrass yourself in this discussion. In fact, the math shows that evolution is entirely unavoidable. It has to happen, it can't be stopped.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
No, it is not selective breeding. An example of selective breeding would be humans developing food crops or dog breeds.
Oh, it’s selective breeding alright. Maybe not intentional selective breeding but it ain’t natural either. It’s human directed and human caused.
That's absurd. You could do yourself a favor and read some grade school biology. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. If you don't understand that, it's not Darwin's fault.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Here's an example of evolution. Bacteria populations developing resistance to antibiotics. No, they did not turn into salt water fish....
That’s natural selection, or probably more accurately...selective breeding, which no one denies.
Natural selection IS A KEY COMPONENT OF EVOLUTION! If adaptation is successful across tens of thousands of generations, it becomes evolution; because adaptation never stops. Its a mathematical constant...eventually you'll get to another species...or the species will die off. If you accept adaptation, you have to accept evolution because it's a mathematical certainty over time.
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
No, math is the biggest problem with it.
No JoeBob, you continually embarrass yourself in this discussion. In fact, the math shows that evolution is entirely unavoidable. It has to happen, it can't be stopped.
In order to be a scientific theory it must make falsifiable predictions. Since the creationist don't make any falsifiable predictions, creationism doesn't qualify as a theory, but more closely matches the definition of a myth:
1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
Are you also a Young Earth Creationist?
No, I’m not young earth. For that matter, the Bible isn’t either.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
That be right. Micro or macro is just size of the binoculars and measuring stick being used. The process is the same.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
Are you also a Young Earth Creationist?
No, I’m not young earth. For that matter, the Bible isn’t either.
No JoeBob, you continually embarrass yourself in this discussion. In fact, the math shows that evolution is entirely unavoidable. It has to happen, it can't be stopped.
If you recognize adaptation...yes...Eventually either the species dies off, or they become another species.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
Are you also a Young Earth Creationist?
No, I’m not young earth. For that matter, the Bible isn’t either.
The bible specifies days, the morning of the first day, the evening, etc, and lists the genealogies that followed. Which according to Bishop Usher adds up to a bit over six thousand years.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
Are you also a Young Earth Creationist?
No, I’m not young earth. For that matter, the Bible isn’t either.
honestly, as a taxpaying citizen i kinda always liked the idea of a young earth presentation to explain where we are, and how we got here. it would be so informative. it'd be less clear on where we are headed next (assuming god himself might know).
but who would have placed such a plan into action? why, a god of course.
now, the complications begin to seep into the discussion.
was the authorized god a tall, blonde, heavily muscular individual with long hair?
was an individual that could walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead?
this god, if the story is correct was quite the guy. maybe a theorist, given our current arguments?
was he attempting to see which amongst us could define the who, why, and how first and foremost?
the winner could set in the top row or front row of the mighty congregation ( i was gonna say conflagration, but i'll hold off).
so many questions, and so little time. understanding evolution is like trying to explain why taxes have to be raised to travel back to the moon.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
They are the same thing.
Are you also a Young Earth Creationist?
I really think his mental barrier is the span of time. MANY people (including myself at one point) have a hard time with this. Evolution isn't "observational" in the sense that the time involved means we're not going to actually sit there and WATCH an animal turn into another animal. It takes tens of thousands of years.
To me, the answer is really simple, its not a realistic question. You believe what you want, I'll do the same. We don't have to argue. In fact arguing won't change most folks minds.,
Though I will certainly say that I believe in God, and that he created this place, but I also see evolution and I dont' see that evolution is proof there is no God.
But again, I don't need an answer. I have my own direction.
It's too bad Christians deny themselves the knowledge of evolution, because it's one of the coolest, and most fascinating aspects of nature.
Just a dose of 200 level college biology, physics, and chemistry is mind altering..... And I don't believe it forcludes Creation or the Almighty unless one chooses to see it that way..
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
Nonesense, but thanks for taking the time to explain.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
It's too bad Christians deny themselves the knowledge of evolution, because it's one of the coolest, and most fascinating aspects of nature.
Just a dose of 200 level college biology, physics, and chemistry is mind altering..... And I don't believe it forcludes Creation or the Almighty unless one chooses to see it that way..
The existance of an "Almighty" is just speculation, a proposition that cannot be tested, only believed on the basis of faith.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
Nonesense, but thanks for taking the time to explain.
Look, it’s okay to admit that we don’t know exactly what happened around a billion years ago requiring genetic variations and process that we only just now are starting to understand and by in large, can’t duplicate yet.
Maybe when we can take a little DNA and engineer a new animal with a new body plan, we might have a better insight on what happened.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
The math is the easiest part. It is rather simple and simply based on the possible number of amino acid combinations in a protein fold.
In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.
Personally, as a Christian, I've never seen the problem with evolution. What's so hard to understand when Genesis says that God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures? That's exactly what science says about it.
Genesis doesn't say that God conjured all the living creatures into existence.
It's too bad Christians deny themselves the knowledge of evolution, because it's one of the coolest, and most fascinating aspects of nature.
Just a dose of 200 level college biology, physics, and chemistry is mind altering..... And I don't believe it forcludes Creation or the Almighty unless one chooses to see it that way..
The existance of an "Almighty" is just speculation, a proposition that cannot be tested, only believed on the basis of faith.
True dat. If my intent wasn't clear, I just mean that believing some science stuff doesn't eliminate faith. It could all be part of the Grand Scheme...You know, that's all up to each individual. Not a one of us can prove there's no Creator.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
The math is the easiest part. It is rather simple and simply based on the possible number of amino acid combinations in a protein fold.
No JoeBob, you wouldn't know what to do with a protein fold if you found one. You are lost in a forest of trees, and can't even see the bark, much less the landscape.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
Nonesense, but thanks for taking the time to explain.
Look, it’s okay to admit that we don’t know exactly what happened around a billion years ago requiring genetic variations and process that we only just now are starting to understand and by in large, can’t duplicate yet.
Maybe when we can take a little DNA and engineer a new animal with a new body plan, we might have a better insight on what happened.
a really good prototype animal for current day conditions might be a goat type animal with 6 to 8 tits, 3 to four per side. they would have genes of the pit bull with jaws that would allow them to defend against coyotes, mtn lions, maybe even wolves. they could eat the thorns of cactus, and withstand rain storms and cold weather.
their young would be meaty, and very docile w/big canine teeth.
the demand for the sweetness, and tenderness of their meat would be much sought after by the denisons of the great cities. priced competitively the rancher, middle men, and the final consumer would all smile to no end.
bio-genetic engineering can help us find a way to that very spot. the worlds great bankers will applaud.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
You are so clueless.
To begin with, every human is natuarally born with mutations, on average somewhere between 50 to 100 alleles in a babe are different from either parent. We also see the same thing in "identical" twins. In really there will be about a 100 allele difference between the "identical" twins. Now extend the accumulation of those differences across a population, and across an extended period of time and the changes add up quickly.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
The math is the easiest part. It is rather simple and simply based on the possible number of amino acid combinations in a protein fold.
No JoeBob, you wouldn't know what to do with a protein fold if you found one. You are lost in a forest of trees, and can't even see the bark, much less the landscape.
It's too bad Christians deny themselves the knowledge of evolution, because it's one of the coolest, and most fascinating aspects of nature.
Just a dose of 200 level college biology, physics, and chemistry is mind altering..... And I don't believe it forcludes Creation or the Almighty unless one chooses to see it that way..
I agree...I think they deny themselves by choice, but it doesn't have to be this way.
The problem with religious dogma is when it is faced with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. The dogmatic holds to their dogma regardless...That's tragic. Oh, and dogmatic thought isn't exclusive to religion by a LONG shot. But when I was a Christian, I actively denied myself any deep study of evolution. It was when I saw massive hypocrisy in the church that I started educating myself beyond what religious dogma allows...and my mind was blown. Evolution is straight up bad ass...Such a cool field of study.
a really good prototype animal for current day conditions might be a goat type animal with 6 to 8 tits, 3 to four per side. they would have genes of the pit bull with jaws that would allow them to defend against coyotes, mtn lions, maybe even wolves. they could eat the thorns of cactus, and withstand rain storms and cold weather.
their young would be meaty, and very docile w/big canine teeth.
the demand for the sweetness, and tenderness of their meat would be much sought after by the denisons of the great cities. priced competitively the rancher, middle men, and the final consumer would all smile to no end.
bio-genetic engineering can help us find a way to that very spot. the worlds great bankers will applaud.
Wheat. Banana, holstein, corn......We've already been at it for a long time.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
You are so clueless.
To begin with, every human is natuarally born with mutations, on average somewhere between 50 to 100 alleles in a babe are different from either parent. We also see the same thing in "identical" twins. In really there will be about a 100 allele difference between the "identical" twins. Now extend the accumulation of those differences across a population, and across an extended period of time and the changes add up quickly.
But I wasn’t talking about humans. I was talking about the mutations that caused a fifty cell organism to develop an eye when nothing like that structure existed.
I am literally NOT arguing for the existence of God in this thread. I’m not even denying micro evolution. And maybe, I’m not even arguing a bit more than micro evolution in higher order animals. But to get from those simple animals to the higher ones, you need new information and the math makes the insertion of that information by random mutation unlikely. The earth simply isn’t old enough even if it is 4.5 billion years old. There haven’t been enough organisms.
a really good prototype animal for current day conditions might be a goat type animal with 6 to 8 tits, 3 to four per side. they would have genes of the pit bull with jaws that would allow them to defend against coyotes, mtn lions, maybe even wolves. they could eat the thorns of cactus, and withstand rain storms and cold weather.
their young would be meaty, and very docile w/big canine teeth.
the demand for the sweetness, and tenderness of their meat would be much sought after by the denisons of the great cities. priced competitively the rancher, middle men, and the final consumer would all smile to no end.
bio-genetic engineering can help us find a way to that very spot. the worlds great bankers will applaud.
Wheat. Banana, holstein, corn......We've already been at it for a long time.
yeah we have. but the tempo is beginning to pick up a bit.
7 plus billion humans, all god's children that have to be fed,
Evolution is straight up bad ass...Such a cool field of study.
That's always been how I've seen it, too.
Earlier I gave the example of how Tiktaalik was found. That is so bad ass... Evolution helped them find where geographically, how deep to dig, and what specifically they should find. After a decade of search; they eventually found almost exactly what they were looking for.
Another predictive sign of evolution. Try to find evidence of a dinosaur 300 million years ago...its not there.
If it was all "created in an instant", why are there layers and layers of differing life forms? Why is it that they get more simple the deeper you dig (exactly what evolution predicts), and more complex in the more shallow layers. And all of this was predicted LONG before we began finding fossils en masse.
Evolution also predicts that you should find dinosaur features in birds...and we do; especially in fetal development.
Take a look at fetal development. If there is no such thing as evolution, why do humans grow gills and tails as fetuses? Why do chickens do the same thing?
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yes, the problem is time scale. A man lives for maybe 100 yrs and can witness microevolution during his lifetime, so has no problem with the concept.
Mankind has "species memory" through oral traditions and written words which goes back maybe 10,000 years. Which is simply not enough time to record speciation, unless of course one is witnessing an extinction level event. In which case no one would survive to tell what went before.
But the micro evolution we witness over 100 years, easily yields new species if continued over one million or ten million years. And many branches of new species, genus, or even families over multiple millions of years.
As to mutations being lethal, I can name three new genes which appeared in the lineage of homo sapiens which lead to enhanced abilities and eventually spread throughout the species.
At one point in time a new gene appears in recovered bones of Home sapiens. That gene has been identified with development of the language center in the brain. Archeologists and paleontologists have discovered evidence that shows by the impression the brain leaves on the inside of the skull that the language center of the brain increased in size during the same time the gene appeared. They have also discovered evidence that suggests spoken language appeared at the same time.
The second mutation I will mention in the human genome is a gene which enhance artistic expression. Once again it has been shown that the lobe of the brain which gives artistic talent became enlarged at the same, and cave paintings appeared at that point in history.
The third mutation I will mention occured much more recently and is for a gene which allows production of the enzyme "lactase" in the human adult. Human populations which acquired this gene over came their competitors in the environment by adopting dairy animals and having consumable proteins and vitamin rich milk available year round.
The interesting thing about the lactase gene. It has appeared not once, but multiple times in disparate populations. Each time a totally different gene, but causing the body to produce lactase in each case.
Each case an example of a beneficial mutation furthering the evolution of the human species.
And, no, a harmful mutation does not wipe out a species. It is only harmful to the individual carrying the harmful mutation. That individual may reproduce at a slower rate, fail to reproduce, or even die. But in the grand scheme, the species does not notice the loss of an individual.
But when a beneficial mutation occurs and offspring carrying that new gene begin to overwhelm their conspecifics, that does impact the species as a whole. Therefor mutations can not harm a species, but they can help it.
But nobody claims they just grew an eye with the next generation. Mutations are not limited to the change of one amino acid. Whole hunks of DNA can mutate when transferred. There's a whole body of science about this stuff.
Take a look at fetal development. If there is no such thing as evolution, why do humans grow gills and tails as fetuses? Why do chickens do the same thing?
[quote=GunGeek]
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
But once again, my primary objection is with the creation of the vast amount of information required to make the jump from the simple life forms to the higher forms. So, the fact that the higher animals share these features is not particularly surprising.
But nobody claims they just grew an eye with the next generation. Mutations are not limited to the change of one amino acid. Whole hunks of DNA can mutate when transferred. There's a whole body of science about this stuff.
But we aren’t just talking about mutations. We are talking about viable mutations. Then beneficial mutations. Then viable, beneficial, and heritable mutations.
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
But nobody claims they just grew an eye with the next generation. Mutations are not limited to the change of one amino acid. Whole hunks of DNA can mutate when transferred. There's a whole body of science about this stuff.
But we aren’t just talking about mutations. We are talking about viable mutations. Then beneficial mutations. Then viable, beneficial, and heritable mutations.
Yes...some are not viable for the individual with the mutation. No one denies that. However, you seem to be denying that unless the change is large enough to be lethal or clearly observable in our lifetimes; it's not legit. That's just not a logical way of looking at things.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
The math is the easiest part. It is rather simple and simply based on the possible number of amino acid combinations in a protein fold.
No JoeBob, you wouldn't know what to do with a protein fold if you found one. You are lost in a forest of trees, and can't even see the bark, much less the landscape.
That’s compelling. What do you say the math is?
What does the math say about magic... an invisible entity conjuring up a universe through the power of Word and Will?
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
But nobody claims they just grew an eye with the next generation. Mutations are not limited to the change of one amino acid. Whole hunks of DNA can mutate when transferred. There's a whole body of science about this stuff.
But we aren’t just talking about mutations. We are talking about viable mutations. Then beneficial mutations. Then viable, beneficial, and heritable mutations.
Yes...some are not viable for the individual with the mutation. No one denies that. However, you seem to be denying that unless the change is large enough to be lethal or clearly observable in our lifetimes; it's not legit. That's just not a logical way of looking at things.
No, I’m just telling you that you can’t get there completely with small mutations. And that particularly applies in the period I am mainly discussing when lower order simple organisms developed new information to form all the body parts of higher form life.
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
How do you not see that statement as an admission of evolution?
But I wasn’t talking about humans. I was talking about the mutations that caused a fifty cell organism to develop an eye when nothing like that structure existed.
I am literally NOT arguing for the existence of God in this thread. I’m not even denying micro evolution. And maybe, I’m not even arguing a bit more than micro evolution in higher order animals. But to get from those simple animals to the higher ones, you need new information and the math makes the insertion of that information by random mutation unlikely. The earth simply isn’t old enough even if it is 4.5 billion years old. There haven’t been enough organisms.
Now you're on to irreducible complexity.
The eye has evolved many times independently, by different mechanisms. It's not irreducibly complex. An example is where it starts with a light sensitive patch of cells merely for distinguishing light from darkness. A curvature of these cells gives the animal the ability to sense the direction of light. Increase the curvature, and eventually you've reached the pinhole (lensless) eye, like that on a nautilus.
JoeBob, you really need to learn biology. All of it.
Darwinian evolution is plenty sufficient with room to spare. You are so far behind the curve you don't even begin to understand what you don't understand. Your math is terrible too.
The math is the easiest part. It is rather simple and simply based on the possible number of amino acid combinations in a protein fold.
No JoeBob, you wouldn't know what to do with a protein fold if you found one. You are lost in a forest of trees, and can't even see the bark, much less the landscape.
That’s compelling. What do you say the math is?
What does the math say about magic... an invisible entity conjuring up a universe through the power of Word and Will?
No less believable than saying, “Trust me. It just takes a lot of time.”
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
How do you not see that statement as an admission of evolution?
What? That dinosaurs never died out and survived as birds?
Evolution is straight up bad ass...Such a cool field of study.
That's always been how I've seen it, too.
Earlier I gave the example of how Tiktaalik was found. That is so bad ass... Evolution helped them find where geographically, how deep to dig, and what specifically they should find. After a decade of search; they eventually found almost exactly what they were looking for.
I read the book about this soon after its discovery, Your Inner Fish, by the man who found it .
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
A chicken already is a dinosaur. It's of the type that has beaks and wings. There were all sorts of dinosaurs. Birds, the kind with beaks and wings, were the only type that survived the Cretaceous.
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
A chicken already is a dinosaur. It's of the type that has beaks and wings. There were all sorts of dinosaurs. Birds, the kind with beaks and wings, were the only type that survived the Cretaceous.
I was sitting in my truck eating lunch yesterday behind my office watching a Mockingbird. Not a doubt in my mind that if that little bastard was six feet tall, it would be a Velociraptor.
By the way, I’m the only person on this board whose father discovered a dinosaur and has It share a latinized version of the family name. At least I’ll bet as much.
Well, Einstein, since you are such a stickler for terminology you should probably figure out that you’ve given the definition for micro evolution, which no one denies, instead of evolution.
Yah, please explain your thoughts on mutations again. LOL
When you are talking about new information that you would need to get from ancient simple life, you need new proteins to form new genes. The chances of one mutation in one protein fold is 10 to the 77th power. Now, there are many folds in a protein and many proteins in a gene. But then, assuming you get that, and you get altered DNA, DNA alone does not control the laying out of the body plan, the morphological plan. You could mutate DNA until the cows some home and it doesn’t change the plan. There are other factors at work. The life forms in that early Cambrian era had on average 50 cells with all the genes and proteins therein.
Darwinian evolution is not adequate to explain this jump from simple life forms with simple plans to new body parts laid out in new ways with new functions. That requires new information. Where did it come from? There are only about 10 to the 78th power particles in the entire universe and the odds of a viable mutation in a single protein fold is 10 to the 77th. The math is insurmountable.
I have thoughts on what happened, but I’m not going to make any claims. But I think it is pretty apparent that something happened or there is some mechanism that we do not understand as the math makes that jump pretty improbable.
You are so clueless.
To begin with, every human is natuarally born with mutations, on average somewhere between 50 to 100 alleles in a babe are different from either parent. We also see the same thing in "identical" twins. In really there will be about a 100 allele difference between the "identical" twins. Now extend the accumulation of those differences across a population, and across an extended period of time and the changes add up quickly.
But I wasn’t talking about humans. I was talking about the mutations that caused a fifty cell organism to develop an eye when nothing like that structure existed.
I am literally NOT arguing for the existence of God in this thread. I’m not even denying micro evolution. And maybe, I’m not even arguing a bit more than micro evolution in higher order animals. But to get from those simple animals to the higher ones, you need new information and the math makes the insertion of that information by random mutation unlikely. The earth simply isn’t old enough even if it is 4.5 billion years old. There haven’t been enough organisms.
Ok.
Let's do some math.
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
A bird cannot become an elephant. The line that led to elephants separated from the line that led to birds back in the early Permian Period.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
A chicken already is a dinosaur. It's of the type that has beaks and wings. There were all sorts of dinosaurs. Birds, the kind with beaks and wings, were the only type that survived the Cretaceous.
Of course you are right. The project is to change it back by using EARLIER discarded evolutionary traits.
Again predictive. Evolutionary science says this could be possible, and Horner’s work is confirming this.
If you’re correct, I expect that we’ll eventually be able to take a dog fetus and turn it into a baby. But I wouldn’t hold my breath
Sounds like science fiction...but would you believe me if I told you something very similar to that is going on right now? Paleontologist Jack Horner is methodically working his way through the steps necessary to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur. His team has identified the genes that turn on and turn off DNA instructions to create teeth, arms, and a tail. Took them 7 years to grow teeth in a chicken.
A chicken already is a dinosaur. It's of the type that has beaks and wings. There were all sorts of dinosaurs. Birds, the kind with beaks and wings, were the only type that survived the Cretaceous.
Finally, we agree.
If you agree with me on this, you really need to watch that series I recommended.
But nobody claims they just grew an eye with the next generation. Mutations are not limited to the change of one amino acid. Whole hunks of DNA can mutate when transferred. There's a whole body of science about this stuff.
But we aren’t just talking about mutations. We are talking about viable mutations. Then beneficial mutations. Then viable, beneficial, and heritable mutations.
Right.
You just described natural selection.
Those who inherit the bad one's don't last for long....many don't even make it out of the womb. As many fertilized human eggs, if not more, spontaneously auto-abort than people born. Natural selection doesn't began at birth.
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
In other words, if what you believed to be true was not, would you want to know, and would you change your life and thinking in the way truth dictated? It's better to not know and reap the consequences then it is to know and reap the consequences. What has been seen cannot be unseen. When you learn things beyond any doubt you can't ever un-learn them.
If a quest for truth, for no other reason then it is true, is not the reason for the original question, then be honest with yourself and you'll get along a lot easier in your natural life.
If on the other hand you actually want to know what is true and what scientific and historical evidence there is for the conclusion to be based on, please let me know by PM. No one know all truth. No human can. But most of the lies that people believe are quite easy to dispel if you simply look into it. In my experience it takes about 16 hours to undo most of the "science' that we were all taught was true and show the counter points. You can easily learn the counter point as easily as watching a few movies if you truly desire to know.
Will that lead you to ultimate truth? No. But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
Those that do not want to know never want anyone else to know either. We see that with the Dem/Comms in their daily activities. Libs like "Paddler" are perfect examples of what I am speaking of. He's not alone either. There are LOTS of folks (many here on this site) who would be very offended if you didn't agree with them and embrace the beliefs they want to assert. If you start to learn anything true, the enemies of truth come out of the woodwork. It's not enough for them to want to stay in their comfort zone, but they will be VERY offended if you don't stay with them.
As for me, I care for mankind as I should, but if any individual man doesn't want to learn I am not a bit interested in showing them the any of the souses of the information. I don't have a dog in their fight. I see no reason I should care about the direction of their lives more then they do themselves.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
A bird cannot become an elephant. The line that led to elephants separated from the line that led to birds back in the early Permian Period.
If you are correct in evolution, then with sufficiently advanced technology it should be possible. All the information is there correct?
By the way, I’m the only person on this board whose father discovered a dinosaur and has It share a latinized version of the family name. At least I’ll bet as much.
That by itself doesn’t make you any more or less qualified. But it is SERIOUSLY cool! Props to dad!!
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
By the way, I’m the only person on this board whose father discovered a dinosaur and has It share a latinized version of the family name. At least I’ll bet as much.
That by itself doesn’t make you any more or less qualified. But it is SERIOUSLY cool! Props to dad!!
Bullschit as the only person with a dinosaur named after him, i claim prime nocta over all dinosaur discussion. And yeah it is pretty cool. I used to take a fiberglass cast of MY dinosaur foot to show and tell at school every year.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
If you are correct in evolution, then with sufficiently advanced technology it should be possible. All the information is there correct?
No, not every creature carries the full genetic code of every other creature on earth.
Bob...You are very close, and I think of you put some more study into Evolution the light will click on. In your “denial” of evolution you have clearly described and stated your belief in most of the working aspects of evolution. You seem to be lacking the information to take the next step.
I’m not criticizing you because I was in exactly the same place at one point.
Just expand your education and you’ll get it. When you do...it’s really exciting!!
Yeah, but that’s kind of like turning a calf embryo into a Auroch as that a bird pretty much IS a dinosaur. Turn a bird into an elephant and I’ll be impressed.
A bird cannot become an elephant. The line that led to elephants separated from the line that led to birds back in the early Permian Period.
If you are correct in evolution, then with sufficiently advanced technology it should be possible. All the information is there correct?
In evolution, there's generally no turning back. An example is that mammals and reptiles that returned to an aquatic existence were incapable of re-evolving gills for breathing under water, even though there's a tremendous environmental pressure in that direction (i.e., it would constitute an enormous survival advantage). Once abandoned, however, gills cannot re-evolve. Instead, what happens is that these species become capable of holding their breath for increasingly long periods of time.
If you are correct in evolution, then with sufficiently advanced technology it should be possible. All the information is there correct?
No, not every creature carries the full genetic code of every other creature on earth.
Bob...You are very close, and I think of you put some more study into Evolution the light will click on. In your “denial” of evolution you have clearly described and stated your belief in most of the working aspects of evolution. You seem to be lacking the information to take the next step.
I’m not criticizing you because I was in exactly the same place at one point.
Just expand your education and you’ll get it. When you do...it’s really exciting!!
Your thinking is somewhat limited. Even if the code isn’t there, then the mutations reintroducing new information should be able to be reproduced with sufficient technology, correct?
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Again, something I used to do so much myself. Most (including myself at one point) don’t understand scientific process. When you make a statement like “evolution is not scientifically proven” it shows a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of science.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Ok.
Let's do some math.
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
Great answer. I think that settles the question.
Thanks TRH.
Perhaps the greatest limitation that leads so many to a anti-evolution position is a lack of perspective, combined with a lack of imagination. They can't imagine big enough, so the fall into the trap of an argument from ignorance fueled by an argument from the lack of imagination and perspective.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Again, something I used to do so much myself. Most (including myself at one point) don’t understand scientific process. When you make a statement like “evolution is not scientifically proven” it shows a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of science.
True....Some of my favorite folks are plumb ignorant. LOL
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Ok.
Let's do some math.
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
Great answer. I think that settles the question.
Thanks TRH.
Perhaps the greatest limitation that leads so many to a anti-evolution position is a lack of perspective, combined with a lack of imagination. They can't imagine big enough, so the fall into the trap of an argument from ignorance fueled by an argument from the lack of imagination and perspective.
So imagination big enough to encompass the time and the processes necessary for evolution to work is a positive trait? But an imagination big enough to imagine a God who created everything is evidence of weak mindedness?
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
In other words, if what you believed to be true was not, would you want to know, and would you change your life and thinking in the way truth dictated? It's better to not know and reap the consequences then it is to know and reap the consequences. What has been seen cannot be unseen. When you learn things beyond any doubt you can't ever un-learn them.
If a quest for truth, for no other reason then it is true, is not the reason for the original question, then be honest with yourself and you'll get along a lot easier in your natural life.
If on the other hand you actually want to know what is true and what scientific and historical evidence there is for the conclusion to be based on, please let me know by PM. No one know all truth. No human can. But most of the lies that people believe are quite easy to dispel if you simply look into it. In my experience it takes about 16 hours to undo most of the "science' that we were all taught was true and show the counter points. You can easily learn the counter point as easily as watching a few movies if you truly desire to know.
Will that lead you to ultimate truth? No. But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
Those that do not want to know never want anyone else to know either. We see that with the Dem/Comms in their daily activities. Libs like "Paddler" are perfect examples of what I am speaking of. He's not alone either. There are LOTS of folks (many here on this site) who would be very offended if you didn't agree with them and embrace the beliefs they want to assert. If you start to learn anything true, the enemies of truth come out of the woodwork. It's not enough for them to want to stay in their comfort zone, but they will be VERY offended if you don't stay with them.
As for me, I care for mankind as I should, but if any individual man doesn't want to learn I am not a bit interested in showing them the any of the souses of the information. I don't have a dog in their fight. I see no reason I should care about the direction of their lives more then they do themselves.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Ok.
Let's do some math.
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
Great answer. I think that settles the question.
Thanks TRH.
Perhaps the greatest limitation that leads so many to a anti-evolution position is a lack of perspective, combined with a lack of imagination. They can't imagine big enough, so the fall into the trap of an argument from ignorance fueled by an argument from the lack of imagination and perspective.
So imagination big enough to encompass the time and the processes necessary for evolution to work is a positive trait? But an imagination big enough to imagine a God who created everything is evidence of weak mindedness?
Got it.
Correct.
Pretending you know the answer is "magic" because you cannot sufficiently comprehend the real answer is the sign of a weak mind.
[quote=DBT]Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Just saying that "evolution is not scientifically proven" does not make the claim true.
It is a false claim.
The study of evolution is a field of science that has ample evidence.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Ok.
Let's do some math.
Let's take something like e.coli. It has 4 million base pairs and divides every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations in a day, each doubling in size. The last generation alone will have 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria
Now e.coli mutates at a rate of 1 mutation per 1000 replication, so there's still 4,700,000,000,000,000,000 mutations present in just the last generation from that one bacteria in one day.
Now that number is just 2^72
So, lets take 4.5 billion years, times 365 days, times 72 generations per day.....that's 1.1826e+14
Now lets start with one bacteria and divide it and it's successive generations that many times. When I plug it into my statistic program RStudio, it returns.........Infinity........
So mathematically, yea.....there's plenty of time for it all to happen.
Great answer. I think that settles the question.
Thanks TRH.
Perhaps the greatest limitation that leads so many to a anti-evolution position is a lack of perspective, combined with a lack of imagination. They can't imagine big enough, so the fall into the trap of an argument from ignorance fueled by an argument from the lack of imagination and perspective.
So imagination big enough to encompass the time and the processes necessary for evolution to work is a positive trait? But an imagination big enough to imagine a God who created everything is evidence of weak mindedness?
Got it.
Correct.
Pretending you know the answer is "magic" because you cannot sufficiently comprehend the real answer is the sign of a weak mind. [/quote]
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
In other words, if what you believed to be true was not, would you want to know, and would you change your life and thinking in the way truth dictated? It's better to not know and reap the consequences then it is to know and reap the consequences. What has been seen cannot be unseen. When you learn things beyond any doubt you can't ever un-learn them.
If a quest for truth, for no other reason then it is true, is not the reason for the original question, then be honest with yourself and you'll get along a lot easier in your natural life.
If on the other hand you actually want to know what is true and what scientific and historical evidence there is for the conclusion to be based on, please let me know by PM. No one know all truth. No human can. But most of the lies that people believe are quite easy to dispel if you simply look into it. In my experience it takes about 16 hours to undo most of the "science' that we were all taught was true and show the counter points. You can easily learn the counter point as easily as watching a few movies if you truly desire to know.
Will that lead you to ultimate truth? No. But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
Those that do not want to know never want anyone else to know either. We see that with the Dem/Comms in their daily activities. Libs like "Paddler" are perfect examples of what I am speaking of. He's not alone either. There are LOTS of folks (many here on this site) who would be very offended if you didn't agree with them and embrace the beliefs they want to assert. If you start to learn anything true, the enemies of truth come out of the woodwork. It's not enough for them to want to stay in their comfort zone, but they will be VERY offended if you don't stay with them.
As for me, I care for mankind as I should, but if any individual man doesn't want to learn I am not a bit interested in showing them the any of the souses of the information. I don't have a dog in their fight. I see no reason I should care about the direction of their lives more then they do themselves.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
That sounds like a serious brain washing session.
Yea.
Sounds like someone needs to go look into the mirror.
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
In other words, if what you believed to be true was not, would you want to know, and would you change your life and thinking in the way truth dictated? It's better to not know and reap the consequences then it is to know and reap the consequences. What has been seen cannot be unseen. When you learn things beyond any doubt you can't ever un-learn them.
If a quest for truth, for no other reason then it is true, is not the reason for the original question, then be honest with yourself and you'll get along a lot easier in your natural life.
If on the other hand you actually want to know what is true and what scientific and historical evidence there is for the conclusion to be based on, please let me know by PM. No one know all truth. No human can. But most of the lies that people believe are quite easy to dispel if you simply look into it. In my experience it takes about 16 hours to undo most of the "science' that we were all taught was true and show the counter points. You can easily learn the counter point as easily as watching a few movies if you truly desire to know.
Will that lead you to ultimate truth? No. But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
Those that do not want to know never want anyone else to know either. We see that with the Dem/Comms in their daily activities. Libs like "Paddler" are perfect examples of what I am speaking of. He's not alone either. There are LOTS of folks (many here on this site) who would be very offended if you didn't agree with them and embrace the beliefs they want to assert. If you start to learn anything true, the enemies of truth come out of the woodwork. It's not enough for them to want to stay in their comfort zone, but they will be VERY offended if you don't stay with them.
As for me, I care for mankind as I should, but if any individual man doesn't want to learn I am not a bit interested in showing them the any of the souses of the information. I don't have a dog in their fight. I see no reason I should care about the direction of their lives more then they do themselves.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
That sounds like a serious brain washing session.
Yea.
Sounds like someone needs to go look into the mirror.
Neither science or faith can answer the big question: Why?
Empiracly speaking, you are correct.
If you separate the science & religion, I believe religion is in the business of “why” and science is the study of how. Unless science can find some creator, I’m not sure it is the place to go to find the why.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Neither science or faith can answer the big question: Why?
Empiracly speaking, you are correct.
If you separate the science & religion, I believe religion is in the business of “why” and science is the study of how. Unless science can find some creator, I’m not sure it is the place to go to find the why.
I can't agree - I don't see how faith answers "why" either. It's like science and only describes "what" and "how".
Yeah we were all getting sick of the other thread. Glad to see this one is taking off.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
1. Easy, God
2. Even easier. God spoke to a chap named Noah and he built a big boat and just put one breeding pair of every mammal, reptile, bacteria, virus, fungus, plant, etc onto it and when the floods came they just kinda chilled for awhile. He brought a bunch of animal and reptile chow too so they wouldn't eat each other. Bacteria and viruses are actually so small that he could have (and probably did) kept most of them on his balls. Some in his mouth and as crack of course. Plus there were monkey ass cracks on board. Just for a minute think about what could have been thriving in there. The point is, God wasn't even about to lose one single species of anything despite his wrath. Pretty sure Jim Carrey made a movie about this so there's really no excuse to not know it. It's a fantastic story
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution.
hurt the descendants too much and they don't make it. Help them enough and they are more successful, and you have natural selection. Wash, rinse, repeat for an unimaginable number of generations and you have populations evolving into new species.
Natural selection and survival of the fittest is not a mechanism to increase complexity. It is only a negation.
DNA
Did not happen by accident.
You have missed out the fundamental bit - DNA is constantly mutating and making changes to organisms. Natural selection is only part of it. Thus the variety of life, and the mechanism of nature's will.
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Discovering the mechanism that God uses to maintain life is not a heresy. We observe the mechanics of his creation.
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution.
hurt the descendants too much and they don't make it. Help them enough and they are more successful, and you have natural selection. Wash, rinse, repeat for an unimaginable number of generations and you have populations evolving into new species.
It's all very simple.
Bullshit always sounds simple.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution.
hurt the descendants too much and they don't make it. Help them enough and they are more successful, and you have natural selection. Wash, rinse, repeat for an unimaginable number of generations and you have populations evolving into new species.
It's all very simple.
Bullshit always sounds simple.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
Your assertions are just not true. In humans, the chance of a new allele being passes on is 50%. They may get the new copy from the parent with the mutation, or the equivalent positioned gene from the other parent. In bacteria, the chance of a mutated gene being passed on is almost 100%.
In the example of e.coli, there's 4 million base pairs, and a 1/1000 chance of any of those pairs mutating, so the chances are 1 in 4 billion that it won't be passed on.
If you roll a normal 6 sided die, the results are either one or not one, but the two potential out comes do not have equal odds.
Yeah we were all getting sick of the other thread. Glad to see this one is taking off.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
1. Easy, God
2. Even easier. God spoke to a chap named Noah and he built a big boat and just put one breeding pair of every mammal, reptile, bacteria, virus, fungus, plant, etc onto it and when the floods came they just kinda chilled for awhile. He brought a bunch of animal and reptile chow too so they wouldn't eat each other. Bacteria and viruses are actually so small that he could have (and probably did) kept most of them on his balls. Some in his mouth and as crack of course. Plus there were monkey ass cracks on board. Just for a minute think about what could have been thriving in there. The point is, God wasn't even about to lose one single species of anything despite his wrath. Pretty sure Jim Carrey made a movie about this so there's really no excuse to not know it. It's a fantastic story
3. The Lord works in mysterious ways
1: According to Genisis, God created the fishes during the first six days, fresh and salt apparently. But covering the Earth with fresh water would have immediately killed all salt water species. Mollusks, vertibrates, corals, sponges, urchins.....the works.
If evolution does not happen, how could the remaining fresh water species adapt to live in salt.
2: The size of the arc is distinctly mentioned. It is nowhere near large enough to contain even just two each of the mammal species extant on the Earth today, not to mention birds, marsupials, and reptiles.
3: Are you saying God caused man to evolve varying skin tones?
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution.
hurt the descendants too much and they don't make it. Help them enough and they are more successful, and you have natural selection. Wash, rinse, repeat for an unimaginable number of generations and you have populations evolving into new species.
It's all very simple.
Bullshit always sounds simple.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
How can some folks not understand that when a mutation occurs, it only affects the descendants of that individual. It does not affect the entire species, unless all members of the species without the new mutation become extinct.
In other words, some members of E Coli may have acquired mutations and some of their descendants other mutations until some descendants are walking and talking today. But that does not preclude the possibility that an nonmutated population of original E Coli does still live.
The crocodile, and some "prehistoric fishes" are examples of populations which have remained unchanged for extreme time periods while other populations have changed.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
You don't understand chromosomes.
We'll never know, because you lack the capacity to posit an effective reply.
The mutation is passed on, just like AS said. It has the same chance of changing again as it did before, but has a much higher chance to be passed on. Elementary biology you are disputing.
So imagination big enough to encompass the time and the processes necessary for evolution to work is a positive trait? But an imagination big enough to imagine a God who created everything is evidence of weak mindedness?
Got it.
If you consider Astronomy, the sheer scale of the Universe, I doubt that anyone can imagine its size or scale...yet alone that of a proposed Creator of the Universe. To say that you can imagine a God capable of Creating on such an unimaginable scale just comes down to word play.
Your claim it's "simply not true" is more bullshit, on toppa alla the bullshit you've already posted.
In addition, it's not an intelligent argument that refutes what I've posted, i.e., exactly what I'd expect from you.
Genetic drift, the actual term for what you are attempting to describe, is a random event, not one that has a 50% chance of happening.
And being a random event, the results of the particular genetic drift at issue may be positive, or negative.
With humans, excepting inbreeding, genetic drift is akin to throwing darts while blindfolded. It's gonna hit somewhere, but that's not evolution.
And inbreeding, which would focus genetic drift, tends to devolve, rather than evolve.
Random differences in a species do not result in a new, or necessarily better, species.
What I'm describing is not called "genetic drift", and it's not a 50/50 proposition.
Small random differences of a generation do not result in a new species, that is correct. An accumulation of differences of successive generations may result in a new species. Again, as mentioned above, it's this inability to comprehend the effect of the stacking of these small differences over many generations (a long with some unfounded theistic positions) that prevent you from "getting it".
[The mutation is passed on, just like AS said. It has the same chance of changing again as it did before, but has a much higher chance to be passed on. Elementary biology you are disputing.
Which is why redheaded people have mostly redheaded kids.
Except, they don't.
The mutation has the same chance of being passed on, not a higher chance.
"The proportion of mutated DNA copies shifts rapidly and unpredictably from mother to child making it very hard to predict what proportion of mutated DNA will be passed on."
Nothing is suddenly 'turned' into a different species. That's not how evolution works.
That is funny right there, all this gibberish of evolution and how it works. Well, it isn't anymore scientifically proven than religion amd the argument will go on into perpetuity like a 45 ACP being superior to a 9mm. As long as there are men with differing opinions, there will be no conclusion to this debate.
There will be a real awakening at death when the evolutionists find out that life isn't over...
Discovering the mechanism that God uses to maintain life is not a heresy. We observe the mechanics of his creation.
Induction. If the mechanisms of evolution are self sustaining, as they appear to be, there is no need to introduce a Creator that is doing it.
Yeah we were all getting sick of the other thread. Glad to see this one is taking off.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
1. Easy, God
2. Even easier. God spoke to a chap named Noah and he built a big boat and just put one breeding pair of every mammal, reptile, bacteria, virus, fungus, plant, etc onto it and when the floods came they just kinda chilled for awhile. He brought a bunch of animal and reptile chow too so they wouldn't eat each other. Bacteria and viruses are actually so small that he could have (and probably did) kept most of them on his balls. Some in his mouth and as crack of course. Plus there were monkey ass cracks on board. Just for a minute think about what could have been thriving in there. The point is, God wasn't even about to lose one single species of anything despite his wrath. Pretty sure Jim Carrey made a movie about this so there's really no excuse to not know it. It's a fantastic story
3. The Lord works in mysterious ways
1: According to Genisis, God created the fishes during the first six days, fresh and salt apparently. But covering the Earth with fresh water would have immediately killed all salt water species. Mollusks, vertibrates, corals, sponges, urchins.....the works.
If evolution does not happen, how could the remaining fresh water species adapt to live in salt.
2: The size of the arc is distinctly mentioned. It is nowhere near large enough to contain even just two each of the mammal species extant on the Earth today, not to mention birds, marsupials, and reptiles.
3: Are you saying God caused man to evolve varying skin tones?
1. He probably kept all the fish in fish tanks. Fresh/fresh and salt/salt. Plus mollusks. Since we have invertebrates today it stands to reason that he didn’t forget them
2. It’s likely he just kinda Tetrised them in there. If old Noah were alive today it’s hard to imagine he could be beaten in a fair Tetris tournament. In fact if I were to guess, I’d allow that the game Tetris was invented by God as a metaphor for Noah’s achievement
3. I think that’s just something you are supposed pray about. Although some people think he told a latter day prophet all about it. Brother Smith I believe
[The mutation is passed on, just like AS said. It has the same chance of changing again as it did before, but has a much higher chance to be passed on. Elementary biology you are disputing.
Which is why redheaded people have mostly redheaded kids.
Except, they don't.
The mutation has the same chance of being passed on, not a higher chance.
"The proportion of mutated DNA copies shifts rapidly and unpredictably from mother to child making it very hard to predict what proportion of mutated DNA will be passed on."
Maybe next post, you can actually put something in that you didn't make up.
Your "example" is about mitochondral DNA. You're not following. Red hair is not caused by "a mutation", it is a recessive trait caused by multiple. Nobody is going write a biology text here for you to get up to speed.
Your claim it's "simply not true" is more bullshit, on toppa alla the bullshit you've already posted.
In addition, it's not an intelligent argument that refutes what I've posted, i.e., exactly what I'd expect from you.
Genetic drift, the actual term for what you are attempting to describe, is a random event, not one that has a 50% chance of happening.
And being a random event, the results of the particular genetic drift at issue may be positive, or negative.
With humans, excepting inbreeding, genetic drift is akin to throwing darts while blindfolded. It's gonna hit somewhere, but that's not evolution.
And inbreeding, which would focus genetic drift, tends to devolve, rather than evolve.
Random differences in a species do not result in a new, or necessarily better, species.
What I'm describing is not called "genetic drift", and it's not a 50/50 proposition.
Small random differences of a generation do not result in a new species, that is correct. An accumulation of differences of successive generations may result in a new species. Again, as mentioned above, it's this inability to comprehend the effect of the stacking of these small differences over many generations (a long with some unfounded theistic positions) that prevent you from "getting it".
I haven't posted any theistic positions.
I just pointed out that what *you* posted, takin an anti-theistic position, is bullshit.
An accumulation of differences in successive generations can only happen if the specific mutation, which may or may not be an improvement, happens in a consistent manner.
And it never does, throughout the history of recorded science.
Your theory is simply a restatement of the "billion monkeys with a billion typewriters will eventually type War and Peace" theory.
Problem is, the one monkey that somehow managed ta type W&P, ain't never gonna type it again, nor are his descendants.
So, you're left with the last resort bullshit of claimin nobody else can "get it", but geniuses like you.
It's possible that e. coli was around 4.5 billion years ago, because it can be anaerobic.
But the Earth's temperature was probably an impediment.
1 billion, much more likely, as there was surface water.
Twas analube slurper's time frame, not mine, used to enhance the math behind the bullshit.
It makes no difference, as the fossil record begins with microbes for the first 3 billion years before the Cambrian, when conditions became conducive for the emergence of multi cellular evolution, with five major extinction events, this does not paint a picture of special creation. Not at all.
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Do you have evidence that e coli was around 4.5 billion years ago? Or even 1 billion years ago?
It's possible that e. coli was around 4.5 billion years ago, because it can be anaerobic.
But the Earth's temperature was probably an impediment.
1 billion, much more likely, as there was surface water.
Twas analube slurper's time frame, not mine, used to enhance the math behind the bullshit.
Current indications are life began surprisingly quickly after the formation of the earth.
As for e.coli, I have not expectation that it was around 4 billion years ago. It's a common bacteria we are all familiar with so I used it's rates of reproduction as a proxy for bacteria's in general.
All total, there's over 700 strains of e.coli, with greater genetic differences then there is between humans and c-h-impanzee's. The strains best known for killing people, E. coli O157:H7, was only identified in 1982. So e.coli isn't "still just ecoli", it continues to evolve and change as well.
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
Yes, I sincerely desire to know truth. And I do love learning the mechanics of the world around me.
I was born into a very conservatively religious family and well educated as to the teachings of OT and NT.
But the more I learned, the more the discrepancies and contradictions in the verses jumped out at me. And the teachings of the Pastors conflicted with my observations of the world. And conflicted with observations made by serious students of the sciences much more learned than I.
While I deeply respect the religious convictions of the devout, and I would never criticize their beliefs, I no longer share those beliefs.
I am convinced the OT and the NT are both written, not by God, but by men who wished to control, and be enriched by other men. I am convinced that any human soul is simply a product of mythology. There is no Heaven, nor Hell.
When the electricity stops flowing across the synapses, the man is dead and is no more, forever. Thus it is important for each of us to produce our own version of Heaven right here on Earth.
Isn't the account of the Noah flood thought to mentioned by other religions/lore also.? I heard that it could have been the inundation of the civilization around the Black Sea that was caused by the ocean breaking over the Dardanelles strait as the seas rose due to climate change. My experience of water breaking through an obstruction is that it picks up speed really quick. Seems like an incident like that could pass down from generation to generation and have some basis in fact. As to evolution vs creation it looks to me like they could easily co-exist in truth and fact. As for evolution, they have a lot of hard evidence.
All total, there's over 700 strains of e.coli, with greater genetic differences then there is between humans and c-h-impanzee's.
There's different strains of e. coli as denominated by scientists.
They're grouped according to their shared similarities.
The genetic differences prove that they ain't evolvin, they're stayin the same, in their own lane.
That's because the subsets that are different enough to no longer belong to the species e.coli get their own name. such as: E. albertii E. fergusonii E. hermannii E. marmotae[2] E. vulneris
Nobody is going write a biology text here for you to get up to speed.
I'm well aware that you lack the capacity to post a reasoned argument backed up by citations.
And since you can't do that, there's no reason for you to reply.
Mutations as a subject weren't my doin.
The human variations are just an example of why variances aren't predictable, genetics-wise.
When genetic engineering finally happens, and the products of same have un-engineered children, it will be interesting.
Your statements about the topic are absolutely idiotic... You are arguing that a genetic mutation has the same chance to be passed on to offspring as it did to mutate. That is not correct, not at all, not even close, totally false, not kinda correct, it's totally and absolutely wrong. Reasoned argument? For phucqk's sake, you are incorrect. LOL
Idahoshooter, is your question because you seek an answer, because truth is important to you...or is it just something to create a discussion?
But it will lead you away from the lies, and as the old saying goes, "nature hates a vacuum". When what we believed to be true is show to use that it is not, we are on a good path to understand how to learn more.
So please consider my counter question deeply, and let those that scream and shout and insult do so at top speed and maximum intensity.
The offer is genuine however, and if you want information concerning those questions you posted, and a lot of other questions too, just let me know.
Yes, I sincerely desire to know truth. And I do love learning the mechanics of the world around me.
I was born into a very conservatively religious family and well educated as to the teachings of OT and NT.
But the more I learned, the more the discrepancies and contradictions in the verses jumped out at me. And the teachings of the Pastors conflicted with my observations of the world. And conflicted with observations made by serious students of the sciences much more learned than I.
While I deeply respect the religious convictions of the devout, and I would never criticize their beliefs, I no longer share those beliefs.
I am convinced the OT and the NT are both written, not by God, but by men who wished to control, and be enriched by other men. I am convinced that any human soul is simply a product of mythology. There is no Heaven, nor Hell.
When the electricity stops flowing across the synapses, the man is dead and is no more, forever. Thus it is important for each of us to produce our own version of Heaven right here on Earth.
We have somewhat similar stories. The scripture says the Bible is the word of God, and infallible...This is dogmatic. And it was this dogma that led to my awakening.
When I learned that Moses never existed, the Exodus as described never happened. That all life started in "eden" 6k years ago. When I discovered the story of Noah is actually a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh which was written at lest 2k years earlier than the OT. When I learned that the Israel/Judah "nation" as detailed in the OT actually works out to a grand total of two small city states (both of which practiced idolatry as its majority religion)...I could go on and on. But it became clear to me the Bible is the same as pretty much every other religious document in the world...A mix of myths intermixed with historical events.
SO much doesn't make sense. Why did God ignore humanity for over 200k years, and choose to make "first contact" with man 3,500 years ago. Why did he ignore mankind for all those millennia? Why is it the Bible details ZERO scientific evidence that wasn't generally known for the day? Why didn't God warn the Israelite's about bacteria? Why does it go from religious moral absolutes, to moral relativity?
After the 4.5 billion years and alla the mutations, e. coli is still just e. coli.
Mutations aren't evolution.
Mutations are random genetic misfires that may help, or hurt, the organism.
There's mutations among humans, i.e., webbed feet, but no one is suggesting the people with webbed feet is more evolved than the resta us.
The usual bullshit thrown out in desperation.
Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution.
hurt the descendants too much and they don't make it. Help them enough and they are more successful, and you have natural selection. Wash, rinse, repeat for an unimaginable number of generations and you have populations evolving into new species.
It's all very simple.
Bullshit always sounds simple.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
How can some folks not understand that when a mutation occurs, it only affects the descendants of that individual. It does not affect the entire species, unless all members of the species without the new mutation become extinct.
In other words, some members of E Coli may have acquired mutations and some of their descendants other mutations until some descendants are walking and talking today. But that does not preclude the possibility that an nonmutated population of original E Coli does still live.
The crocodile, and some "prehistoric fishes" are examples of populations which have remained unchanged for extreme time periods while other populations have changed.
There's no evidence E. coli existed 4.5 billion years ago. Bacteria, yes. While crocodiles haven't changed a lot over millions of years, they have indeed changed. Many species died out and new ones came into being. Their biggest claim to fame was their ability to survive the extinction event at the K-t boundary (likely caused by the meteor off the coast in the Yucatan). Somewhere back 4+ billion years ago, we likely have a common ancestor with E. coli as Idaho_Shooter claims.
" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"
Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?
" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"
Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?
VERY different thing. That is something that is artificially selective.
" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"
Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?
VERY different thing. That is something that is artificially selective.
" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"
Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?
There are two parts to a scientific theory: the evidence, then the narrative used to tie together and explain the evidence: the theory.
The evidence for the reality of evolution is overwhelming, the theory seeks to build a picture of how it happens.
Rather than a question of if it happens, it's a question of how it happens.
" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"
Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?
There are two parts to a scientific theory: the evidence, then the narrative used to tie together and explain the evidence: the theory.
The evidence for the reality of evolution is overwhelming, the theory seeks to build a picture of how it happens. Rather than a question of if it happens, it's a question of how it happens.
And as evidence that the theory is correct, is how it became predictive; and we SEE those predictions over and over and over. If this were religion, Darwin would be considered a prophet.
If we held to western Christian dogma, then the earth is 6,000 years old. But let's remember, God wiped out all living things 2,000 years with a flood. So that would mean that the vast majority of all living land creatures had to come from the animals on the Ark. The Bible says there were 7,000 kinds of animals (not to mention there's no way to get that many animals on that boat). One of the more conservative estimates of the number of land animals today is 16 million.
So from 4,000 years ago, to today; somehow another 16 million creatures have popped up.
If you do the math, that means over the past 4k years, mankind should have observed 11 new species per day.
So here we have some (admittedly a bit anecdotal and goofy in my opinion) math that REALLY doesn't work out. Combine that with the FACT that Epic of Gilgamesh which was written long before The Bible was written.
This is VERY strong evidence that there is an error in the Bible in regards to this story. Yet because of dogma, the "true believer" is not allowed to accept reason over faith.
Natural selection and survival of the fittest is not a mechanism to increase complexity. It is only a negation.
DNA
Did not happen by accident.
You have missed out the fundamental bit - DNA is constantly mutating and making changes to organisms. Natural selection is only part of it. Thus the variety of life, and the mechanism of nature's will.
This is children's level science.
To borrow from Richard Dawkins, it's as if a teacher of Latin was constantly confronted with the objection that ancient Roman civilization never actually existed, that the entire universe is only about a hundred years old, and that all the Romance languages sprang into existence, fully formed, and independently, having no relationship to one another. So he's always wasting his time refuting these errors rather than getting on with the business of actually teaching Latin.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
It works like dog breeding.
Every wolf pup is just ever so slightly different along various dimensions from his litter mates. If you are in the practice of keeping wolves (dogs, per se, not yet existing), you would likely disadvantage the reproduction of those wolves that tended to bite you or your family members by culling them early. You might also cull the wolves who prove not interested in defending your family, and run off at the first sign of danger. Conversely, those wolves who seem particularly interested in helping you on the hunt would be prized, and you'd likely make sure they mated often, were particularly well cared for, and produced pups with your other wolves that are good at that. The result is that you will tend, in time, to have wolf pups who don't bite you or your family members, who consider themselves members of your pack, and will thus stand and defend you and your family against danger. You will also tend to have wolves who are good at assisting in the hunt. Keep doing that sort of thing long enough, and you will end up with hundreds of very distinct breeds of wolf (as we have today, although we call them dogs), of very different sizes, physical characteristics, and behavioral traits.
That's just man acting on the natural, DNA-driven, variability of the wolf over a relatively short period of time. Imagine what nature can do, acting over immensely longer periods of time.
Mutations aren't passed on as an evolutionary progression would be.
It's a random event that happened to happen, and the chances of it being passed on are exactly the same as it happening in the first place.
And as a random event, the mutation may be just as likely a step backwards, from an evolutionary standpoint.
And e. coli, is still just e. coli. If your theory was fact, e. coli'd be walkin and talkin, by now.
It works like dog breeding.
Every wolf pup is just ever so slightly different along various dimensions from his litter mates. If you are in the practice of keeping wolves (dogs, per se, not yet existing), you would likely disadvantage the reproduction of those wolves that tended to bite you or your family members by culling them early. You might also cull the wolves who prove not interested in defending your family, and run off at the first sign of danger. Conversely, those wolves who seem particularly interested in helping you on the hunt would be prized, and you'd likely make sure they mated often, were particularly well cared for, and produced pups with your other wolves that are good at that. The result is that you will tend, in time, to have wolf pups who don't bite you or your family members, who consider themselves members of your pack, and will thus stand and defend you and your family against danger. You will also tend to have wolves who are good at assisting in the hunt. Keep doing that sort of thing long enough, and you will end up with hundreds of very distinct breeds of wolf (as we have today, although we call them dogs), of very different sizes, physical characteristics, and behavioral traits.
That's just man acting on the natural, DNA-driven, variability of the wolf over a relatively short period of time. Imagine what nature can do, acting over immensely longer periods of time.
But they are all wolves and a Chihuahua could breed with a Dire Wolf, there were any left, and produce viable offspring.
But they are all wolves and a Chihuahua could breed with a Dire Wolf, there were any left, and produce viable offspring.
Certainly, because there hasn't been sufficient isolation over time so that enough genetic drift and disparate adaptation could occur to make reproduction unlikely or impossible.
Don't miss the point of my example, though. It was illustrative of the mechanism by which nature can select for change.
Nature was the "breeder" of Equidae, the species from which it eventually produced three distinct "breeds," (an analogy for species, here) the horse, the zebra, and the donkey (actually members of the family Equidae). These three, unlike our dog example, did have enough time in isolation from one another for sufficient genetic drift and disparate adaptation to prevent them from once again becoming the same species. They can produce offspring (demonstrating how recently in time their split occurred), but not fertile offspring.
Pandas and Grizzlies (both belonging to the family Ursidae) can't even do that, because they've drifted too far apart, genetically, due to a longer period of genetic isolation and disparate adaptation.
The Bible says there were 7,000 kinds of animals (not to mention there's no way to get that many animals on that boat).
So you want to apply your limited intelligence of logic to creation and accept a bird evolving with feathers and wings with no connection to creeping and crawling things as they advanced from gills and fins to foxes and buffalo.
Materialistic evolution — the process of chance perturbations (and then mutations, almost off of which are fatal) over billions of years leading to all life from a common ancestor — is a philosophy, not hard science. A world view whose attitude of human arrogance emanating from the enlightenment and then the father of geology, Charles Lyle, in the1700’s and early 1800’s, wanting to describe a geology countering “the Moses account” needing billions of years of slow processes called Uniformitarianism.
He set the stage for the acceptance of billions of years which in 1859 Charles Darwin (also a non-believer) built on with his ”Origens.” This gave a ”possible” worldview many found easier to believe than a sovereign God they were accountable to. Darwin’s Science was at an elementary level and the rest conjecture.
Where did any original material come from in the first place? There are no transitional fossils in the record nor living ones? There is more than a whole set of encyclopedia Britannica’s information in one simple cell. Where does information directing the cell come from? Where does New information come from in the presumed increasing complexity of creatures? (The electron microscope was not even around until the early 20th century. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell.). Crick of DNA fame and an atheist, has realized the total lack of credibility in evolution and has decided on transpermia — that “we” were “seeded” from someplace in outer space!!! There are arguably fifty or so physical constants that off one place behind the decimal point would make this globe uninhabitable — you might say it was custom-fitted for human habitation. You can direct genetic traffic within a species to make different varieties but each time there is a loss of genetic information. There is never a gain in genetic information — you cannot go from the Pomeranian back to the wolf. C14- and radioisotope dating that everyone hangs their hat on are rife with interpretation problems and bias.
I don’t have the time to go on but a question: why do you think the ID (Intelligent Design) movement got started in the ‘90’s? Because there is too much genetic information and complexity, and the scientific knowledge (true hard science) that has been gained shows pure materialistic evolution to a dream’s fantasy. It’s so deeply imbedded in academia and the sciences and culture as dogma that it will die a slow death but it is dying in your life time.
The blithely made statements made out of complete ignorance here are always amazing. I.e., there wasn’t room on the ark for all the animals? Perhaps, say, 80% of the animals were insects and small creatures and the behemoth kind were very young or juveniles. Also these “kinds” were not species but a higher category of immense genetic information from which species and varieties could be later generated.
The Book was written wayyyy before we know what we know now. Evolution does not preclude faith, it does seem to preclude litteral interpretation of ancient texts. I will openly admit I have never understood why a litteral interpretation is held. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that in my teens. To this day, I can't fathom one particular thing that has been mentioned in these threads. That is why, or even, how, a litteral reading of Noah's story would be held by modern men. I also don't understand why such a story is necessarily for the faith knowing well that it's an utter impossibility? It's cool, God Created everything, it's just needs to include modern understanding of the universe. Thankfully, we're free to believe and discuss, others have not been so fortunate.
Religious folks: "It's in the BIBLE! It must be true! It's all I've ever been taught. Evolution cannot be proven."
Everyone else: "Your bible was written by men (fallible humans) 300-400 years after the person alleged to be Jesus died. This bible underwent so many translations from one language to another. You cannot hide behind your bible and claim "God! The end." You must offer scientific evidence for your claim. You can't sit there and say "Look how complicated it is! It must be the work of God." You must explain, again in scientific terms, with valid evidence, why God would have made the world so complicated when Genesis says it is so simple. You claim evolution cannot be proven. OK. Scientifically prove the dinosaurs are less than 10,000 years old. And prove that birds are not descended from/related to dinosaurs. Oh, and use the scientific method."
The Book was written wayyyy before we know what we know now. Evolution does not preclude faith, it does seem to preclude litteral interpretation of ancient texts. I will openly admit I have never understood why a litteral interpretation is held. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that in my teens. To this day, I can't fathom one particular thing that has been mentioned in these threads. That is why, or even, how, a litteral reading of Noah's story would be held by modern men. I also don't understand why such a story is necessarily for the faith knowing well that it's an utter impossibility? It's cool, God Created everything, it's just needs to include modern understanding of the universe. Thankfully, we're free to believe and discuss, others have not been so fortunate.
We all understand that a man and woman simply "knowing" one another cannot literally result in begetting. That's just shorthand for getting it on, and all the reproductive biology that that entails. No one will criticize you for understanding that when the Bible says a man and a woman came to know one another, and thus begot this or that child, that there was more to it than mere knowing. Yet if you understand that God forming Adam from the dust of the earth means more than what's literally stated, i.e., that he established the physical laws and caused matter to come into existence is such a way as to produce Adam (man), and imbued him with a soul, you are said (by the Biblical literalist) to be contradicting revelation.
It's like arguing that when I hurl a bowling ball down the lane in such a way as to anticipate a strike, and I make a strike, that I didn't cause the strike, because the ball coming into contact with the pins did it. What set the ball in motion with the intent to make the strike? With God, there was no guesswork involved, however, since when he determines to make a strike, a strike is made, and a long chain of events will turn out just the way he wishes them to, even though there were also intermediate causes, such as the motion of the ball, and its eventual contact with the pins, and the laws of physics that determine the forces of momentum and transference of force from one pin to the next, etc..
The bowler doesn't micromanage these forces along the way, once he releases the ball, but he generally knows (if he's good) that he let the ball go in just the right way so that a long chain of events, interacting with known physical laws, will result in his objective coming to fruition, a strike. Likewise, God didn't micromanage the bringing forth of Adam, but he caused it still the same, knowing full well, once he released the ball, that he would be the eventual consequence.
Thanks. Imagine the shear size and complexity of Noah's boat! Had to been absolutely fantastic.
As in all the aircraft carriers the world has ever known joined into one giant ship.
Equidae has been previously mentioned. There are three species of zebra with two subspecies of mountain zebra. The mountain zebra has a gestation period of 12 months, grevys zebra has a gestation period of 13 months. Domesticated horses carry a foal for 11 months.
There are 13 species of finches identified in the Galapogas.
How many actual species of deer, and elk are we familiar with across the world. Or rats, mice and other rodents.
Now, consider this genetic disparity multiplied across all of the creatures we commonly consider identical.
If one species truly can not transform into another, a male and female of each of these millions of species must have had living quarters and food storage upon the Arc. Except that we are told Noah kept seven of some species.
Thanks. Imagine the shear size and complexity of Noah's boat! Had to been absolutely fantastic.
As in all the aircraft carriers the world has ever known joined into one giant ship.
Equidae has been previously mentioned. There are three species of zebra with two subspecies of mountain zebra. The mountain zebra has a gestation period of 12 months, grevys zebra has a gestation period of 13 months. Domesticated horses carry a foal for 11 months.
There are 13 species of finches identified in the Galapogas.
How many actual species of deer, and elk are we familiar with across the world. Or rats, mice and other rodents.
Now, consider this genetic disparity multiplied across all of the creatures we commonly consider identical.
If one species truly can not transform into another, a male and female of each of these millions of species must have had living quarters and food storage upon the Arc. Except that we are told Noah kept seven of some species.
Would have been beautiful to have 2-7 blue whales on the boat
Thanks. Imagine the shear size and complexity of Noah's boat! Had to been absolutely fantastic.
As in all the aircraft carriers the world has ever known joined into one giant ship.
Equidae has been previously mentioned. There are three species of zebra with two subspecies of mountain zebra. The mountain zebra has a gestation period of 12 months, grevys zebra has a gestation period of 13 months. Domesticated horses carry a foal for 11 months.
There are 13 species of finches identified in the Galapogas.
How many actual species of deer, and elk are we familiar with across the world. Or rats, mice and other rodents.
Now, consider this genetic disparity multiplied across all of the creatures we commonly consider identical.
If one species truly can not transform into another, a male and female of each of these millions of species must have had living quarters and food storage upon the Arc. Except that we are told Noah kept seven of some species.
Would have been beautiful to have 2-7 blue whales on the boat
Glad you said it instead of me! I finally figured out that since all the rain, he likely didn't need aquaria. It's much more plausible considering this new revelation.
The Bible says there were 7,000 kinds of animals (not to mention there's no way to get that many animals on that boat).
So you want to apply your limited intelligence of logic to creation and accept a bird evolving with feathers and wings with no connection to creeping and crawling things as they advanced from gills and fins to foxes and buffalo.
However, there were many terrestrial dinosaurs with feather like hair on them. The evidence is there if you don't dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't conform to your preconceptions. It does not mean that your faith is misplaced, but it might mean you need a less literal interpretation of the bible. Not hard to understand, as Jesus often spoke in parables (metaphor). My god is great enough to be able to create and manage evolution.
I want to believe but I just can't seem to find a mammal with evidence of the animal it evolved from.
Are you qualified to see that if it was there?? Which it is, by the way. Every animal bears overwhelming evidence of evolution.
Take humans alone, and take a look at our spine, where it attaches to our pelvis and skull, and you can see that this is all constructed for quadrupedalism, and only partially adapted to bipedalism. This is why we so often damage our backs with heavy lifting. That S-shape is the adaptation. It's good enough for the most part so that we can walk upright, but it's a post hoc adaptation of a quadrupedal skeleton.
Then there's the nerve (vagus) attachment from our brain's speech center to our larynx. It takes a long detour, rather than being directly connected in a straight line. This is because when that nerve first appeared, our ancestors were fish, had no necks, and their hearts were right up close to their heads (back then, it was a straight line connection). As a result, as our ancestors developed necks, and our hearts moved further away from our heads, the nerve link between the brain and the voice box was on the wrong side of the right subclavian artery. This nerve serves no other function but to connect the speech center of our brains to our larynx, so the detour pathway it takes cannot be explained in any other way.
Then take dew claws not infrequently appearing on dogs' hind legs (one of my dogs was born with one such dew claw on his right hind leg, but not on his left). Wolves don't have them. It's a throwback to the distant ancestors of canids who had five toes on all four feet like wolverines.
Then there's the nerve (vagus) attachment from our brain's speech center to our larynx. It takes a long detour, rather than being directly connected in a straight line. This is because when that nerve first appeared, our ancestors were fish, had no necks, and their hearts were right up close to their heads (back then, it was a straight line connection). As a result, as our ancestors developed necks, and our hearts moved further away from our heads, the nerve link between the brain and the voice box was on the wrong side of the right subclavian artery. This nerve serves no other function but to connect the speech center of our brains to our larynx, so the detour pathway it takes cannot be explained in any other way.
Then there's the nerve (vagus) attachment from our brain's speech center to our larynx. It takes a long detour, rather than being directly connected in a straight line. This is because when that nerve first appeared, our ancestors were fish, had no necks, and their hearts were right up close to their heads (back then, it was a straight line connection). As a result, as our ancestors developed necks, and our hearts moved further away from our heads, the nerve link between the brain and the voice box was on the wrong side of the right subclavian artery. This nerve serves no other function but to connect the speech center of our brains to our larynx, so the detour pathway it takes cannot be explained in any other way.
Today I learned ancient fish could speak.
Oh, damn! You just stumped the entirety of evolutionary biology ... NOT!
It was, at that time, a nerve connection from the fish brain to the structure that eventually became our voice box. But I think you knew that.
So, is God supposed to be some sort of a non material entity? If so, what is this non material, this mysterious spirit stuff that can create a material universe through an act of magic?
And why is this more believable for some than naturalistic processes that we can readily examine and test?
So, is God supposed to be some sort of a non material entity? If so, what is this non material, this mysterious spirit stuff that can create a material universe through an act of magic?
And why is this more believable for some than naturalistic processes that we can readily examine and test?
Science isn't the enemy of spirituality. It doesn't touch on that question one way or another, because spirituality is non-disprovable. Science will not, and cannot, look at any non-disprovable questions.
So, is God supposed to be some sort of a non material entity? If so, what is this non material, this mysterious spirit stuff that can create a material universe through an act of magic?
And why is this more believable for some than naturalistic processes that we can readily examine and test?
Science isn't the enemy of spirituality. It doesn't touch on that question one way or another, because spirituality is non-disprovable. Science will not, and cannot, look at any non-disprovable questions.
Sorry, that wasn't the question. I did not say that spirituality is the enemy of science.
Posting on the phone typo....left out the 'not' the enemy....
I've read the old Testament, and to me it seems obvious that many of the stories are not meant to be taken literally. Alot of it would be ridiculous if you took the events depicted as being literally true.
I don't see that evolution being true means there is no God. Why would it? It just means that the creation myths aren't literally true stories, but why does it matter? Do they need to be true stories for God to exist?
I have no opinion on the matter,really, because I'm simply not educated enough on the issue to really understand it. I can listen to one side of the argument and be like"yeah that sounds right and very convincing"....but then I'll watch a video from the other side and think then same thing. I guess i don't care enough about how it happened to put in the effort to do the huge amount of research it would take to really understand it.
Materialistic evolution — the process of chance perturbations (and then mutations, almost off of which are fatal) over billions of years leading to all life from a common ancestor — is a philosophy, not hard science. A world view whose attitude of human arrogance emanating from the enlightenment and then the father of geology, Charles Lyle, in the1700’s and early 1800’s, wanting to describe a geology countering “the Moses account” needing billions of years of slow processes called Uniformitarianism.
He set the stage for the acceptance of billions of years which in 1859 Charles Darwin (also a non-believer) built on with his ”Origens.” This gave a ”possible” worldview many found easier to believe than a sovereign God they were accountable to. Darwin’s Science was at an elementary level and the rest conjecture.
Where did any original material come from in the first place? There are no transitional fossils in the record nor living ones? There is more than a whole set of encyclopedia Britannica’s information in one simple cell. Where does information directing the cell come from? Where does New information come from in the presumed increasing complexity of creatures? (The electron microscope was not even around until the early 20th century. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell.). Crick of DNA fame and an atheist, has realized the total lack of credibility in evolution and has decided on transpermia — that “we” were “seeded” from someplace in outer space!!! There are arguably fifty or so physical constants that off one place behind the decimal point would make this globe uninhabitable — you might say it was custom-fitted for human habitation. You can direct genetic traffic within a species to make different varieties but each time there is a loss of genetic information. There is never a gain in genetic information — you cannot go from the Pomeranian back to the wolf. C14- and radioisotope dating that everyone hangs their hat on are rife with interpretation problems and bias.
I don’t have the time to go on but a question: why do you think the ID (Intelligent Design) movement got started in the ‘90’s? Because there is too much genetic information and complexity, and the scientific knowledge (true hard science) that has been gained shows pure materialistic evolution to a dream’s fantasy. It’s so deeply imbedded in academia and the sciences and culture as dogma that it will die a slow death but it is dying in your life time.
The blithely made statements made out of complete ignorance here are always amazing. I.e., there wasn’t room on the ark for all the animals? Perhaps, say, 80% of the animals were insects and small creatures and the behemoth kind were very young or juveniles. Also these “kinds” were not species but a higher category of immense genetic information from which species and varieties could be later generated.
I don't see that evolution being true means there is no God. Why would it? It just means that the creation myths aren't literally true stories, but why does it matter? Do they need to be true stories for God to exist?
Claro, That all depends on how a theist defines their particular god. For those with a literalist definition of their god, then yes, the stories must be true. If not it demonstrates their god is counter indicated by facts, and foundation of their faith falls.
For those who look at the Bible as a series of parables, it matters not if the stories are literally true, so long as it relates some truth about human nature.
As an example, lets take the story of Jonah. It's not really about someone getting swallowed by a whale.
It's a story about the futility of running from one's responsibilities.
For the literalist, it matters that a whale cannot swallow a person. For the moralist, what matters is Jonah tried to run across the sea, but he couldn't escape his responsibility. The whale was just a plot device to take him back.
more precisely, the substance of faith is something purely IMAGINED due to the complete absence of PROOF. ..... .... .
There seems to be a preference for magical explanations, research and discovery coming a poor second.
The thing about magic [or illusion] is that the audience members brains can convince them of something that didn't actually happen in the way they like to believe....which brings us to the subject of delusion and myths.
people can be led to falsely believe the cantaloupe (rockmelon) was under the magicians hat on the table, then led to falsely believe it disappeared.
Origin of life questions have nothing to do with evolution science. It's a different field, and largely speculative.
He gets into the evolution a bit as well.
Looks like he's saying that what happened couldn't have happened. That's a pretty weak starting position.
What does he know? He was just named one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world.
But it's always non-biologists.
He is one of the most preeminent nano chemist in the world and the origin of life was completely a chemical affair if you hold with current theories. He is probably one of, if not the most qualified man in the world to discuss the chemical processes necessary to create life as current science says that it was. You should do yourself a favor and actually watch the video.
I've read the old Testament, and to me it seems obvious that many of the stories are not meant to be taken literally. Alot of it would be ridiculous if you took the events depicted as being literally true.
I don't see that evolution being true means there is no God. Why would it? It just means that the creation myths aren't literally true stories, but why does it matter? Do they need to be true stories for God to exist?
I have no opinion on the matter,really, because I'm simply not educated enough on the issue to really understand it. I can listen to one side of the argument and be like"yeah that sounds right and very convincing"....but then I'll watch a video from the other side and think then same thing. I guess i don't care enough about how it happened to put in the effort to do the huge amount of research it would take to really understand it.
Again, thanks. This has fugged with me for years. I always was more sure in disbelief but really anymore I just don't know. I don't doubt, but remember only bits, about DNA and such formally learned. The other just doesn't make any sense but generally I agree with the value set. Literal seems to work for some folks and it's hard for me wrap my head around it. Ain't never known folks closely that would profess the literal... All free to do our own thing.
He is one of the most preeminent nano chemist in the world and the origin of life was completely a chemical affair if you hold with current theories. He is probably one of, if not the most qualified man in the world to discuss the chemical processes necessary to create life as current science says that it was. You should do yourself a favor and actually watch the video.
It doesn't matter who he is. Science does not come down to the authority, belief or view of one man.
Materialistic evolution — the process of chance perturbations (and then mutations, almost off of which are fatal) over billions of years leading to all life from a common ancestor — is a philosophy, not hard science. A world view whose attitude of human arrogance emanating from the enlightenment and then the father of geology, Charles Lyle, in the1700’s and early 1800’s, wanting to describe a geology countering “the Moses account” needing billions of years of slow processes called Uniformitarianism.
He set the stage for the acceptance of billions of years which in 1859 Charles Darwin (also a non-believer) built on with his ”Origens.” This gave a ”possible” worldview many found easier to believe than a sovereign God they were accountable to. Darwin’s Science was at an elementary level and the rest conjecture.
Where did any original material come from in the first place? There are no transitional fossils in the record nor living ones? There is more than a whole set of encyclopedia Britannica’s information in one simple cell. Where does information directing the cell come from? Where does New information come from in the presumed increasing complexity of creatures? (The electron microscope was not even around until the early 20th century. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell.). Crick of DNA fame and an atheist, has realized the total lack of credibility in evolution and has decided on transpermia — that “we” were “seeded” from someplace in outer space!!! There are arguably fifty or so physical constants that off one place behind the decimal point would make this globe uninhabitable — you might say it was custom-fitted for human habitation. You can direct genetic traffic within a species to make different varieties but each time there is a loss of genetic information. There is never a gain in genetic information — you cannot go from the Pomeranian back to the wolf. C14- and radioisotope dating that everyone hangs their hat on are rife with interpretation problems and bias.
I don’t have the time to go on but a question: why do you think the ID (Intelligent Design) movement got started in the ‘90’s? Because there is too much genetic information and complexity, and the scientific knowledge (true hard science) that has been gained shows pure materialistic evolution to a dream’s fantasy. It’s so deeply imbedded in academia and the sciences and culture as dogma that it will die a slow death but it is dying in your life time.
The blithely made statements made out of complete ignorance here are always amazing. I.e., there wasn’t room on the ark for all the animals? Perhaps, say, 80% of the animals were insects and small creatures and the behemoth kind were very young or juveniles. Also these “kinds” were not species but a higher category of immense genetic information from which species and varieties could be later generated.
It's just the god of the gaps fallacy repeated over and over in different ways.....we don't know how the universe came about (it may be cyclic), well, god did it. We don't know how life got started, well, god did it.
What is this thing called god? How did god come about? By what magic was the universe created....
What is this thing called god? How did god come about? By what magic was the universe created....
By the same token, why can't the @sshole "scientists" admit that they can't explain things that have happened in the universe?
When "science" can't bullshit its way outta a paper bag, the "scientists" belittle theological beliefs, as if that proves the crapass theories put forth by "scientists".
Whether taken literally or not, the theological explanations for known events can at times make more sense than the "scientific" theories put forth.
What is this thing called god? How did god come about? By what magic was the universe created....
By the same token, why can't the @sshole "scientists" admit that they can't explain things that have happened in the universe?
When "science" can't bullshit its way outta a paper bag, the "scientists" belittle theological beliefs, as if that proves the crapass theories put forth by "scientists".
Whether taken literally or not, the theological explanations for known events can at times make more sense than the "scientific" theories put forth.
Which is an embarrassment to "scientists".
So...who are these scientists you speak of? Who are these scientists that claim to have all the answers?
Impossible ta tell if you're only playin stupid, or the real thing.
If you've read this thread, there's not a single event in the 4.5 billion years the planet's been spinnin, that can't be explained "scientifically" by somebody that gets paid ta explain it.
If you've not read it alla the way through, it'll give ya somethin ta do.
Impossible ta tell if you're only playin stupid, or the real thing.
If you've read this thread, there's not a single event in the 4.5 billion years the planet's been spinnin, that can't be explained "scientifically" by somebody that gets paid ta explain it.
If you've not read it alla the way through, it'll give ya somethin ta do.
Not a good idea mentioning the word 'stupid.' Irony meters can be expensive to fix. Plus it's an assumption of righteousness, that you, yourself have the answers while all who disagree are idiots.
Even then you get it wrong, the question was not about planetary formation but claims of scientists knowing the origin of the universe and life.
I asked you who these scientists are, but instead got a display ot mock outrage.
The ones who do claim to have the answers to the origin of the universe, life and its purpose are theists.
in 2019 , iF a person 'Abraham style' went/ attempted to take their young son up a mountain to blood sacrifice them to a God they would be arrested , convicted and imprisoned even by an all christian jury.
He is one of the most preeminent nano chemist in the world and the origin of life was completely a chemical affair if you hold with current theories. He is probably one of, if not the most qualified man in the world to discuss the chemical processes necessary to create life as current science says that it was. You should do yourself a favor and actually watch the video.
It doesn't matter who he is. Science does not come down to the authority, belief or view of one man.
What science? You people prove the original point more and more with every post. Here you have a man who has over 130 patents, who has published over 750 peer reviewed articles, who has done some of the most ground breaking work in the world in synthetic and organic chemistry. He has done all of that. And you guys scream “Science”. What science? As he repeatedly says, he isn’t interested in dogma. Show him the mechanics of how something happened. Show him how it was done. Because based on his experience, expertise, and knowledge he has seen nothing from anyone to demonstrate that anyone has the faintest clue of what actually happened.
As he states, the current “science” on the subject of how life began amounts to putting some turkey cold cuts, a beak, some feathers, and a few bones in an oven and saying “Given a few million/billion years a turkey is bound to emerge at some point.”
It is my belief that Evolution (Science/Biology) and Creation compliment each other. For those who maybe interested, this video is quite eye opening and worth the time time to watch. It's long, but not boring. Quantum Physics is a discovery that aligns the Evolution and Creation theories.
He is one of the most preeminent nano chemist in the world and the origin of life was completely a chemical affair if you hold with current theories. He is probably one of, if not the most qualified man in the world to discuss the chemical processes necessary to create life as current science says that it was. You should do yourself a favor and actually watch the video.
It doesn't matter who he is. Science does not come down to the authority, belief or view of one man.
What science? You people prove the original point more and more with every post. Here you have a man who has over 130 patents, who has published over 750 peer reviewed articles, who has done some of the most ground breaking work in the world in synthetic and organic chemistry. He has done all of that. And you guys scream “Science”. What science? As he repeatedly says, he isn’t interested in dogma. Show him the mechanics of how something happened. Show him how it was done. Because based on his experience, expertise, and knowledge he has seen nothing from anyone to demonstrate that anyone has the faintest clue of what actually happened.
As he states, the current “science” on the subject of how life began amounts to putting some turkey cold cuts, a beak, some feathers, and a few bones in an oven and saying “Given a few million/billion years a turkey is bound to emerge at some point.”
What science? The science that is freely accessible. The science that creationists either fail to consider or reject out of hand.
He is one of the most preeminent nano chemist in the world and the origin of life was completely a chemical affair if you hold with current theories. He is probably one of, if not the most qualified man in the world to discuss the chemical processes necessary to create life as current science says that it was. You should do yourself a favor and actually watch the video.
It doesn't matter who he is. Science does not come down to the authority, belief or view of one man.
What science? You people prove the original point more and more with every post. Here you have a man who has over 130 patents, who has published over 750 peer reviewed articles, who has done some of the most ground breaking work in the world in synthetic and organic chemistry. He has done all of that. And you guys scream “Science”. What science? As he repeatedly says, he isn’t interested in dogma. Show him the mechanics of how something happened. Show him how it was done. Because based on his experience, expertise, and knowledge he has seen nothing from anyone to demonstrate that anyone has the faintest clue of what actually happened.
As he states, the current “science” on the subject of how life began amounts to putting some turkey cold cuts, a beak, some feathers, and a few bones in an oven and saying “Given a few million/billion years a turkey is bound to emerge at some point.”
Ok. It didn't happen like "whomever" claims it did. Origin of life is not evolution. Great. Point being, this guy is a scientist that publishes in peer reviewed journals and would do so with this thesis but hasn't. So? I have been trying to pay attention here, but, have not seen anyone here claiming that the origin of life is as he's refuting. Ok, folks have issue with science that says man is causing global warming, understood. Ok, guys take issue with science of origin of life. Ok. Understood. But it seems guys are then taking a leap that therefore all science is bullchit. Laughable in our modern age of what is known... We all know God created life, then it evolved. LOL. Carry-on.
As for me, I tend to believe that the origin of life has as scientific an explanation as does evolution. God didn't micromanage either of them. He set the ball in motion, like a bowler who knows how to release the ball in just such a way as to make a strike, and then the things he wanted to happen, did. Not because he micromanaged anything, anymore than a bowler micromanages the ball on its way to the pins, or micromanages the pins transferring force to one another in just the right way so as to make a strike. The science behind origin of life was likely just another among the sequences of events that God set into motion at the moment of creation.
Materialistic evolution — the process of chance perturbations (and then mutations, almost off of which are fatal) over billions of years leading to all life from a common ancestor — is a philosophy, not hard science. A world view whose attitude of human arrogance emanating from the enlightenment and then the father of geology, Charles Lyle, in the1700’s and early 1800’s, wanting to describe a geology countering “the Moses account” needing billions of years of slow processes called Uniformitarianism.
He set the stage for the acceptance of billions of years which in 1859 Charles Darwin (also a non-believer) built on with his ”Origens.” This gave a ”possible” worldview many found easier to believe than a sovereign God they were accountable to. Darwin’s Science was at an elementary level and the rest conjecture.
Where did any original material come from in the first place? There are no transitional fossils in the record nor living ones? There is more than a whole set of encyclopedia Britannica’s information in one simple cell. Where does information directing the cell come from? Where does New information come from in the presumed increasing complexity of creatures? (The electron microscope was not even around until the early 20th century. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell.). Crick of DNA fame and an atheist, has realized the total lack of credibility in evolution and has decided on transpermia — that “we” were “seeded” from someplace in outer space!!! There are arguably fifty or so physical constants that off one place behind the decimal point would make this globe uninhabitable — you might say it was custom-fitted for human habitation. You can direct genetic traffic within a species to make different varieties but each time there is a loss of genetic information. There is never a gain in genetic information — you cannot go from the Pomeranian back to the wolf. C14- and radioisotope dating that everyone hangs their hat on are rife with interpretation problems and bias.
I don’t have the time to go on but a question: why do you think the ID (Intelligent Design) movement got started in the ‘90’s? Because there is too much genetic information and complexity, and the scientific knowledge (true hard science) that has been gained shows pure materialistic evolution to a dream’s fantasy. It’s so deeply imbedded in academia and the sciences and culture as dogma that it will die a slow death but it is dying in your life time.
The blithely made statements made out of complete ignorance here are always amazing. I.e., there wasn’t room on the ark for all the animals? Perhaps, say, 80% of the animals were insects and small creatures and the behemoth kind were very young or juveniles. Also these “kinds” were not species but a higher category of immense genetic information from which species and varieties could be later generated.
Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom.
You are just wrong on EVERY level.
Where did God come from in the first place?
Exactly. Declaring "God did it" does not resolve an infinite regress, it just creates a whole new one.
We might ask, why is the speed limit 55? Do we need a speed limit? Was there always a speed limit? Who created it? And all the rest of the questions. Or, we could just drive the speed limit.
in 2019 , iF a person 'Abraham style' went/ attempted to take their young son up a mountain to blood sacrifice them to a God they would be arrested , convicted and imprisoned even by an all christian jury.
Heck, even if you were more civilized and just executed your captives, and not your own kids, Aztec style, you would still go to prison, and possibly receive the death penalty.
You noticed that too, huh? And repeating dismissive lines like, "Go prove (the unprovable)."
Each proposition holds it's own burden of proof, and in order to be a scientifically valid proposition it must be falsifiable.
Re-read TRH's last post.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
So let him publish a paper disproving evolution in a proper biology journal and see if the field agrees with him. That's how it's done.
There are many ways to falsify evolution, TRH is suggesting this guy take up the challenge and publish his findings in a proper peer review journal. By proper journal, he means a top scientific biological journal, not "The Journal for Creationist Research".
Hawk, just for discussion, you don't think God ever intervenes?
I was only addressing the first two chapters of Genesis where it clearly states that God gave the job of bringing forth all the living creatures to the natural world ("the waters and the earth") that he created and set into motion. Immediately thereafter, the Bible is full of unambiguous accounts of God's direct interactions with man.
You noticed that too, huh? And repeating dismissive lines like, "Go prove (the unprovable)."
Each proposition holds it's own burden of proof, and in order to be a scientifically valid proposition it must be falsifiable.
Re-read TRH's last post.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
So let him publish a paper disproving evolution in a proper biology journal and see if the field agrees with him. That's how it's done.
There are many ways to falsify evolution, TRH is suggesting this guy take up the challenge and publish his findings in a proper peer review journal. By proper journal, he means a top scientific biological journal, not "The Journal for Creationist Research".
He doesn’t have findings. He isn’t claiming a theory as to how it happened. He isn’t even claiming to be a creationist. He is just telling them that no one has ever explained an adequate theory at the molecular level as to how all this is supposed to work. It’s all mumbo jumbo hand waiving “takes a lot of time” junk. IF YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN TO HIM, he quite explicitly says that as a scientist, he is open to any actual explanation that stands the rest of science, but so far at the level he knows and where it all has to begin, it’s all junk.
He lightly mocks biologists as well and says that they view the whole process from “30,000 feet” without understanding what must happen at the molecular level. He also says that the evidence is overwhelming for micro evolution but no one has gotten there for macro evolution yet as far as anything he has seen.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
m
That’s just stupid, like a lot of your arguments on this subject. The guy builds stuff at the molecular level. He built a car so small that fifty thousand of them would fit on the width of a human hair. He understands what is necessary for the changes necessary at that level for evolution to work better than any man alive most likely.
The difference between him and evolutionary biologist is like that difference between an architect who conceived a grand stadium with so many attractions and the electrical engineer responsible for designing all the wiring and making sure it works. That is the guy who knows at the ground level if something the architect conceived is doable.
Maybe not those contributing to the discussion, but as Antelope Sniper pointed out to me years ago, there are many members following these threads and not participating . We dont know if they have changed their position one way or the other.
We might ask, why is the speed limit 55? Do we need a speed limit? Was there always a speed limit? Who created it? And all the rest of the questions. Or, we could just drive the speed limit.
Are you so old someone's taken away your carkeys? Are you really this far out of touch?
Connecticut was the first state to pass a speed limit law back in 1901.This law limited the legal speed of motor vehicles to 12 mph in cities and 15 mph on country roads.
You should be old enough to remember the 1973 oil embargo, so you should remember the politics behind the implementation of the old double nickle, and IT'S SUBSEQUENT REPEAL in the late 80's. Most of Colorado's 75 mph, and Wyoming's 80 mph. Much of the argument for repeal was based on SCIENCE falsifying the safety claims of the 55mph proponents.
So to answer your question, the 55mph speed limit is now gone because SCIENCE.
By your method of thinking we should still have a 15 mph speed limit, because one that rule was made, no one should ever question it and just blindly obey.
[quote=JoeBob]He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist. He is just some who knows the science necessary better than anyone and understands that all the current explanations are junk sold as science to a gullible public.
That’s just stupid, like a lot of your arguments on this subject. The guy builds stuff at the molecular lHe built a car so small that fifty thousand of them would fit on the width of a human hair.evel. He understands what is necessary for the changes necessary at that level for evolution to work better than any man alive most likely.
The difference between him and evolutionary biologist is like that difference between an architect who conceived a grand stadium with so many attractions and the electrical engineer responsible for designing all the wiring and making sure it works. That is the guy who knows at the ground level if something the architect conceived is doable.
He lightly mocks biologists as well and says that they view the whole process from “30,000 feet” without understanding what must happen at the molecular level. He also says that the evidence is overwhelming for micro evolution but no one has gotten there for macro evolution yet as far as anything he has seen.
If he doesn't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing, just over different time scales, I question his sincerity to the quest for truth.
Pair this with the statement highlighted by TRH:
Quote
He isn’t an origin of life researcher. He isn’t a biologist.
And you have a non-biologist too ignorant to understand evolution declaring it can't happen, and because he's not smart enough to intelligently design a living cell in a lab it must to be intelligently designed......yea.....
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
Aren't you the one that was saying a genetic mutation has the same chance of being passed on to offspring as it did occurring in the parent? Everyone is entitled to discuss even when absolutely definitively wrong. Cheers.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
Calling "young earth creationists" anyone who makes a distinction between microevolution and macro-evolution is simply a term fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists employ in an attempt to avoid answering the real hard evidentiary questions to which they do not have answers and which their theory is powerless to explain. Micro-evolution is a presently observable and thoroughly proven phenomenon. Macro-evolution by natural selection is an assumption extrapolated from the reality of micro-evolution which assumption is unlikely to be true and is contradicted by a mass of evidence. Rather than confront the discontinuity and contradictions, fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists employ ad hominem invective in a desperate effort to deflect scrutiny from the very real problems in their theory. Their pre-existing fundamentalist religious commitments (atheism) demands if of them.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
The two terms have an accepted definition, which is exactly as I have stated it.
e. coli from a billion years ago is still just e. coli. And it will be e. coli a billion years from now. The passage of time's got nothin to do with it.
e. coli ain't gonna turn into a different species.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
Way I look at it, if the animals can breed with each other successfully, they're the same species.
Is it evolution? Yes, it's micro evolution, differences occurring within a species due to environment or random chance.
African elephants can't breed with Asian elephants. Different species, at the present time.
If Evolution is real then why are Monkeys still Monkeys ?
There have been many species of monkey that no long exist, and there are currently many species of them. The monkey species from which our ancestors derived likely no longer exists, and could have divided up into several different species of monkeys and apes, some of which have since disappeared, and some still with us.
If Evolution is real then why are Monkeys still Monkeys ?
Exactly. If one has no understanding of genetics and evolution how can one possibly discuss it... So many just flat out declare anything "evolution" is utter bullchit they have not learned the very very basics of the underlying biology... Respectively, Google it.
If Evolution is real then why are Monkeys still Monkeys ?
...... have been .........no long exist, .......likely ........ and could have ....................some of which have since disappeared, ..............
If Evolution is real then why are Monkeys still Monkeys ?
...... have been .........no long exist, .......likely ........ and could have ....................some of which have since disappeared, ..............
Sounds *real* scientific.
So, Indian and African elephants aren't related to one another?
So, it's all cleared up. Species absolutely have never evolved from other species on planet Earth. There's a much more plausible explanation. Which is?
They were created as separate species 6,000 and some years ago. God made them look somewhat alike just to fool you. Like fossils, expanding universe, radioactive decay dating, etc. It's a test. He made that stuff just to separate true believers, the chosen people, from the wicked and disobedient unbelievers (guess where they'll end up). Being sarcastic but prove me wrong.
Just like e. coli can be slightly different from each other.
And elephants ain't turnin into e. coli, and e. coli ain't turnin into elephants.
E. coli is a modern day single cell organism. The single cell organisms from which we (and our close cousins the elephants) evolved lived billions of years ago.
They were created as separate species 6,000 and some years ago. God made them look somewhat alike just to fool you. Like fossils, expanding universe, radioactive decay dating, etc. It's a test. He made that stuff just to separate true believers, the chosen people, from the wicked and disobedient (guess where they'll end up). Being sarcastic but prove me wrong.
How about a serious answer to the question. What do you really believe and why?
They're both in the family Ursidae. It's just that they've been apart too long for hybridization to be possible.
Are you clear on the point that when you accept that species are related, you're saying they had a common ancestor? That means evolution happened, resulting in speciation, whether they can reproduce together any longer or not.
Which two of these three are related in your reckoning: 1) Wolves 2) Foxes 3) Tarantellas?
They're both in the family Ursidae. It's just that they've been apart too long for hybridization to be possible.
Are you clear on the point that when you accept that species are related, you're saying they had a common ancestor? That means evolution happened, resulting in speciation.
Which two of these three are related in your reckoning: 1) Wolves 2) Foxes 3) Tarantellas?
Soon Fubarski will admit God Created evolution and we can move on....
That don't mean they're in a "family", or anything else.
Just a human interpretation of perceived similarities.
But if a scientist were, somehow, able to make it happen with artificial insemination then you'd accept they were related?
What about llamas and camels? In a lab, they can be assisted into hybridization. That makes them related, right? So what does related mean in that context, exactly? They're from two separate continents.
No. You are intentionally misrepresenting my position:
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Current indications are life began surprisingly quickly after the formation of the earth.
As for e.coli, I have no expectation that it was around 4 billion years ago. It's a common bacteria we are all familiar with so I used it's rates of reproduction as a proxy for bacteria's in general.
All total, there's over 700 strains of e.coli, with greater genetic differences then there is between humans and c-h-impanzee's. The strains best known for killing people, E. coli O157:H7, was only identified in 1982. So e.coli isn't "still just ecoli", it continues to evolve and change as well.
Since you are back to the subject of e.coli, are the other members of the genus Escherichia the results of common descent, or special creation.
Let me refresh your mind with a partial list:
E. albertii E. fergusonii E. hermannii E. marmotae[2] E. vulneris
Hey just because two things is related don't mean they come from a common ancestor! Ohhh wait a minute! It does! Holy mackerel! Wowza!
LOL.
Before he said African and Indian elephants weren't related. In other words, both having been placed by zoologists in the family elephantidae was just a naming trick to fool us into thinking they were related, just because they look sort of alike. Then when I showed him that they actually have been hybridized, he accepted that they were related, but won't describe what exactly related means in that context. As you say, it means they have a common ancestor. In other words, they are two species that were once a single species.
I've read through most of this and didn't see anything about plate tectonics.
For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Good Book, do they believe in plate tectonics? And therefor continental drift? India crashing into Asia? Africa and South America separating? Hot spots in the ridges in the middle of the ocean (Think Hawai'i and Iceland)? All that stuff happened in just a coupla thousand years?
If those folks are non-believers in plate techtonics, how do they explain "The Ring of Fire" in the Pacific? The Rift Valley in Africa? Maybe a good one to explore is Pinnacles National Park. Seems parts of it used to be down near Lancaster CA, 195 miles or so south of where they are located today? Along the San Andreas Fault. Which they have pretty good measurements for the last few years about the rate of movement. Did the pinnacles move nearly 200 miles in just 6000 years or so?
Located near the San Andreas Fault along the boundary of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, is an excellent example of tectonic plate movement. The Pinnacles Rocks are believed to be part of the Pinnacles-Neenach Volcanic Field that occurred 23 million years ago near present-day Lancaster, California, some 195 miles (314 km) southeast. The giant San Andreas Fault split the volcano and the Pacific Plate crept north, carrying the Pinnacles. The work of water and wind on these erodible volcanic rocks has formed the unusual rock structures seen today. Today, these rocks give many species of plants and animals a place to call home.
Of course, I suppose the fault could have moved much quicker in the past, and all this means one must believe they can tell that the rocks there came from the same volcanic source as the ones down south in Lancaster (there's the influence of those darn scientists again, playing with rocks and determining their chemical makeup and such) . Maybe the fault slowed down recently to the levels it seems to be moving today? Maybe it went really fast before the "white man" arrived with their measuring instruments? Oh, wait, seems there were some "natives" in the area during the biblical times, they don't seem to have stories of the fault really cookin' along. Maybe they just forgot to pass those stories down, after all they were savages. Or maybe they really weren't here all that time even?
If we can figure out some of this plate tectonics stuff, maybe we can settle this stuff once and for all, you know, age of the Earth and all that. Critters turnin' into other critters too.
Hey just because two things is related don't mean they come from a common ancestor! Ohhh wait a minute! It does! Holy mackerel! Wowza!
Hey, I hear in some parts of the world your ancestor might just be your descendant too. I mean, look at them folks what have a sister who's their wife too, and that kinda goins on?
antelope sniper has asked what do we believe and why.
well, that's a start. i'll begin by sayin' i was taught evolution theory after i was taught about the old & new testament. so they came first and foremost. i was young at the time, btw. so, it was downloaded into a young brain, that was untaught and undeducated. but it was a beginning.
later, some goofy ph.d's started talking about all kinds of crazy stuff that i ain't never hurt tell uf before. one was evolution, and it just kept getting deeper and deepr.
so, what do i believe and why? about all i know is what i've been told. except for what questions i have raised sorting through the debris, odds & ends, and detritus. there is in fact very little that i believe that is in fact "mine" to believe. i got most my stuff from the cloud, so to speak. but, i continually sort, add levels of importance from low to high, and add probability to the unknown, bayesian i suppose. anyways, i try to keep my little island of consciousness afloat on a piece of flotsam believing that we'll see land sooner or later.
some say the only way to decide what is true is to vote on it. others disagree vehemently, almost violently even?
The word 'God' is used an awful lot, but what does it mean? Can anyone explain?
Why bother?
Some things don't need 'splainin'.
Like air:
Geno
Is it a matter of 'why bother' or just something that cannot be explained because there is no evidence for existence? I say the latter.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind. Consequently, all we have is a contradictory collection of ideas that some folks take literally, being convinced that this or that idea about God happens to be true and factual information.
Especially if it's something written by the ancients in what we call holy books, imagining authority or privaliged information where none exists, just ideas that people believed and wrote about.
antelope sniper has asked what do we believe and why.
Fair 'nuff. I believe that God created everything. Somebody did and we define that entity as God. Even the quantum soup idea requires somebody create dimensions and a universe to hold them for quantum-something to work in.
I also believe that evolution is likely correct. Evidence supports it and as far as I know there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
And I believe these are not contradictory positions. The bible is not a book of science, it is a book of morals. Taken as such and written with the free use of literary devices there is nothing in the poetic language of Genesis that prohibits evolution.
And there is nothing in evolutionary theory that prohibits divine intervention. Can be fairly read as a map of "how he did it." The odds that evolution, and more so creation, worked out the way it did are long indeed. You can fairly say that's Mother Nature, people win Powerball. But there is no reason to not say the divinity had his thumb on the scale for this outcome. Statistics by it's nature cannot be definitive.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
That's why I asked the forum what do YOU believe.......and why.
Any proper discussion of "god(s)" begins with a definition of what the participants mean by God. Obviously your concept of God is very different than that of JoeBob, or Ringman or Curdog.
I would agree with DBT that there is no one universal description of God, not even if we limit that to the Christian God.
Many gods can be disproven by demonstrating their beliefs conflict with reality. The Greek Gods live on the top of Mount Olympus. Man has been to the top of Olympus and there were not there, so we've disproven gods falling within that definition.
The more general and nebulous the definition, of course, the harder it is to falsify a given god, but it also tends to make the god more meaningless. As an example a god who cannot (or will not) interact with this world, for practical reasons, is the same as no god at all.
I would like to split some hair with your definition of God.
"Even the quantum soup idea requires somebody create". I would agree the idea of a quantum soup begs for an explanation, but I fail to see where the explanation requires a sentient being to create it. See, the simpler and more humble the beginnings, the less extraordinary that which explains it needs to be. An all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent creator of universes, well, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, and would carry a very high burden of proof....with it's own infinite regress explaining the origins of the grand underlying complexities that lead to this Omni-everything creator (no Special Pleading allowed here).
As for the Bible being a book of useful morals I leave you with the following:
It's not the only moralistic interpretation of this story, but it's the one I find the most useful.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
What does this so called debate entail? Christians do not agree with Hindus on the nature of God, or with Muslims, Jews disagree with Christians on the nature of Jesus and God.... that's without mentioning other religions and their offshoots...so this 'debate' hardly represents a coherent or literal description of God, whatever that is supposed to be.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
What does this so called debate entail? Christians do not agree with Hindus on the nature of God, or with Muslims, Jews disagree with Christians on the nature of Jesus and God.... that's without mentioning other religions and their offshoots...so this 'debate' hardly represents a coherent or literal description of God, whatever that is supposed to be.
If there was one true god, the arrival of Europeans in the new world would of been a little different:
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
What does this so called debate entail? Christians do not agree with Hindus on the nature of God, or with Muslims, Jews disagree with Christians on the nature of Jesus and God.... that's without mentioning other religions and their offshoots...so this 'debate' hardly represents a coherent or literal description of God, whatever that is supposed to be.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
That's why I asked the forum what do YOU believe.......and why.
Start at the beginning. I exist. You exist apart from me. We each came into existence as separate individuals, how did that happen? There must have been an entity to cause that. Nothing happens without a mover, a causing force. Skip through the Thomistic proofs, the upshot is there must have been a prime, uncreated entity and there can only be one. That we call God. Whatever characteristics you want to add to God is another matter. You can argue that this mode of thought, metaphysics, came from ancient Greeks in their consideration of fundamental transcendent desires of man.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
That's why I asked the forum what do YOU believe.......and why.
Start at the beginning. I exist. You exist apart from me. We each came into existence as separate individuals, how did that happen? There must have been an entity to cause that. Nothing happens without a mover, a causing force. Skip through the Thomistic proofs, the upshot is there must have been a prime, uncreated entity and there can only be one. That we call God. Whatever characteristics you want to add to God is another matter. You can argue that this mode of thought, metaphysics, came from ancient Greeks in their consideration of fundamental transcendent desires of man.
Do you equate the alleged "prime mover" with the classical God of Christianity, and if so, how do you logically move from the former to the latter?
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
That's why I asked the forum what do YOU believe.......and why.
Start at the beginning. I exist. You exist apart from me. We each came into existence as separate individuals, how did that happen? There must have been an entity to cause that. Nothing happens without a mover, a causing force. Skip through the Thomistic proofs, the upshot is there must have been a prime, uncreated entity and there can only be one. That we call God. Whatever characteristics you want to add to God is another matter. You can argue that this mode of thought, metaphysics, came from ancient Greeks in their consideration of fundamental transcendent desires of man.
God cannot be literally described or explained as in a literal or actual God because 'God' is just an idea cooked up in the human mind.
Now that is open for debate and has been for a couple thousand years now.
What does this so called debate entail? Christians do not agree with Hindus on the nature of God, or with Muslims, Jews disagree with Christians on the nature of Jesus and God.... that's without mentioning other religions and their offshoots...so this 'debate' hardly represents a coherent or literal description of God, whatever that is supposed to be.
Com'on man.... Don't be such a downer. LOL
Healthy scepticism is a positive thing, uplifting and enlightening, throwing off the burden of dogma.
Do you equate the alleged "prime mover" with the classical God of Christianity, and if so, how do you logically move from the former to the latter?
Yes. Thomas Aquinas got famous with that approach. Wrote a book on it, "Summa Theologica" which I'm not qualified to explain even if I wanted to. It's a big book. It was and is a basis for religious thought in the Roman Catholic Church and hence for the reformist sects.
Do you equate the alleged "prime mover" with the classical God of Christianity, and if so, how do you logically move from the former to the latter?
Yes. Thomas Aquinas got famous with that approach. Wrote a book on it, "Summa Theologica" which I'm not qualified to explain even if I wanted to. It's a big book. It was and is a basis for religious thought in the Roman Catholic Church and hence for the reformist sects.
I've never found Aquinas's arguments to be convincing. Too many logical fallacies and unsupported assertions.
as the fates themselves might have it, i've never attended any of the theatrical i mean theological, seminarian, nor divinity schools, but lot's of us should have?
we'd be better off by far? but, here we are, without all of that prior knowledge & beliefs. left here to wing it, and make the most sense of it. and pay taxes.
so many humans are needing and searching for definitive answers. i mean they have good minds, but very little info beyond that? what's a mind to do?
what we're really speaking of is consciousness, is it not? we/our minds are independent, but are downloaded with info that we struggle with.
human consciousness.the great apes might have a taste of it & understand the challenges their human cousins face. what do they think?
Do you equate the alleged "prime mover" with the classical God of Christianity, and if so, how do you logically move from the former to the latter?
Yes. Thomas Aquinas got famous with that approach. Wrote a book on it, "Summa Theologica" which I'm not qualified to explain even if I wanted to. It's a big book. It was and is a basis for religious thought in the Roman Catholic Church and hence for the reformist sects.
I've never found Aquinas's arguments to be convincing. Too many logical fallacies and unsupported assertions.
It's a fine example of how 'reason' without evidence and testing of assumptions can go terribly wrong.
the secular humanists, running things on earth. can they do it efficiently, effectively and successfully using testing, measurements, and feed back responses?
i mean, if we choose to leave out a mystical leader, and we do it on our own, can we expect to be successful?
if there's a war between or among groups, and people die, whom should we blame for it?
Summa Theologica is difficult partly because of the style of the times and a lot of it presumes you know the underlying philosophy and theology. Underlying principles are not explained, you're supposed to already know that stuff. Works out well if you do your research.
Gus, I went to Le Moyne College, a liberal arts school run by those dreaded Jesuits. Core requirements included 15 hours of Philosophy and 6 hours of Theology (theology in a wide scope, nor religion) Being Accounting majors we thought it a drudge. Looking back those were the most valuable courses. First it teaches you to order your thoughts, to think in a rational manner which affects all of your life, whatever you're doing. Secondly it helps you find your place in the cosmos allowing you to live a fulfilling life. So yes, I think students should pursue these courses, hopefully with more enthusiasm than I did.
the secular humanists, running things on earth. can they do it efficiently, effectively and successfully using testing, measurements, and feed back responses?
i mean, if we choose to leave out a mystical leader, and we do it on our own, can we expect to be successful?
if there's a war between or among groups, and people die, whom should we blame for it?
Then there is political ideology and the craving for power, wealth and status....
the secular humanists, running things on earth. can they do it efficiently, effectively and successfully using testing, measurements, and feed back responses?
i mean, if we choose to leave out a mystical leader, and we do it on our own, can we expect to be successful?
if there's a war between or among groups, and people die, whom should we blame for it?
Then there is political ideology and the craving for power, wealth and status....
yelp. and the idea of democracy, or individuals setting up their own gov't.
let's set the stage, ok?
we have an urth. it grows so much material/food/fiber each year.
we humans harvest the products produced by the earth.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
at this late date in the post-modern era, it's not likely an descendent of ghenkis khan or his kind are very likely to sweep across the great plains of asia into eastern europe, leaving dna samples to and fro.
leadership of humans has managed to kill or main people from one end of the earth to the other. just sayin'.
technology allowed the europeans to conquer north america without a lot of difficulty. yes, plenty were kilt.
now the earth's surface is pretty much full of humans, going about, working, commuting, paying taxes.
was this the final plan? is this the end game? is there more? what would more look like?
Creationists got the bible, written by men long after the actual events, and its prophecies.
Evolutionists got "scientific" tomes, full of assumptions and written by men within parameters that avoid the defects in the methodology.
Creationists got the Shroud of Turin, and relics that could support their version of events.
Evolutionists got fossil foot bones, that somehow enable them to deduce and conclude the bipedal nature, cranial size and facial features of an entire classification of pre-humans.
Creationists got Noah's Ark, explainin the nature and extent of the flora and fauna in existence today.
Evolutionists got the miracle of each and every supposed missing link, in each and every species alleged to have evolved, being extinct, and with no fossil record.
Creationists have the faith that their version of events is correct.
Evolutionists have the faith that their version is correct.
Creationists got the bible, written by men long after the actual events, and its prophecies.
Evolutionists got "scientific" tomes, full of assumptions and written by men within parameters that avoid the defects in the methodology.
Creationists got the Shroud of Turin, and relics that could support their version of events.
Evolutionists got fossil foot bones, that somehow enable them to deduce and conclude the bipedal nature, cranial size and facial features of an entire classification of pre-humans.
Creationists got Noah's Ark, explainin the nature and extent of the flora and fauna in existence today.
Evolutionists got the miracle of each and every supposed missing link, in each and every species alleged to have evolved, being extinct, and with no fossil record.
Creationists have the faith that their version of events is correct.
Evolutionists have the faith that their version is correct.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
You don't think secular humans have guiding morals? There are many theories on the origin of morals, and religion is only one of them.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
Just a slight correction on your taxonomy. Equidae is a Family
Horse, Zebra, and Donkey are Genus
Zebra has three separate species, while the Mountain Zebra has two subspecies
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
How well has the supposedly God given moral guidance worked out for us?
As described in the bible, God doesn't even abide by the given rules.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
You don't think secular humans have guiding morals? There are many theories on the origin of morals, and religion is only one of them.
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
Macro evolution is a term used by Young Earth Creationist in an attempt to deny the greater reality of evolution.
By definition "Macro Evolution" is just evolution on a geologic time scale. So if you grant micro evolution, but deny macro evolution, you are by default denying the existence of geologic time scales, which of course is the position of the biblical literalist YEC's.
The two terms have an accepted definition, which is exactly as I have stated it.
e. coli from a billion years ago is still just e. coli. And it will be e. coli a billion years from now. The passage of time's got nothin to do with it.
e. coli ain't gonna turn into a different species.
That is your mistaken belief.
For an interesting study gather a few books discussing the drift of tectonic plates since the time of Pangea. And then do some reading on the classification, history, and distribution of one family of fresh water fishes, Cichlidae.
Today cichlids appear on every continent except Australia. They are very intolerant of salt, or even brackish water, so they did not migrate from continent to continent, nor even from river to river via ocean, and certainly not over land. Anyway, not until man started packing all kinds of different species all over the world via air and ocean freight.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Every discovery made in the field of geology enhances the evidence for evolution.
For an interesting study gather a few books discussing the drift of tectonic plates since the time of Pangea. And then do some reading on the classification, history, and distribution of one family of fresh water fishes, Cichlidae.
Today cichlids appear on every continent except Australia. They are very intolerant of salt, or even brackish water, so they did not migrate from continent to continent, nor even from river to river via ocean, and certainly not over land. Anyway, not until man started packing all kinds of different species all over the world via air and ocean freight.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Every discovery made in the field of geology enhances the evidence for evolution.
Fish end up in lotsa places they got no business being.
You have the faith that a fish that ain't where you think it should be, proves the theory of evolution.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
Mostly because they had no Constitution which limited the power of the Executive Branch.
Absolute power does corrupt absolutely, whether that power be contained in a Theocracy or a Socialist Democracy.
For an interesting study gather a few books discussing the drift of tectonic plates since the time of Pangea. And then do some reading on the classification, history, and distribution of one family of fresh water fishes, Cichlidae.
Today cichlids appear on every continent except Australia. They are very intolerant of salt, or even brackish water, so they did not migrate from continent to continent, nor even from river to river via ocean, and certainly not over land. Anyway, not until man started packing all kinds of different species all over the world via air and ocean freight.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Every discovery made in the field of geology enhances the evidence for evolution.
Fish end up in lotsa places they got no business being.
You have the faith that a fish that ain't where you think it should be, proves the theory of evolution.
It's good to have faith.
Ah, NO.
Every fish is exactly where it should be and got there at the time it should have got there.
It is all quite orderly and logical if one opens one's mind and does the research.
For an interesting study gather a few books discussing the drift of tectonic plates since the time of Pangea. And then do some reading on the classification, history, and distribution of one family of fresh water fishes, Cichlidae.
Today cichlids appear on every continent except Australia. They are very intolerant of salt, or even brackish water, so they did not migrate from continent to continent, nor even from river to river via ocean, and certainly not over land. Anyway, not until man started packing all kinds of different species all over the world via air and ocean freight.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Every discovery made in the field of geology enhances the evidence for evolution.
Fish end up in lotsa places they got no business being.
You have the faith that a fish that ain't where you think it should be, proves the theory of evolution.
It's good to have faith.
Ah, NO.
Every fish is exactly where it should be and got there at the time it should have got there.
It is all quite orderly and logical if one opens one's mind and does the research.
The majority of the fresh water on the planet consists of small lakes.
Those lakes can be remote, and are usually landlocked.
The vast majority of these lakes have several species of fish occurring naturally within them.
Continental mountain divides are not in the same places they were five or ten or twenty million years ago. Heck, continents are not even in the same place they were then.
And lakes which are landlocked now, have not always been so.
For example what is now the Salt Lake in Utah, as recently as 15,000 years ago stretched into Idaho in the north, to the Southern border of Utah, and into Eastern Nevada. {Google Lake Bonneville}
We visited Ogden Utah a few years ago. It is simply mind boggling to look up at the mountains around Salt Lake and observe high water marks remaining fifty feet, and a hundred feet, and higher upon the mountain sides.
Hmmm, there might be a pretty good chance one would find the same species of fishes in all the tributaries which drained into this once massive lake.
Unless of course, one simply refuses to believe the Earth existed a million years ago.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
Mostly because they had no Constitution which limited the power of the Executive Branch.
Absolute power does corrupt absolutely, whether that power be contained in a Theocracy or a Socialist Democracy.
The Inquisition was lead and carried out by me with an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and it lead them to great evil.
Not all atheist are Marxist.
If you wanted to talk about secular government, you’d have to point to a government that built all its institutions on the teachings of Spinoza and Darwin and Einstein and Jefferson and Locke. America is the closest example. But because religion entered into it—bringing slavery and genocide and so on—I don’t think you can point to it.
Atheism is a necessary condition for emancipation of the mind, but it’s not a sufficient one. You can free yourself from superstition and still end up a nihilist or a hedonist or a Stalinist.
What’s innate in our species isn’t the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it. The fact is, we are a mammalian species one half-chromosome away from [bleep], and it shows. Curing ourselves of religion is only a small step along the road. Fortunately, our brains seem to be evolving.
For an interesting study gather a few books discussing the drift of tectonic plates since the time of Pangea. And then do some reading on the classification, history, and distribution of one family of fresh water fishes, Cichlidae.
Today cichlids appear on every continent except Australia. They are very intolerant of salt, or even brackish water, so they did not migrate from continent to continent, nor even from river to river via ocean, and certainly not over land. Anyway, not until man started packing all kinds of different species all over the world via air and ocean freight.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Every discovery made in the field of geology enhances the evidence for evolution.
Fish end up in lotsa places they got no business being.
You have the faith that a fish that ain't where you think it should be, proves the theory of evolution.
antelope sniper has asked what do we believe and why.
well, that's a start. i'll begin by sayin' i was taught evolution theory after i was taught about the old & new testament. so they came first and foremost. i was young at the time, btw. so, it was downloaded into a young brain, that was untaught and undeducated. but it was a beginning.
later, some goofy ph.d's started talking about all kinds of crazy stuff that i ain't never hurt tell uf before. one was evolution, and it just kept getting deeper and deepr.
so, what do i believe and why? about all i know is what i've been told. except for what questions i have raised sorting through the debris, odds & ends, and detritus. there is in fact very little that i believe that is in fact "mine" to believe. i got most my stuff from the cloud, so to speak. but, i continually sort, add levels of importance from low to high, and add probability to the unknown, bayesian i suppose. anyways, i try to keep my little island of consciousness afloat on a piece of flotsam believing that we'll see land sooner or later.
some say the only way to decide what is true is to vote on it. others disagree vehemently, almost violently even?
Gus, you laid out what you've been told, but what do you Believe????
I'm not necessarily expecting you to express them in absolutes, what do you think is most likely, or even probable?
What about these questions to you admit to just not knowing??
Time out. Marsupials are like an infraclass or maybe a clade within Mammalia and there's like 100 species in the Americas. Likely not directly descended from e coli.
Then there is political ideology and the craving for power, wealth and status....
NIghthawk will try and tell you coercion methods used by the church in their pursuit of power, wealth and status
...stopped with Aquinas...
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
What’s innate in our species isn’t the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it.
how many armies through history became emboldened after getting blessings and./or directives from the church before committing the most atrocious widespread death and destruction against the human race.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own".
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity".
NIghthawk will try and tell you coercion methods used by the church in their pursuit of power, wealth and status
...stopped with Aquinas...
That is the most ridiculous comment you've made so far and a very poor attempt at trolling. If you don't want a serious, intelligent conversation STFU.
Seems like you worship Jefferson, the perfect human being. I understand his slaves loved him. Literally.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
You don't think secular humans have guiding morals? There are many theories on the origin of morals, and religion is only one of them.
Yes, empathy, social organization.....
It's a long discussion but in a nutshell without some universal truths you're left with moral relativism. Which by definition can be rationalized into whatever you want it to be. So empathy and social organization is fine this week but may be inconvenient next week. And since the ends justify the means there's no impediment to rationalizing "the good" as we wish it to be today. It's a very self-centered or selfish thing. I decide what's right and that happens to fit my self interest - why not since I'm the ultimate arbiter. Made a good justification for eugenics for example. Which following the tradition of Sanger lead to Planned Parenthood or more accurately Planned Infanticide.
Without an absolute, guiding moral ideology, and I don't think secular humanists have that, you're left with the bad of human nature and none of the good. Why did the grand Marxist experiment degenerate into a country run by corrupt oligarchs in a very short time on the scale of human history?
You don't think secular humans have guiding morals? There are many theories on the origin of morals, and religion is only one of them.
Yes, empathy, social organization.....
It's a long discussion but in a nutshell without some universal truths you're left with moral relativism. Which by definition can be rationalized into whatever you want it to be. So empathy and social organization is fine this week but may be inconvenient next week. And since the ends justify the means there's no impediment to rationalizing "the good" as we wish it to be today. It's a very self-centered or selfish thing. I decide what's right and that happens to fit my self interest - why not since I'm the ultimate arbiter. Made a good justification for eugenics for example. Which following the tradition of Sanger lead to Planned Parenthood or more accurately Planned Infanticide.
What is it that makes something a 'Universal Truth?' A description with an example may help.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
Just a slight correction on your taxonomy. Equidae is a Family
Horse, Zebra, and Donkey are Genus
I know this. If you accept it's a family, that means you accept they are related. Related means they have a common ancestor. So is this because you believe their subdivision to be an example of the sort of evolution you accept, i.e., micro evolution?
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Marsupials are also mammals. They appeared before the emergence of placental mammals, which is why there are no placental mammals native to Australia.
Also, you know that Opossums are marsupials, right?
If you don't understand that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the completely different, you've no business engaging in a discussion of evolution.
This statement begins with a false predicate and ends with a conclusion based on that falsehood.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Micro evolution is the e.coli examples you've cited, with variations developing within a species in response to environment or random chance.
But the species remains e. coli, no matter how long it's been in existence.
This statement is also false.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Macro evolution is the development of a new species through changes to an earlier species, an alleged example bein ape to man.
A conclusion base on false statements.
The question that arises in the face of the above is this: Do you make the false statements to decieve or do you make them out of ignorance?
E. coli is a single cell organism and as such it cannot even be considered for "macro evolution" as you postulate. E. Coli will always reproduce by cell division and not by sexual reproduction. E. Coli that is different genetically from previous E. Coli must lose the gene distinction(s) acquired by whatever means before it can revert to being the same E. coli it was before the change. It is by definition evolved, whether it expresses the acquired genetic differences or not. Species difference definition that demands only that two different species be unable to reproduce sexually is a false predicate. Bacteria commonly evolve by sharing genes and plasmids with other oft times wholly unrelated species evolve no matter how many false assumptions you base incorrect conclusions upon. Viruses do the same thing, and they are basically DNA inside a protein shell and do not fit much of what we would define as life. Unequivocally however viruses do change and do so in a manner which mimics at the least evolution.
Micro vs macro evolution is a false dichotomy as demonstrated above and can only have one of two bases, deception by intent or ignorance. In either case, there is no point in engaging in discussion with a person engaged in that activity until and unless said person admits one or the other basis.
Consider how the continent of Australia separated from Pangea before the rise of Mammalia, and marsupials became the dominant animals of Australia, while they were displaced by mammals everywhere else.
Marsupials are also mammals. They appeared before the emergence of placental mammals, which is why there are no placental mammals native to Australia.
Also, you know that Opossums are marsupials, right?
Every possum I see gets the 17hmr treatment. Gross ugly animals that steal cat food.
Most people of your opinion classify the division in equidae into its three surviving member species (horse, donkey, and zebra) as an example of micro evolution. Do you consider this an example of micro evolution, i.e., the sort of evolution that you accept?
Just a slight correction on your taxonomy. Equidae is a Family
Horse, Zebra, and Donkey are Genus
I know this. If you accept it's a family, that means you accept they are related. Related means they have a common ancestor. So is this because you believe their subdivision to be an example of the sort of evolution you accept, i.e., micro evolution?
Arguing with the wrong guy here. Of course they descended from a common ancestor.
Yes I used my nomenclature wrongly. I should have stated marsupials were displaced by "higher" mammals throughout the rest of the world as the dominant species with exception of Australia.
Once again, just because many species of marsupials died off as their brethren changed into and were displaced by "higher mammals" goes not mean the entire group went extinct.
Just as monkeys and apes are not extinct just because some members of the group branched off and became many species of humanoid.
What is it that makes something a 'Universal Truth?' A description with an example may help.
In argument an a priori assumption. A principle which is held to be true without proof. A oft used example is, "The killing of an innocent person is always wrong." Another is the assumption of existence, why the , "This is all a computer simulation" argument is always fun. Can't prove existence or non-existence.
The point is without these assumptions you cant get anywhere - can go anywhere actually - because you can prove (in the philosophical sense) nothing without establishing a starting point..
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own".
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity".
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“Inviting slaves to dinner is what makes this new country so great”
-Thomas Jefferson personal analogies 1781
“When I contemplate the effects of a dirty house, I flog my wife”
-Thomas Jefferson 1783
It is amazing what you can find without citing a source...
What is it that makes something a 'Universal Truth?' A description with an example may help.
In argument an a priori assumption. A principle which is held to be true without proof. A oft used example is, "The killing of an innocent person is always wrong." Another is the assumption of existence, why the , "This is all a computer simulation" argument is always fun. Can't prove existence or non-existence.
The point is without these assumptions you cant get anywhere - can go anywhere actually - because you can prove (in the philosophical sense) nothing without establishing a starting point..
Can you demonstrate that Universal Truth's even exist? Neither of your examples help you much. The first would include a prohibition on ending unbearable suffering, and according to classic Christianity, no one is innocent because everyone is tainted with original sin, so it's no prohibition at all. Even God violated this with the alleged flood, and I've if not in this thread, recently I've also mentioned the example of the slaughter of the Midionites, where Moses was displeased because the conquering Jews didn't murder all the children.
As for "the assumption of existence", in the words of Descartes, I think, there for I am. It's not an assumption. But the fact of existence in no way disputes a position of moral relativism so I doubt that's what you are really talking about when you reference a "Universal Truth".
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own".
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity".
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“Inviting slaves to dinner is what makes this new country so great”
-Thomas Jefferson personal analogies 1781
“When I contemplate the effects of a dirty house, I flog my wife”
-Thomas Jefferson 1783
It is amazing what you can find without citing a source...
This statement begins with a false predicate and ends with a conclusion based on that falsehood.
This statement is also false.
A conclusion base on false statements.
The question that arises in the face of the above is this: Do you make the false statements to decieve or do you make them out of ignorance?
In either case, there is no point in engaging in discussion with a person engaged in that activity until and unless said person admits one or the other basis.
The faith is strong in this one.
But don't argue with *me*, twas scientists that coined the definitions.
You know, scientists, the people your faith depends on to put forth theories based upon observations that cannot be proven?
And usin your example, twas it e. coli that morphed inta viruses, or the other way around? Or neither? Or both?
Each possibility is equally possible, it hasn't be proven, but many people believe some version of the above to be true.
It appears evolutians share some traits in their faith with the muslim faith: The requirement that everyone else convert to their faith.
Fub, scientists have proven evolution over and over and over again. That you don't want to accept that is the same as denying 2+2=4, but continue on. It's quite entertaining. Do you vote? I hope not.
What is it about the terms macro- and microevolution that sets off the evolutestants?
Is it like throwin bacon at a muslim?
Seems it scares the crap outta em, cause they got no answer for it, so then it's been evolved by them (LOL) into a term that's considered offensive.
Next, it'll be racism throwed at those evoluticaust deniers.
Whoops, that's already happened, in this very thread.
I'm willing to engage in halal discussion, to avoid offending delicate sensibilities, if it'll prevent an evolutbyterian from radicalizing and strappin on a suicide vest.
Leroy, keep up the good work helpin the evolutists. They need good people like you behind em.
never met an evolutestant, whatever that is, but I doubt they find macro and micro anything scary. In fact, they are very simple terms. You might learn a bit about them sometimes.
And calm down. You obviously have gotten all worked up about this evolution stuff, which is really quite simple and not scary at all. Might be a bit over your head, of course, but then the 2+2 thing was pretty scary for you too.
It appears evolutians share some traits in their faith with the muslim faith: The requirement that everyone else convert to their faith.
Hope they don't get radicalized.
Fub, no one demands that everyone convert to their faith quite like the Christians. Nowhere else is there the level of missionary zealotry that Christiandom has. Not to mention all the rest, but carry on with your fantasy.
It appears evolutians share some traits in their faith with the muslim faith: The requirement that everyone else convert to their faith.
Hope they don't get radicalized.
Fub, no one demands that everyone convert to their faith quite like the Christians. Nowhere else is there the level of missionary zealotry that Christiandom has. Not to mention all the rest, but carry on with your fantasy.
If that were true, I'd be the only one postin in this thread.
What is it about the terms macro- and microevolution that sets off the evolutestants?
The issue those of us who understand evolution have with those who claim to accept what they term micro evolution while rejecting what they term macro evolution is that you don't define your terms. As a result, whenever we meet the challenge of providing convincing evidence of something beyond micro evolution having occurred, you will concede that that was indeed evolution, just not macro evolution, i.e., you expand the definition of micro evolution a little bit each time we go beyond your previous definition. So instead of conceding that macro evolution occurred, you expand your definition of micro evolution to include what we've just provided convincing evidence of.
So, what exactly are the parameters of what you term micro evolution, so we don't waste our time proving macro evolution, only to be told that you have expanded the definition of micro evolution to include that, too. And don't say germ to moose. What's the dividing line between micro and macro evolution? And tell us the specifics. Can't produce offspring of any sort? Is that the line?
In other words, is the standard for concluding that two species are unrelated that they cannot produce any offspring, fertile or not, requiring artificial insemination or not?
PS Of course, our position is that all species are related, i.e., share a common ancestor. The feature that determines to what degree they can produce offspring together is how long they've been genetically isolated from one another. Never isolated = no problem reproducing fertile offspring together. Recently isolated = some difficulty producing fertile offspring together. Isolated for a longer period (or greater degree) = impossible to produce fertile offspring, but can still produce infertile offspring. Even isolated for a longer period (or to a greater degree) = even infertile offspring are very rare. Even isolated for longer than that (or to a greater degree) = requires laboratory conditions to even produce infertile offspring. Even more distantly isolated = cannot reproduce, even infertile offspring, even within laboratory conditions, e.g., even with artificial insemination or other assistance, at least at this time.
Are a llama and a camel two separate species? Is their division from one another an example of macro or micro evolution?
Can you demonstrate that Universal Truth's even exist?
Not a specific Truth, but they are necessary for rational argument. Unless, of course, you dismiss Western thought (and perhaps embrace Eastern thought)
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Neither of your examples help you much. The first would include a prohibition on ending unbearable suffering
By murder, yes
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
and according to classic Christianity, no one is innocent because everyone is tainted with original sin, so it's no prohibition at all. Even God violated this with the alleged flood, and I've if not in this thread, recently I've also mentioned the example of the slaughter of the Midionites, where Moses was displeased because the conquering Jews didn't murder all the children.
You're getting way, way ahead of yourself. Understand philosophical argument before trying to apply it to theology.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
As for "the assumption of existence", in the words of Descartes, I think, there for I am. It's not an assumption. But the fact of existence in no way disputes a position of moral relativism so I doubt that's what you are really talking about when you reference a Universal Truth".
That presupposed there is a being capable of thinking - circular argument. I am an entity capable of thought I think Therefore I am an entity capable of thought.
Maybe the "Great Programmer" programmed to think you can think. But you're just a line of code. Sort like the lizard in the latest Geico commercial where he thinks he's real.
I've told you previously in this thread exactly what it means.
Which is the term as it is defined by scientists.
Evolutians are afraid of the term, just like people that have faith in AGW are afraid of accurate climate measurements.
What about a llama and a camel? They've been separated by at least six thousand miles of ocean for millions of years, and are morphologically quite different. Two unrelated species? Or a mere example of micro evolution?
I've told you previously in this thread exactly what it means.
Which is the term as it is defined by scientists.
Evolutians are afraid of the term, just like people that have faith in AGW are afraid of accurate climate measurements.
What about a llama and a camel? They've been separated by at least six thousand miles of ocean for millions of years, and are morphologically quite different. Two unrelated species?
Evolution is a fact. Biologist Richard Lenski:"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
Every living thing on this planet is related to a once lightning strike that started life. if you cant see the similarty between the animals you are a moron...
Every living thing on this planet is related to a once lightning strike that started life. if you cant see the similarty between the animals you are a moron...
A lightning strike, aye?
Wow that's some brilliant schit right there. So profound that I took a dump in my pants. Gonna be back later after I clean up.
It’s not a problem to the great majority of educated people in the world. The problem in America is that there are so many so-called fundamentalist religious groups that take the Bible literally. That’s odd, because there are many conflicting things in the Bible. But the majority of believers have no trouble with it,(Evolution). They understand that religion is about moral values and science is concerned with the factual state of the world and the universe, which are two different things. Religion is a system for finding answers to moral questions, or at least a satisfying answer to moral questions , and the factual state of the world has no influence on that at all.
Science does not deal with moral questions, but is good at answering factual questions. So essentially there is little connection between the two. Historically, religion has always intervened in the domain we now call science, and there has been a struggle when the boundaries had to be redrawn. That’s one of the reasons why people keep speaking about conflict, when in fact there is none. Most religious people have no trouble accepting the facts that science offers, because whatever the factual state of the world , it cannot possibly threaten true religious inquiry.”
Stephen J. Gould. A Glorious Accident Understanding our place in the cosmic puzzle
It’s not a problem to the great majority of educated people in the world. The problem in America is that there are so many so-called fundamentalist religious groups that take the Bible literally. That’s odd, because there are many conflicting things in the Bible. But the majority of believers have no trouble with it,(Evolution). They understand that religion is about moral values and science is concerned with the factual state of the world and the universe, which are two different things. Religion is a system for finding answers to moral questions, or at least a satisfying answer to moral questions , and the factual state of the world has no influence on that at all.Science does not deal with moral questions, but is good at answering factual questions. So essentially there is little connection between the two. Historically, religion has always intervened in the domain we now call science, and there has been a struggle when the boundaries had to be redrawn. That’s one of the reasons why people keep speaking about conflict, when in fact there is none. Most religious people have no trouble accepting the facts that science offers, because whatever the factual state of the world , it cannot possibly threaten true religious inquiry.”
Stephen J. Gould. A Glorious Accident Understanding our place in the cosmic puzzle
Yeah you know what?.. I ain't letting any Manhattan Jew 'define' jack schit for me. That's a personal law for me.
Joos! The damned science Joos that caused the Holocaust that didn't happen Israeli mofos but ain't better than Palestinian goat phucqkers walls don't work but do Christians don't harm nothing e coli bs church with rattlesnakes!
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
It’s not a problem to the great majority of educated people in the world. The problem in America is that there are so many so-called fundamentalist religious groups that take the Bible literally. That’s odd, because there are many conflicting things in the Bible. But the majority of believers have no trouble with it,(Evolution). They understand that religion is about moral values and science is concerned with the factual state of the world and the universe, which are two different things. Religion is a system for finding answers to moral questions, or at least a satisfying answer to moral questions , and the factual state of the world has no influence on that at all.Science does not deal with moral questions, but is good at answering factual questions. So essentially there is little connection between the two. Historically, religion has always intervened in the domain we now call science, and there has been a struggle when the boundaries had to be redrawn. That’s one of the reasons why people keep speaking about conflict, when in fact there is none. Most religious people have no trouble accepting the facts that science offers, because whatever the factual state of the world , it cannot possibly threaten true religious inquiry.”
Stephen J. Gould. A Glorious Accident Understanding our place in the cosmic puzzle
Yeah you know what?.. I ain't letting any Manhattan Jew 'define' jack schit for me. That's a personal law for me.
Feel free though.
Gould is famous for "punctuated equilibrium"---the theory that tries to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the decidedly anti-Darwinian fossil record. "Punk-eek" doesn't work either, but its hilariously funny watching the intellectual contortions neo-Darwinian fundamentalists have to go through to try to reconcile their theory with the disconfirming evidence.
What is it that makes something a 'Universal Truth?' A description with an example may help.
In argument an a priori assumption. A principle which is held to be true without proof. A oft used example is, "The killing of an innocent person is always wrong." Another is the assumption of existence, why the , "This is all a computer simulation" argument is always fun. Can't prove existence or non-existence.
The point is without these assumptions you cant get anywhere - can go anywhere actually - because you can prove (in the philosophical sense) nothing without establishing a starting point..
An a priori assumption is not necessarily an instance of absolute or universal truth.. The issue of the killing of an innocent person is not necessarily a religious value, a God given value. If you believe that it is, you need to show why.
"Gould is famous for "punctuated equilibrium"---the theory that tries to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the decidedly anti-Darwinian fossil record. "Punk-eek" doesn't work either, but its hilariously funny watching the intellectual contortions neo-Darwinian fundamentalists have to go through to try to reconcile their theory with the disconfirming evidence." - Tarquin
Ridiculous. Punctuated equilibrium merely asserts that there are periods of high pressure for rapid change within certain species, such as relatively sudden changes in the environment. "Rapid change" must be understood in terms of geological time scales, i.e., still very long periods of time.
In other words, it asserts that most major changes occur within a geologically short time scale, and that in between those periods are long periods of a relative absence of change (slow or no change).
An example would be the sudden gigantism among many species of birds (along with the loss of the ability to fly) that occurred after the K-T Extinction Event. This occurred because of the sudden disappearance of all of the earth's mega fauna, i.e., all dinosaurs other than birds. This left a vacuum in terms of niches to be filled, so birds grew larger to fill them, and lost their flight because they adopted the roles of land mega fauna, which didn't require flight. This change in birds happened relatively quickly.
Joos! The damned science Joos that caused the Holocaust that didn't happen Israeli mofos but ain't better than Palestinian goat phucqkers walls don't work but do Christians don't harm nothing e coli bs church with rattlesnakes!
Aside from telling us you are a barely literate antisemite, what were you trying to say, Ghost?
Can you demonstrate that Universal Truth's even exist?
Not a specific Truth, but they are necessary for rational argument. Unless, of course, you dismiss Western thought (and perhaps embrace Eastern thought)
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Neither of your examples help you much. The first would include a prohibition on ending unbearable suffering
By murder, yes
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
and according to classic Christianity, no one is innocent because everyone is tainted with original sin, so it's no prohibition at all. Even God violated this with the alleged flood, and I've if not in this thread, recently I've also mentioned the example of the slaughter of the Midionites, where Moses was displeased because the conquering Jews didn't murder all the children.
You're getting way, way ahead of yourself. Understand philosophical argument before trying to apply it to theology.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
As for "the assumption of existence", in the words of Descartes, I think, there for I am. It's not an assumption. But the fact of existence in no way disputes a position of moral relativism so I doubt that's what you are really talking about when you reference a Universal Truth".
That presupposed there is a being capable of thinking - circular argument. I am an entity capable of thought I think Therefore I am an entity capable of thought.
Maybe the "Great Programmer" programmed to think you can think. But you're just a line of code. Sort like the lizard in the latest Geico commercial where he thinks he's real.
That's not an honest reading of Descartes.
I think, therefore I am. I am thinking, therefore I do exist. But there's nothing is this syllogism that makes my ability to perceive sensory input "universal". We still run into the problems of a "the brain in the box", or the more modern version "simulated brain", and the problems of hard solipsism.
Of course, if you are taking the position of the hard solipsist you've eliminated any concept of "universal" since a completely isolated brain is be part of something "universal".
As for your position on killing, which you switched to murder, and how it doesn't apply to your god, already demonstrates you have a personal Relative Morality as it applies to killing.
Joos! The damned science Joos that caused the Holocaust that didn't happen Israeli mofos but ain't better than Palestinian goat phucqkers walls don't work but do Christians don't harm nothing e coli bs church with rattlesnakes!
Aside from telling us you are a barely literate antisemite, what were you trying to say, Ghost?
An a priori assumption is not necessarily an instance of absolute or universal truth.. The issue of the killing of an innocent person is not necessarily a religious value, a God given value. If you believe that it is, you need to show why.
An a priori assumption must be absolute within the scope in which it is applied. By definition it is beyond debate.
Didn't say it was a religious value, depends on one's concept of religion I suppose. You asked for an example and that's a very common example. Choose that assumption or don't.
But there's nothing is this syllogism that makes my ability to perceive sensory input "universal". We still run into the problems of a "the brain in the box", or the more modern version "simulated brain", and the problems of hard solipsism.
Of course, if you are taking the position of the hard solipsist you've eliminated any concept of "universal" since a completely isolated brain is be part of something "universal".
As for your position on killing, which you switched to murder, and how it doesn't apply to your god, already demonstrates you have a personal Relative Morality as it applies to killing.
But if you don't start with "I exist as something capable of thought" how can you claim that you think? Suppose you don't exist, how can you assert "I think." Is nothing capable of thinking? That's silly but by eliminating that possibility you're left with only the alternative of existence from the beginning. You must exist to make the assertion "I think."
BTW, "murder" is unprivileged killing which is generally accepted as the meaning of "killing of an innocent." A slight refinement of terms.
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
How's your math?
Let's start with what we do know. The process of Inflation occurred, initiated about 13.6 billion years ago. We have a very good sense of what happened back to the "planck time", a period about 1^-43 of a after the big bang when classical physics as we know them cease to be valid. Prior to that, WE DON'T KNOW what occurred. More over, IT'S OK TO NOT KNOW. What I don't consider acceptable is plugging in a God of the Gaps into our knowledge gaps. This only creates impediments to understand the real truth. Fortunately, Scientist continue investigating multiple hypothesis looking for a valid ways to drive the curtain around our knowledge back further.
As for what do I consider the leading, but experimentally unproven hypothesis regarding a potential origin of something from nothing?
Recall Einsteins famous equation: E=MC^2
We know that virtual particles can, and do create and annihilate themselves (see quantum physics), have mass, and during their creation and annihilation follow the rules for the conservation of energy. So the mass of a virtual particle that creates it self, must be offset my an equal amount of negative energy. In other words, the mass side of the equation, must be fully offset by negative energy on the other side for the universe to remain in balance.
We start with nothing so lets's reform the above equation to:
0=(MC^2)-E
With M being the mass, and E being the negative energy associated with the creation of the virtual particle.
Lets try to keep this real simple:
Think of the Mass in this equation as representing all the matter in the universe. E = the net sum of the energy in the universe......but here's the interesting part. Gravity expresses itself as NEGATIVE energy.
An a priori assumption is not necessarily an instance of absolute or universal truth.. The issue of the killing of an innocent person is not necessarily a religious value, a God given value. If you believe that it is, you need to show why.
An a priori assumption must be absolute within the scope in which it is applied. By definition it is beyond debate.
Not that simple, the definition of an a priori assumption being that something is true without further proof or need to prove it, which does not mean absolute certainty.
''However, it has a negative side: an a priori assumption made without question on the basis that no analysis or study is necessary, can be mental laziness when the reality is not so certain.''
''A priori justification seems to rest on rational intuitions, or insights, but there are a variety of views about the nature of these intuitions or insights. There are different explanations of how these intuitions provide justification, if they do. Some philosophers do not see a priori justification as resting on any evidence, either experiential or nonexperiential, and so not resting on rational intuitions or insights at all. Their idea is that in some circumstances it can be default reasonable for a person to accept a proposition, or that the person is entitled to accept certain presuppositions independent of any evidence. Of course, there are also many objections to the idea that there can be a priori justification. Finally, rationalists think that there can be a priori justification and knowledge of the world while empiricists deny this.''
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Didn't say it was a religious value, depends on one's concept of religion I suppose. You asked for an example and that's a very common example. Choose that assumption or don't.
I was responding to the claim of an apparent necessity for absolute values - ''It's a long discussion but in a nutshell without some universal truths you're left with moral relativism'' - nighthawk.
Joos! The damned science Joos that caused the Holocaust that didn't happen Israeli mofos but ain't better than Palestinian goat phucqkers walls don't work but do Christians don't harm nothing e coli bs church with rattlesnakes!
Aside from telling us you are a barely literate antisemite, what were you trying to say, Ghost?
You don't recognize sarcasm?
Right here on the 'Fire is the first place I've ever seen Antisemitism.
But there's nothing is this syllogism that makes my ability to perceive sensory input "universal". We still run into the problems of a "the brain in the box", or the more modern version "simulated brain", and the problems of hard solipsism.
Of course, if you are taking the position of the hard solipsist you've eliminated any concept of "universal" since a completely isolated brain is be part of something "universal".
As for your position on killing, which you switched to murder, and how it doesn't apply to your god, already demonstrates you have a personal Relative Morality as it applies to killing.
But if you don't start with "I exist as something capable of thought" how can you claim that you think? Suppose you don't exist, how can you assert "I think." Is nothing capable of thinking? That's silly but by eliminating that possibility you're left with only the alternative of existence from the beginning. You must exist to make the assertion "I think."
BTW, "murder" is unprivileged killing which is generally accepted as the meaning of "killing of an innocent." A slight refinement of terms.
Lets rephrase this a bit, from Decartes:
"we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"
As for your position on the Geico lizard, please demonstrate he's capable of forming a cogent thought.
We've already established that according to Christianity everyone is tainted with original sin, so no one is innocent, and therefore by your definition there is no murder.
Muslims have long considered themselves "privileged" to rape and kill non-Muslims. Do you disagree with this? How about the privilege of fathers to kill their kids, and the privilege of husbands to kill their wives? Do you disagree with any of these?
"Gould is famous for "punctuated equilibrium"---the theory that tries to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the decidedly anti-Darwinian fossil record. "Punk-eek" doesn't work either, but its hilariously funny watching the intellectual contortions neo-Darwinian fundamentalists have to go through to try to reconcile their theory with the disconfirming evidence." - Tarquin
Ridiculous. Punctuated equilibrium merely asserts that there are periods of high pressure for rapid change within certain species, such as relatively sudden changes in the environment. "Rapid change" must be understood in terms of geological time scales, i.e., still very long periods of time.
In other words, it asserts that most major changes occur within a geologically short time scale, and that in between those periods are long periods of a relative absence of change (slow or no change).
An example would be the sudden gigantism among many species of birds (along with the loss of the ability to fly) that occurred after the K-T Extinction Event. This occurred because of the sudden disappearance of all of the earth's mega fauna, i.e., all dinosaurs other than birds. This left a vacuum in terms of niches to be filled, so birds grew larger to fill them, and lost their flight because they adopted the roles of land mega fauna, which didn't require flight. This change in birds happened relatively quickly.
No, its not ridiculous. Gould called the incongruity between the fossil record and Neo-Darwinism "the trade secret of paleontology". You think Gould trotted out the theory because he wanted to? LOL. The discordance between the fossil record and Neo-Darwinism practically demanded some sort of explanation. But there is no evidentiary support for punk-eek either. The situation is really quite embarrassing for paleontologists.
The fossil record speaks for itself....3 billion years of microbial life before the emergence of multicellular organisms and an 'explosion' in evolution, five major extinction events and here we are.
This does not paint a picture of special creation or guided evolution.
The fossil record speaks for itself....3 billion years of microbial life before the emergence of multicellular organisms and an 'explosion' in evolution, five major extinction events and here we are.
This does not paint a picture of special creation or guided evolution.
98%+ of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct.
The fossil record speaks for itself....3 billion years of microbial life before the emergence of multicellular organisms and an 'explosion' in evolution, five major extinction events and here we are.
This does not paint a picture of special creation or guided evolution.
98%+ of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct.
The fossil record speaks for itself....3 billion years of microbial life before the emergence of multicellular organisms and an 'explosion' in evolution, five major extinction events and here we are.
This does not paint a picture of special creation or guided evolution.
98%+ of all species to ever inhabit the earth are extinct.
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
How's your math?........
I thank you for your effort but I'm a high school graduate only and almost 67 years old. I'm pretty good at arithmetic and real good at reading comprehension. This discussion and your answer are so far over my head I guess I'll do like my wife does about politics and just forget about it. But anyway thanks again and sorry for putting you to the trouble. Best thing for me to do is to go back to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that our country has become.
"we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"
As for your position on the Geico lizard, please demonstrate he's capable of forming a cogent thought.
It's a tenet of Western thought that we exist. cf Eastern philosophy. Yet it can't be proven. Wiping out Eastern philosophy in one fell swoop would be cool! However you phrase the proposition you must exist to be able to state the proposition. I don't know enough Descartes to know if he's restating that assumption in a backhanded way or meant something else.
I'm not sure that anyone at Geico can form a cogent thought.
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
How's your math?........
I thank you for your effort but I'm a high school graduate only and almost 67 years old. I'm pretty good at arithmetic and real good at reading comprehension. This discussion and your answer are so far over my head I guess I'll do like my wife does about politics and just forget about it. But anyway thanks again and sorry for putting you to the trouble. Best thing for me to do is to go back to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that our country has become.
Hastings,
Let me apologize for the complexity of my answer. Since you feel you are better with words than numbers, lets try to stick to mostly words and skip the numbers.
Imagine you need to build a house, but have a personal net worth of exactly zero (We begin with nothing). Now we're going to assume a special idealized world for this example, one where every dollar spent on building the house creates exactly one dollars worth of value in the finished product, so in the process, not value can be created, nor destroyed. (This represent the conservation of energy).
By building the house you create an asset (matter)
You can borrow exactly what you need from a bank, but this creates a liability (negative gravitational energy)
You build a new house worth 200k, and in the process take out a loan for exactly 200k.
At the end of the process, you have a new house (Matter in the Universe), but an equal amount of debt (negative gravitational energy), so your net worth remains exactly zero (Net energy level of the entire local presentation of our universe).
You have created an asset out of nothing. All of your friends marvel at your new wonderful house, but are unable to see or even comprehend the nature of your bank note, so they idolize you as the amazing man who created a house out of nothing.
"we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"
As for your position on the Geico lizard, please demonstrate he's capable of forming a cogent thought.
It's a tenet of Western thought that we exist. cf Eastern philosophy. Yet it can't be proven. Wiping out Eastern philosophy in one fell swoop would be cool! However you phrase the proposition you must exist to be able to state the proposition. I don't know enough Descartes to know if he's restating that assumption in a backhanded way or meant something else.
I'm not sure that anyone at Geico can form a cogent thought.
How I understand it, Decartes saying your experience is the evidence. If you did not exist you could not experience sensory input. Even if we were, to use your example, hyper-advanced self aware AI models, we are still experiencing sensory input and reacting to it, so in some sense, we must exist. It could be argued that existence is not what we think it is (think maxtrix brain farm), but none the less, it is still an existence.
The only thing that we can know for certain is that we do exist, but that does not mean our perception of said existence are accurate or complete.
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
How's your math?........
I thank you for your effort but I'm a high school graduate only and almost 67 years old. I'm pretty good at arithmetic and real good at reading comprehension. This discussion and your answer are so far over my head I guess I'll do like my wife does about politics and just forget about it. But anyway thanks again and sorry for putting you to the trouble. Best thing for me to do is to go back to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that our country has become.
Hastings, Let me apologize for the complexity of my answer. Since you feel you are better with words than numbers, lets try to stick to mostly words and skip the numbers. Imagine you need to build a house, but have a personal net worth of exactly zero (We begin with nothing). Now we're going to assume a special idealized world for this example, one where every dollar spent on building the house creates exactly one dollars worth of value in the finished product, so in the process, not value can be created, nor destroyed. (This represent the conservation of energy). By building the house you create an asset (matter)You can borrow exactly what you need from a bank, but this creates a liability (negative gravitational energy)You build a new house worth 200k, and in the process take out a loan for exactly 200k. At the end of the process, you have a new house (Matter in the Universe), but an equal amount of debt (negative gravitational energy), so your net worth remains exactly zero (Net energy level of the entire local presentation of our universe). You have created an asset out of nothing. All of your friends marvel at your new wonderful house, but are unable to see or even comprehend the nature of your bank note, so they idolize you as the amazing man who created a house out of nothing.
Ok, I'm going to study your answer tomorrow when I'm not drifting off. So thanks again for humoring me. Another Question, do you think our expanding universe runs out of energy and collapses back into a super compressed entity that explodes again in a big bang. Have these compression events and bangs been happening forever. I understand we are talking eons.
It's not that a cyclic universe runs out of energy, but that gravity overcomes expansion. Other models include Heat Death, the Big Rip where dark energy is so strong as to tear apart matter. Then the various Multiverse models....
A.S. You seem to have done a lot of thinking on this issue and I am interested to know your thoughts. In a nutshell How did all this huge universe with an unfathomable amount of solid material come to be? I understand there is a big bang theory, but doesn't that require a compression of all this material into a critical mass that then explodes and creates an expanding universe of a huge,huge, unthinkable amount of material? A speck of which is earth that happened to be hospitable to the formation of chemical reactions that became life? Where did that material originate?
How's your math?........
I thank you for your effort but I'm a high school graduate only and almost 67 years old. I'm pretty good at arithmetic and real good at reading comprehension. This discussion and your answer are so far over my head I guess I'll do like my wife does about politics and just forget about it. But anyway thanks again and sorry for putting you to the trouble. Best thing for me to do is to go back to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that our country has become.
Hastings, Let me apologize for the complexity of my answer. Since you feel you are better with words than numbers, lets try to stick to mostly words and skip the numbers. Imagine you need to build a house, but have a personal net worth of exactly zero (We begin with nothing). Now we're going to assume a special idealized world for this example, one where every dollar spent on building the house creates exactly one dollars worth of value in the finished product, so in the process, not value can be created, nor destroyed. (This represent the conservation of energy). By building the house you create an asset (matter)You can borrow exactly what you need from a bank, but this creates a liability (negative gravitational energy)You build a new house worth 200k, and in the process take out a loan for exactly 200k. At the end of the process, you have a new house (Matter in the Universe), but an equal amount of debt (negative gravitational energy), so your net worth remains exactly zero (Net energy level of the entire local presentation of our universe). You have created an asset out of nothing. All of your friends marvel at your new wonderful house, but are unable to see or even comprehend the nature of your bank note, so they idolize you as the amazing man who created a house out of nothing.
Ok, I'm going to study your answer tomorrow when I'm not drifting off. So thanks again for humoring me. Another Question, do you think our expanding universe runs out of energy and collapses back into a super compressed entity that explodes again in a big bang. Have these compression events and bangs been happening forever. I understand we are talking eons.
Hastings,
That's a great question, one I contemplated for many years before I found an answer that seemed to meet it's burden of proof to me.
For background, let's recall what happens when too much matter comes into to close of proximity. Gravity binds it together, and given enough mass close enough you get a black hole with a density sufficient to bend the fabric of space time itself.
The same principle also applies at much lower densities. The density of matter affects the "curvature" of the local presentation of our Universe.
A universe with a high matter density is said to be "closed". The density of the matter is such that the universe would eventually collapse back onto it's self into a new singularity. Now there's no guarantee the new singularity would be of the same nature as the one at the time of the Big Bang, so instead of a series of Big Bangs, it's possible such a universe would end as a single Black Hole containing all the matter of the universe.
The opposite condition is a universe with a low matter density, or one that's said to be "open". Even without dark matter, an open universe expands for ever, with the acceleration reaching a point where it over comes the forces of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces, ripping apart the very fabric of space time itself.
The third possibility is a "flat" universe. In a flat universe, in the absence of dark matter, it expands for ever, but at a decreasing rate, until the rate of expansion eventually approximates (but never reaches) zero.
The empirical measurements indicate we live in a "flat universe", and are within the margin of error. Additionally, it's my understanding, a "Universe from nothing" as described above could only result in flat geometry.
Of course there's a twist. Dark Matter is real and it's accelerating the expansion of our universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for one to a hundred trillion years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation.
I've hypothesized this state of the "heat death" of the universe could reach the condition we called "nothing", one where the laws of quantum mechanics once again takes over and the "nothing" once again becomes unstable and........BANG.........But this last part is just my speculation......
You're just regurgitating what you read on The Institution For Creation Research website. You've been duped.
And once again you fail to respond on the merits---invoking fallacies rather than real arguments. I accept your concession.
If there were any merits, I'd respond to them.
I googled Gould and Fossil record. Here's the title of the first article to come up:
The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes
You Googled it? You let Google's algorithms do your thinking for you? Good luck with that one!
Not at all.
I know YEC's such as yourself like to quote mine Gould, and since you didn't quote a source I went looking. In this case, the google results speak for themselves.
If you don't believe me, feel free to read the above paper for yourself.
Young earth creationism in this day and age, incredible.
As convinced as you are, the Ph.D young earth creationist feel your position is incredible; and they don't use blind faith for evidence like you do. They actually do field and lab work.
Again I asked for any Ph.D level creationist who became an evolutionist after achieving that level and I will post alist of Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they achieved that level.
Young earth creationism in this day and age, incredible.
As convinced as you are, the Ph.D young earth creationist feel your position is incredible; and they don't use blind faith for evidence like you do. They actually do field and lab work.
Again I asked for any Ph.D level creationist who became an evolutionist after achieving that level and I will post alist of Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they achieved that level.
I think you have it backwards.....all the evidence, geological, fossil, cosmological supports the current estimates for the age of the universe and our solar system.
It is not faith to base the estimates on evidence. Faith is to ignore the evidence and believe the opposite, to believe what it says in the bible.
Young earth creationists represent a tiny minority of scientists who work in these fields. Rather than being evidence based, their belief is a matter of faith, faith in the bible.
It doesn't matter what young earth creationists happen to believe, all the evidence is stacked against them.
I don't know what the science points to and frankly neither can science. I have a faith in God and really love biology. Science however conflicts with itself over quantum physics. It is more scary to hard core science than the bible. Time and space becomes unknowable. A humans understanding of it is to simple. Our God is a smart guy and faith is faith because some of the answers are not doable for humans. It would take a greater leap of faith for me to believe solid matter came from nothingness. The mystery of our faith in God is far more believable, imo
I don't know what the science points to and frankly neither can science. I have a faith in God and really love biology. Science however conflicts with itself over quantum physics. It is more scary to hard core science than the bible. Time and space becomes unknowable. A humans understanding of it is to simple. Our God is a smart guy and faith is faith because some of the answers are not doable for humans. It would take a greater leap of faith for me to believe solid matter came from nothingness. The mystery of our faith in God is far more believable, imo
What you presented is knows as an argument from "personal incredulity". This is a subset of the "argument from ignorance".
I don't know what the science points to and frankly neither can science. I have a faith in God and really love biology. Science however conflicts with itself over quantum physics. It is more scary to hard core science than the bible. Time and space becomes unknowable. A humans understanding of it is to simple. Our God is a smart guy and faith is faith because some of the answers are not doable for humans. It would take a greater leap of faith for me to believe solid matter came from nothingness. The mystery of our faith in God is far more believable, imo
What you presented is knows as an argument from "personal incredulity". This is a subset of the "argument from ignorance".
Both are logical fallacies.
It would take a greater leap of faith for me to believe God came from nothingness. Young earth creationist do not want to talk about that...
So it’s easier to believe that life came from a huge ball of fire? Both versions hold some truths I think. I am not a man of great faith but life suddenly coming from nowhere but molten lava is a little hard to swallow. Ed k
So it’s easier to believe that life came from a huge ball of fire? Both versions hold some truths I think. I am not a man of great faith but life suddenly coming from nowhere but molten lava is a little hard to swallow. Ed k
Who asserts it came from fire, suddenly or otherwise??
So it’s easier to believe that life came from a huge ball of fire? Both versions hold some truths I think. I am not a man of great faith but life suddenly coming from nowhere but molten lava is a little hard to swallow. Ed k
Who is claiming that life suddenly came from nowhere....yet alone from molten lava?
Scientists claim the earth was a molten ball of lava.then it cooled and life began. Maybe so maybe not. That’s what they taught me in school. Ed k
When was this schooling and what level was the education? We've drifted from evolution to a whole 'nother topic though. I'd be more curious when folks learned about evolution and genetics generally....
Scientists claim the earth was a molten ball of lava.then it cooled and life began. Maybe so maybe not. That’s what they taught me in school. Ed k
A lot happened between the time that the earth and the other planets formed from an accretion disk of material orbiting the sun and the emergence of life on earth. Nor did life pop out of nothing. That is the creationist claim, that God popped everything, the whole universe, into existence by an act of Magic.
Scientists claim the earth was a molten ball of lava.then it cooled and life began. Maybe so maybe not. That’s what they taught me in school. Ed k
When was this schooling and what level was the education? We've drifted from evolution to a whole 'nother topic though. I'd be more curious when folks learned about evolution and genetics generally....
Based on some of the comments it'd be easy to think that science is not being taught in American schools. Or else, a whole lot of people did not pay attention in class.
Science is also evolving as we find out more and more - medicine is a good example of this.
I think we tend to fill in any logic gaps with stuff we make up, and then revise once we find out more. That's why science changes - assumptions are sometimes wrong. Religion is like this but without any facts.
Note also that earth still has a molten core, and this helps to provide a magnetic field that shields up from the "solar wind" (strips away ozone that protects us from UV radiation) and allows life to exist on this planet.
Its said that our natural world is the divine expression of God, yet also according to some, something that is at odds with God.
Joseph Campbell [in another video][ also says, man has his own mental construct of the divine he called GOD and mans own notion or idea of what constitutes Good and Evil, is but his own,.[.ie;] it does mean that God shares the same view.
I used to discuss, or try to, some of this stuff with my father who's formal education ended in 1958 at a podunk high school and generally speaking it was a fruitless endeavor. He knew a lot of stuff, however, biology, and genetics especially, were not represented in his knowledge base.
Scientists claim the earth was a molten ball of lava.then it cooled and life began. Maybe so maybe not. That’s what they taught me in school. Ed k
When was this schooling and what level was the education? We've drifted from evolution to a whole 'nother topic though. I'd be more curious when folks learned about evolution and genetics generally....
Based on some of the comments it'd be easy to think that science is not being taught in American schools. Or else, a whole lot of people did not pay attention in class.
Unless you take advanced, honors, or AP, biology classes in high school, you'd be amazed at how little you need to actually understand to get a passing grade these days.
I am amazed with what some state about high school science education.
I was in graduating class of 45 students. Our high school required two years of science. Every student took Earth Science in the ninth grade and Biology in the tenth. Biology included a lot of study on taxonomy, so the students understood how different species, families, and orders were related. We spent several weeks on mendelian inheritance, so we actually understood how traits and mutations get passed along, and finally we spent time on anatomy, so students might know what was going on inside their body.
Of course, 70% of the class had farm animals at home and participated in selective breeding programs, so we took to genetics eagerly.
Advanced students were offered Chemistry as a Junior, and Physics as a Senior.
I've told you previously in this thread exactly what it means.
Which is the term as it is defined by scientists.
Evolutians are afraid of the term, just like people that have faith in AGW are afraid of accurate climate measurements.
What about a llama and a camel? They've been separated by at least six thousand miles of ocean for millions of years, and are morphologically quite different. Two unrelated species? Or a mere example of micro evolution?
I am amazed with what some state about high school science education.
I was in graduating class of 45 students. Our high school required two years of science. Every student took Earth Science in the ninth grade and Biology in the tenth. Biology included a lot of study on taxonomy, so the students understood how different species, families, and orders were related. We spent several weeks on .mendelian inheritance, so we actually understood how traits and mutations get passed along, and finally we spent time on ana6omy, so students might know what was going on inside their body.
Of course, 70% of the class had farm animals at home and participated in selective breeding programs, so we took to genetics eagerly.
Advanced students were offered Chemistry as a Junior, and Physics as a Senior.
I graduated in Podunk rural Idaho in 1974.
Most people involved in agriculture understand evolution. Selective breeding of plants and animals has gone on for thousands of years. Pretty much all crops and live stock in production today are the result of carefully chosen mutations by humans for certain traits. I always thought it would be interesting to plant some of the crop seeds found in burial tomb's from thousands of years to compare to today's plants.
I am amazed with what some state about high school science education.
I was in graduating class of 45 students. Our high school required two years of science. Every student took Earth Science in the ninth grade and Biology in the tenth. Biology included a lot of study on taxonomy, so the students understood how different species, families, and orders were related. We spent several weeks on .mendelian inheritance, so we actually understood how traits and mutations get passed along, and finally we spent time on ana6omy, so students might know what was going on inside their body.
Of course, 70% of the class had farm animals at home and participated in selective breeding programs, so we took to genetics eagerly.
Advanced students were offered Chemistry as a Junior, and Physics as a Senior.
I graduated in Podunk rural Idaho in 1974.
Most people involved in agriculture understand evolution. Selective breeding of plants and animals has gone on for thousands of years. Pretty much all crops and live stock in production today are the result of carefully chosen mutations by humans for certain traits. I always thought it would be interesting to plant some of the crop seeds found in burial tomb's from thousands of years to compare to today's plants.
Yes. That's micro evolution. But selective breeding of plants (using an intelligent agent and not merely random processes) has not converted barley into grapes, or even into wheat, for that matter. And selective breeding of dogs has not converted them into cats or elephants. It has given variation within a type, but that is all. No new species. So, plant and animal breeding do not prove the grander claims of evolution. Quite the opposite: they confirm that species are extremely resistant to change and vary only within the parameters of their type, even when intelligent agents try to intervene for maximum variation.
Triticale is a cross, not only of two different species, but of two separate genera. And it breeds true. As in you can use the seed of this year's crop to plant next year's.
So, that makes it an entirely new species created within the space of one century. What is possible in 100,000 centuries, in nature, with the added pressure of extinction level events opening new environments for thousands upon thousands of species.
Triticale is a cross, not only of two different species, but of two separate genera. And it breeds true. As in you can use the seed of this year's crop to plant next year's.
So, that makes it an entirely new species created within the space of one century. What is possible in 100,000 centuries, in nature, with the added pressure of extinction level events opening new environments for thousands upon thousands of species.
Triticale is actually sterile and has to be treated with a drug to make it fertile.
Triticale is a cross, not only of two different species, but of two separate genera. And it breeds true. As in you can use the seed of this year's crop to plant next year's.
So, that makes it an entirely new species created within the space of one century. What is possible in 100,000 centuries, in nature, with the added pressure of extinction level events opening new environments for thousands upon thousands of species.
Triticale is actually sterile and has to be treated with a drug to make it fertile.
the deer eat freshly emergent triticale around here pretty good.
I am amazed with what some state about high school science education.
I was in graduating class of 45 students. Our high school required two years of science. Every student took Earth Science in the ninth grade and Biology in the tenth. Biology included a lot of study on taxonomy, so the students understood how different species, families, and orders were related. We spent several weeks on .mendelian inheritance, so we actually understood how traits and mutations get passed along, and finally we spent time on ana6omy, so students might know what was going on inside their body.
Of course, 70% of the class had farm animals at home and participated in selective breeding programs, so we took to genetics eagerly.
Advanced students were offered Chemistry as a Junior, and Physics as a Senior.
I graduated in Podunk rural Idaho in 1974.
Most people involved in agriculture understand evolution. Selective breeding of plants and animals has gone on for thousands of years. Pretty much all crops and live stock in production today are the result of carefully chosen mutations by humans for certain traits. I always thought it would be interesting to plant some of the crop seeds found in burial tomb's from thousands of years to compare to today's plants.
Yes. That's micro evolution. But selective breeding of plants (using an intelligent agent and not merely random processes) has not converted barley into grapes, or even into wheat, for that matter. And selective breeding of dogs has not converted them into cats or elephants. It has given variation within a type, but that is all. No new species. So, plant and animal breeding do not prove the grander claims of evolution. Quite the opposite: they confirm that species are extremely resistant to change and vary only within the parameters of their type, even when intelligent agents try to intervene for maximum variation.
The environment is not a random factor in the natural evolution of a species, rather the main driver in rewarding certain mutations. Look at isolated bird species on the Galapagos islands which evolved from same genetic base to specialize in taking advantage of various food supplies into ~20 various species.
Triticale is a cross, not only of two different species, but of two separate genera. And it breeds true. As in you can use the seed of this year's crop to plant next year's.
So, that makes it an entirely new species created within the space of one century. What is possible in 100,000 centuries, in nature, with the added pressure of extinction level events opening new environments for thousands upon thousands of species.
Triticale is actually sterile and has to be treated with a drug to make it fertile.
Not according to University of Wisconson extension cooperative extension University of Minnisota Center for alternative plant and animal products circa 1989.
I am amazed with what some state about high school science education.
I was in graduating class of 45 students. Our high school required two years of science. Every student took Earth Science in the ninth grade and Biology in the tenth. Biology included a lot of study on taxonomy, so the students understood how different species, families, and orders were related. We spent several weeks on .mendelian inheritance, so we actually understood how traits and mutations get passed along, and finally we spent time on ana6omy, so students might know what was going on inside their body.
Of course, 70% of the class had farm animals at home and participated in selective breeding programs, so we took to genetics eagerly.
Advanced students were offered Chemistry as a Junior, and Physics as a Senior.
I graduated in Podunk rural Idaho in 1974.
Most people involved in agriculture understand evolution. Selective breeding of plants and animals has gone on for thousands of years. Pretty much all crops and live stock in production today are the result of carefully chosen mutations by humans for certain traits. I always thought it would be interesting to plant some of the crop seeds found in burial tomb's from thousands of years to compare to today's plants.
Yes. That's micro evolution. But selective breeding of plants (using an intelligent agent and not merely random processes) has not converted barley into grapes, or even into wheat, for that matter. And selective breeding of dogs has not converted them into cats or elephants. It has given variation within a type, but that is all. No new species. So, plant and animal breeding do not prove the grander claims of evolution. Quite the opposite: they confirm that species are extremely resistant to change and vary only within the parameters of their type, even when intelligent agents try to intervene for maximum variation.
The environment is not a random factor in the natural evolution of a species, rather the main driver in rewarding certain mutations. Look at isolated bird species on the Galapagos islands which evolved from same genetic base to specialize in taking advantage of various food supplies into ~20 various species.
Most of these threads on controversial topics quickly devolve. Hats off to you gentlemen and others who are having an intelligent discussion.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
Antelope Sniper already shot that video down pretty good.
Yes, he is so much more intelligent than those guys. Lol
The quality of arguments isn't a one to one reflection of comparative IQs. Not to say AS isn't quite smart, indeed. I have no reason to believe his IQ pales much compared any of those folks. But that's not how you determine the quality of arguments.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
Creationists are creators of their own narrative, using highly creative or dismissive interpretations of the evidence in order to support a conclusion that satisfies their belief in the existence of a Creator.
Creationists are creators of their own narrative, using highly creative or dismissive interpretations of the evidence in order to support a conclusion that satisfies their belief in the existence of a Creator.
Which is the same thing that people that have faith in evolution do, to reach their conclusions.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists are creators of their own narrative, using highly creative or dismissive interpretations of the evidence in order to support a conclusion that satisfies their belief in the existence of a Creator.
Which is the same thing that people that have faith in evolution do, to reach their conclusions.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
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.
Darwin watched bears swimmin in the water catchin bugs, and came up with this theory: ""I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
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.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Antelope Sniper already shot that video down pretty good.
Yes, he is so much more intelligent than those guys. Lol
The quality of arguments isn't a one to one reflection of comparative IQs. Not to say AS isn't quite smart, indeed. I have no reason to believe his IQ pales much compared any of those folks. But that's not how you determine the quality of arguments.
It pales and his arguments remain circular and unconvincing.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Guided evolution - why not? My theory is that God may (or may not) be taking a hand in current events through the guise of chance. Because if He acts within the scope of statistical probability how would you know? That lucky bugger who beat one in a million odds may be blessed. Or not, just lucky.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Who said anything about guided evolution?
I did. It is a belief that some folks hold.
So now you have moved from circular arguments to knocking down your own strawmen?
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.
[quote=DBT][quote=JoeBob][quote=DBT]It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
So now you have moved from circular arguments to knocking down your own strawmen?
That reply has nothing to do with what I said. And your circular argument claim is false.
. A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him, he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now?
. A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him, he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now?
And I can imagine Dragons. That doesn't mean they really exist.
[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.
We're short of pronouns and what would you expect of a patriarchal society? My favorite representation of God the Father is as a portly middle aged black woman who loves to cook in the book/movie "The Shack." Really upset the fundamentalists but why not?
OK now that this has gone beyond boring, how about what's after death? Or even more fun, who believes that the earth is the only life in this universe? When I was in the eighth grade I mouthed off to my English teacher and she told me to write a 1,000 word on the life inside a ping pong ball.
Long story short, I described the total universe inside that ball as it lay on the floor of the real universe. Got an A on it.
One of the most interesting theories imo is that our universe is nothing more than a bit of matter ejected from the singularity of a black hole into its inner horizon, in a vastly bigger universe (which is probably a bit of matter in an even bigger black hole, etc.; kinda like Russian nesting dolls). Our particular Big Bang was the moment of matter ejection, if I understand the basics of the theory correctly.
Want to feel really insignificant? Not only are you a flea speck in your own universe, your entire universe is itself just a flea speck.
Instead of turtles, it's just black holes, all the way down.
''Creationists make up their own definitions in science and pretend that it is the scientific definition.
This is a comment on the article Oscars Bat and Origins battle, authored by Young Earth Creationist Johan Smit and published on 19 August 2013 at 13:44
"Empirical science (also called operational or experimental science) is a term used to describe science that can be observed, tested and repeated under controlled conditions. The scientific method basically requires that something has to be measureable and therefore observable in the physical dimension. This is the science that brought us antibiotics, acne cream and the atom bomb. Where empirical science differs from origins science (also called historical science), like forensic science, is in the fact that we are dealing with data that originated from occurrences in the past where there may or may not have been eyewitnesses, and obviously the data cannot be replicated under laboratory conditions. While forensic science as a term theoretically refers to the legal system, it basically entails presenting a case (before a judge) based on evidence gathered at the crime scene. The role of the judge is then to decide whose interpretation of the evidence is the best."
This is an elaboration of the ridiculously stupid old creationist "How do you know; were you there?" argument, in which they artificially divide the natural sciences into so-called operational science and historical (origins) science.
It is an example of one of those crafty creationist falsehoods intended to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of their followers about the application of scientific methods to the examination of past events.
Thus, they imply that evolution, geology and astronomy are no more than 'interpretations' made within a secular or atheistic worldview.
This is a lie as there is no such distinction — science is science, whatever it is investigating.
The sleight of hand lies in the creationists' definition of 'operational science or empirical science', which has to be "repeatable" and "observable" by "experimentation".
Repeatable: The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. That is what repeatability means in science.
Observable: Creationists tamper with the word ‘observable’ to mean ‘directly seen’. That is not what the word ‘observable’ means. The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be directly seen. It requires evidence for an event to be detectable. It can be detected by instruments and stored data and samples often analysed well after the event(s) has occurred.
Experimentation: It doesn’t mean experiments have to be done in a laboratory. Experimentation also means that one can predict what should be found in nature and then go out and see if it can be found.
Past events obviously can't be repeated and neither can one perform experiments in the past, but existing observations and measurements of the evidence can still be made and (scientific) deductions made from them.
The scientific method therefore does not require a past or present event to be repeatable; this applies to all science; not just historical science''
Nope, our "universe" is in a shoe box under a bed that belongs to a kid named "God".
He poked holes in the lid with a pencil point, those are the "stars" you see at night. Some are small because he only poked the sharp point thru. Others are big because he put too much pressure on the pencil and it pushed all the way thru. Sometimes he used a knife, or a cookie cutter, so we have nebulae shaped light holes too.
He takes the lid off sometimes and we see the bright light from his ceiling fixture then and call it the "sun".
Every once in awhile, the little bastid pees on the box, we call it rain.
He doesn't have A/C, so some days it gets really warm, we call it summer. Sometimes he puts the box outside in the daytime where it's cold, we call it winter. The "sun" seems to be lower in our sky because it's not the ceiling light anymore, just a porch light on the wall away from his window.
This stuff is not hard to figure out. He just stocks new critters every now and then, rearranges the dirt and makes new "mountains", quits peeing for a bit and we have a "drought".
''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.''
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."
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.
[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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
''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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
''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.
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.
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.
No, evolution says: We KNOW the Earth was once inhabited by sea creatures, and then it was inhabited by land animals, and then it was inhabited by giant reptiles, and then it was inhabited by giant birds, and then it was inhabited by small birds and large mammal. And this is the best explanation available at this time for how those transitions occurred, subject to further refinement.
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.
Maybe you should include yourself in that assessment. You are not excluded because your conclusion does not represent what I said or what I was doing.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
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.
No, evolution says: We KNOW the Earth was once inhabited by sea creatures, and then it was inhabited by land animals, and then it was inhabited by giant reptiles, and then it was inhabited by giant birds, and then it was inhabited by small birds and large mammal. And this is the best explanation available at this time for how those transitions occurred, subject to further refinement.
That is not what evolution says at all: it says we have a fully naturalistic mechanism that explains the origin and diversity of life on this planet. The problem is the mechanism is demonstrably incapable of explaining either. It is a failed theory.
''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.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design?
National Academy of Sciences ''Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.''
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
Sorry but your chemist poster boy for creationism either does not understand evolution, or his bias does not allow him to see the errors and assumptions that he himself makes;
''James Tour is an organic chemist. He is a Professor of Chemistry and Professor, Professor of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University (Houston, United States). James Tour is attracting a lot of attention on the Intelligent Design Creationist websites because he is sympathetic to their main claim; namely, that evolution is wrong [see A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution].
Tour is one of the few genuine scientists who signed the Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (2001) that stated, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (There are very,very, few biologists who signed.)''
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit strange, don't you think?''
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
What has that got to do with this thread, which happens to be about evolution? As I said, what I do or do not believe is irrelevant. The issue is what the evidence tells us...if we look at it objectively. Seeing through the filter of faith is not an example of objectivity.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
What has that got to do with this thread, which happens to be about evolution? As I said, what I do or do not believe is irrelevant. The issue is what the evidence tells us...if we look at it objectively. Seeing through the filter of faith is not an example of objectivity.
Quit trollin a halfway decent thread.
You post stupid shat, then when you're called on it you deflect.
If you're stupid enough to believe in the theory of evolution because it's " confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field", then you're stupid enough to believe in AGW.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
What has that got to do with this thread, which happens to be about evolution? As I said, what I do or do not believe is irrelevant. The issue is what the evidence tells us...if we look at it objectively. Seeing through the filter of faith is not an example of objectivity.
Quit trollin a halfway decent thread.
You post stupid shat, then when you're called on it you deflect.
If you're stupid enough to believe in the theory of evolution because it's " confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field", then you're stupid enough to believe in AGW.
That's amazing, considering that it was not me who was deflecting from evolution to climate change, but you yourself. Incredible.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
''Creationists make up their own definitions in science and pretend that it is the scientific definition.
This is a comment on the article Oscars Bat and Origins battle, authored by Young Earth Creationist Johan Smit and published on 19 August 2013 at 13:44
"Empirical science (also called operational or experimental science) is a term used to describe science that can be observed, tested and repeated under controlled conditions. The scientific method basically requires that something has to be measureable and therefore observable in the physical dimension. This is the science that brought us antibiotics, acne cream and the atom bomb. Where empirical science differs from origins science (also called historical science), like forensic science, is in the fact that we are dealing with data that originated from occurrences in the past where there may or may not have been eyewitnesses, and obviously the data cannot be replicated under laboratory conditions. While forensic science as a term theoretically refers to the legal system, it basically entails presenting a case (before a judge) based on evidence gathered at the crime scene. The role of the judge is then to decide whose interpretation of the evidence is the best."
This is an elaboration of the ridiculously stupid old creationist "How do you know; were you there?" argument, in which they artificially divide the natural sciences into so-called operational science and historical (origins) science.
It is an example of one of those crafty creationist falsehoods intended to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of their followers about the application of scientific methods to the examination of past events.
Thus, they imply that evolution, geology and astronomy are no more than 'interpretations' made within a secular or atheistic worldview.
This is a lie as there is no such distinction — science is science, whatever it is investigating.
The sleight of hand lies in the creationists' definition of 'operational science or empirical science', which has to be "repeatable" and "observable" by "experimentation".
Repeatable: The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. That is what repeatability means in science.
Observable: Creationists tamper with the word ‘observable’ to mean ‘directly seen’. That is not what the word ‘observable’ means. The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be directly seen. It requires evidence for an event to be detectable. It can be detected by instruments and stored data and samples often analysed well after the event(s) has occurred.
Experimentation: It doesn’t mean experiments have to be done in a laboratory. Experimentation also means that one can predict what should be found in nature and then go out and see if it can be found.
Past events obviously can't be repeated and neither can one perform experiments in the past, but existing observations and measurements of the evidence can still be made and (scientific) deductions made from them.
The scientific method therefore does not require a past or present event to be repeatable; this applies to all science; not just historical science''
You say this because you have no real argument against it. The scientists makes perfect sense to the person who thinks logically.
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.
Others who read the Bible say something different. You don't know what the first Christians did. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit. That happened.
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.
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.
Others who read the Bible say something different. You don't know what the first Christians did. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit. That happened.
The words say what they say and mean what they mean. The first Christians expected the return of Jesus In power within their lifetimes, as the words say and as promised. Check the history. It's there for anyone to see and read.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Stephen Meyer. Here's the first line from his Wiki page:
tephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.
Where do you find "in their lifetime" in scripture? Remember, many of the first Christians saw things in light of Judaic teaching which is quite different than teaching in the new testament.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Nice non-answer. I'll ask again: What "problems" do you have with other people's faith?
Stephen Meyer. Here's the first line from his Wiki page:
tephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.
First you let Google's algorithms do your thinking and now you ask us to believe that because someone said something on the internet, it's indubitably true. Your responses reek of desperation.
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.
No, evolution says: We KNOW the Earth was once inhabited by sea creatures, and then it was inhabited by land animals, and then it was inhabited by giant reptiles, and then it was inhabited by giant birds, and then it was inhabited by small birds and large mammal. And this is the best explanation available at this time for how those transitions occurred, subject to further refinement.
That is not what evolution says at all: it says we have a fully naturalistic mechanism that explains the origin and diversity of life on this planet. The problem is the mechanism is demonstrably incapable of explaining either. It is a failed theory.
You are wrong. Cosmology struggles to determine the origin of the universe. There are several conficting theories. A wise man admits we have no definitive answer.
Abiogenisis is a study of how living cells could emerge from the primordial ooze. Once again, no clear answers are available.
Evolution is how those original living cells, no matter the source, became the complex organisms extant on the Earth today, as well as the millions or billions of organisms long extinct. The evidence to support evolution is overwhelm8ngbto any who would look at it with an open mind.
But does scripture not tell us to ignore anything which MIGHT come between one and his faith in what he believes God to be.
You are conflating the three fields of study in an effort to discredit one field.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
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.
Others who read the Bible say something different. You don't know what the first Christians did. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit. That happened.
Ringman,
try reading your Bible again, Jesus didn't send the Holy Spirit.
Jesus asks the Father to send the holy Spirit in his sons name.
Jesus does nothing of his own, but credits everything to the Father in heaven.
John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper,.." John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,.." Acts 2:33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,.." Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him".
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence...
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
If your standard of proof is that everybody that benefits from the subject believes in it, as paddler stated, then you would believe equally in both theories.
By that standard, AGW is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
If paddler is to be believed, all evolutionists would also believe in AGW.
Course, we know where paddler stands:
Originally Posted by DBT
Political agenda may come into it, but the actual issue is carrying capacity of the planet given a population of 7 billion plus consuming resources at the rate of developed nations.
Developing nations have every right to lift the living standard of their own citizens, but the question is: is it ecologically sustainable in the long term? Never mind politics or 'left wing agenda' this is purely and simply about long term ecological sustainability.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Nice non-answer. I'll ask again: What "problems" do you have with other people's faith?
It's not that I gave a 'non answer' but that my answer was not understood.
The issue is not with what is wrong with someones faith, which may bring comfort, a sense of community, a sense of meaning, but the efficacy of faith as a means of sorting fact from fiction. The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
If your standard of proof is that everybody that benefits from the subject believes in it, as paddler stated, then you would believe equally in both theories.
By that standard, AGW is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
If paddler is to be believed, all evolutionists would also believe in AGW.
Course, we know where paddler stands:
Originally Posted by DBT
Political agenda may come into it, but the actual issue is carrying capacity of the planet given a population of 7 billion plus consuming resources at the rate of developed nations.
Developing nations have every right to lift the living standard of their own citizens, but the question is: is it ecologically sustainable in the long term? Never mind politics or 'left wing agenda' this is purely and simply about long term ecological sustainability.
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.
Others who read the Bible say something different. You don't know what the first Christians did. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit. That happened.
The words say what they say and mean what they mean. The first Christians expected the return of Jesus In power within their lifetimes, as the words say and as promised. Check the history. It's there for anyone to see and read.
Ringman,
I'm disappointed in you.
Typically you don't misrepresent the contents of the Bible.
Stephen Meyer. Here's the first line from his Wiki page:
tephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.
First you let Google's algorithms do your thinking and now you ask us to believe that because someone said something on the internet, it's indubitably true. Your responses reek of desperation.
Your posts reek of appealing to the smallest, craziest members of the scientific community in an appeal to authority, in a process that unlike those of faith, recognized no authorities.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
If your standard of proof is that everybody that benefits from the subject believes in it, as paddler stated, then you would believe equally in both theories.
By that standard, AGW is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
If paddler is to be believed, all evolutionists would also believe in AGW.
Course, we know where paddler stands:
Originally Posted by DBT
Political agenda may come into it, but the actual issue is carrying capacity of the planet given a population of 7 billion plus consuming resources at the rate of developed nations.
Developing nations have every right to lift the living standard of their own citizens, but the question is: is it ecologically sustainable in the long term? Never mind politics or 'left wing agenda' this is purely and simply about long term ecological sustainability.
The evidence for the hypothesis called man-made global warming does not match the evidence for evolution.
If you wish to open a new thread on the former, feel free, we can debate it there. In this context, you are using global warming as a combination red herring and straw-man as a distraction from your inability to provide good evidence against evolution.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
You've cut and pasted in this thread the same tired old arguments that have been posted for years, have been rebutted and haven't proven the theory of evolution.
Then you pretend that they're proof of the theory of evolution, because *you* posted em.
There are no missing link fossils in existence.
There has never been any DNA that has morphed into a different species.
SOS.
But you have faith in it, just as the goat herder book gives others faith.
But you have no more than faith, just like the goat herders had.
You've cut and pasted in this thread the same tired old arguments that have been posted for years, have been rebutted and haven't proven the theory of evolution.
Then you pretend that they're proof of the theory of evolution, because *you* posted em.
There are no missing link fossils in existence.
There has never been any DNA that has morphed into a different species.
SOS.
But you have faith in it, just as the goat herder book gives others faith.
But you have no more than faith, just like the goat herders had.
It's good to have faith.
The issue is not that someone may or may not have pasted arguments, but whether the argument has evidence to support it. Evolution not only has evidence, the evidence is more than sufficient to prove the proposition.
Your objection is designed to deflect away from that fact.
Evolution is horseh it. Just considering the complexity of the human hand, the human eye (2) or the dragonfly's eyes (30,000) is enough to point to intelligent design.
Anyone that can look at the countless examples of virtual perfection in design and attribute it to 'chance' or some primordial soup is frankly an idiot.
Not true. Please do your research before making these claims.
The fossil record is thoroughly unDarwinian. Stephen Gould called it the "trade secret of paleontology". Even Darwin recognized the lack of transitionals in the fossil record and conceded it was a problem. However he held out hope that with more digging, the missing transitionals would be found. But they have not been found, which is why Gould and Eldredge had to posit punctuated equilibrium as theoretical patch to try to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the disconfirming fossil record. The overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record is stasis, not change, which was what Darwinism predicts.
Naturally, I part ways with Ra on the issue of religion, but he's really good at debunking Creationists.
Its easy to set up the strawman of a six day genesis literalist and then debunk it. But doing so does not answer the real questions at all. Its a red herring.
[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.
That's all the stuff I see zero reason to debate. It just isn't something that can be discerned.
Hitchen's razor can be applied to those claims.
I take it you object to, "There was no "where," He just was and still is." That derives from an earlier post:
Quote
Start at the beginning. I exist. You exist apart from me. We each came into existence as separate individuals, how did that happen? There must have been an entity to cause that. Nothing happens without a mover, a causing force. Skip through the Thomistic proofs, the upshot is there must have been a prime, uncreated entity and there can only be one. That we call God. Whatever characteristics you want to add to God is another matter. You can argue that this mode of thought, metaphysics, came from ancient Greeks in their consideration of fundamental transcendent desires of man.
Then I said, somewhere, that unless this unrestricted reality who created the universe created himself which is absurd, he must exist apart from, outside, the universe. Up to here this is just a clumsy restatement of part of the five Thomistic proofs.
Since our understanding of "where" is a place in the universe it is not applicable to an entity outside the universe. So saying "Where was God before He created the universe and where is God now" is nonsensical except to say not within the universe.(before it was created) and now we don't know with certainty but probably outside the universe because we have no information to the contrary.
Outside of the assumption of existence and that everything must have a cause except the one unrestricted uncaused reality what's wrong?
Same for time since we know time as an artifact of our universe.
==========================
I'll amend that to say, "Where is God now?" to everywhere not in the sense of location but in the sense of being unrestricted.
I will be the first to admit, I have no idea how the universe came into existence. There are theories, and there is some evidence to support some theories but the jury is still out and will be for a long time.
We do not know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite. We do not know if the universe is eternal or cyclic.
Was it once scattered across a trillion light years only to collapse upon itself due to gravitational forces until it became so dense it exploded again? Does it collapse again every few quadrillion years?
Did the Universe spring into being from nothing in the big bang? And will it continue to expand until every solar system dies in eternal absolute zero?
Or is the universe a case of "always was", "is now", "always will be"?
I do not know the answers to these questions? And I have no problem in not knowing. Someday man will discover the answers, if the species survives that long.
But if some can believe God is eternal and omniscient, how it it any more unreasonable to believe the universe is eternal?
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
What ignorant hokum. All knowledge is ultimately dependent on some degree of faith. But in the case of materialists in particular, the whole theory is self-refuting since materialism denies even the possibility of ascertaining scientific truth since it denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind. But if human thought is not free from material causes then the very idea of scientific (or any kind of truth) is rendered non-sensical.
Naturally, I part ways with Ra on the issue of religion, but he's really good at debunking Creationists.
Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
What ignorant hokum. All knowledge is ultimately dependent on some degree of faith. But in the case of materialists in particular, the whole theory is self-refuting since materialism denies even the possibility of ascertaining scientific truth since it denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind. But if human thought is not free from material causes then the very idea of scientific (or any kind of truth) is rendered non-sensical.
You are still equivocating. Faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence. If verifiable evidence exist and a belief is based on verifiable evidence, it is not - by definition - a faith based belief.
[Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
Not true. Please do your research before making these claims.
The fossil record is thoroughly unDarwinian. Stephen Gould called it the "trade secret of paleontology". Even Darwin recognized the lack of transitionals in the fossil record and conceded it was a problem. However he held out hope that with more digging, the missing transitionals would be found. But they have not been found, which is why Gould and Eldredge had to posit punctuated equilibrium as theoretical patch to try to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the disconfirming fossil record. The overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record is stasis, not change, which was what Darwinism predicts.
A lot has happened since Darwin began developing his ideas on evolution based on observation. You use the language of creationist organizations. It is not a view held by the vast majority of researchers who work in the field.
''There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. ... These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
[Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
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.
That's an amazing thing, if not a bit ironic.
Land mammals evolving to live in the water. Their long distant predecessors evolved to get out of the water.
materialism vs Darwinism. Now we are conflating philosophy/politics/morals with physical science/biology.
once again: one has no relevance to the other.
Materialism dictates that a naturalistic theory is the only acceptable one. Given a materialist premise (starting point) something akin to Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logic.
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.
That's an amazing thing, if not a bit ironic.
Land mammals evolving to live in the water. Their long distant predecessors evolved to get out of the water.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
Dictionaries tend to reflect common usage, where words are used as blanket terms or a wide range of references. Trust may be built or destroyed on direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence based. On the other hand, someone may be convinced that Brahman is the creator of the universe, so we are clearly not talking about the same thing regardless of whether you use the same word, faith, in both examples. If you do, you are either being sloppy or equivocating.
Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
I not the one quoting from biased creationist material, written by authors who are not qualified, who are dismissed as cranks by the vast majority of scientists who actually do the research.
The evidence for evolution is readily available, I have posted links and quotes that outline the case for evolution. But that is all ignored.
Once again, it is not my evidence or my argument, but the situation as it actually stands. Only a small minority of academics question the evidence and most of those are not qualified, they are first and foremost, creationists.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence...
You don't see the problem with that?
Whether there's a "problem" depends entirely on what the faith-based belief is.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Nice non-answer. I'll ask again: What "problems" do you have with other people's faith?
It's not that I gave a 'non answer' but that my answer was not understood.
The issue is not with what is wrong with someones faith, which may bring comfort, a sense of community, a sense of meaning, but the efficacy of faith as a means of sorting fact from fiction. The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
What an arrogant prick. Your non-answer was understood for what it was. Are you saying that the fact that there are different faith-based beliefs negates all of them?
If so, does the fact that there are different theories on the same phenomenon negate all of those theories?
The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
Maybe science isn't either? Once science had only four elements. Now the periodic table is open ended. And for how many hundreds of years were Newton's erroneous laws all but worshiped. Science is complete they said. It's easy to cite mistakes made along the way and sophistry to cite them as proof of something. Except humans make mistakes in all their endeavors.
And there is plenty of evidence starting with the high improbability of anthropic conditions which you seem to dismiss because they don't offer an ontological certainty. Or maybe it's just that they don't fit your desired result.
[quote=DBT] What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Nice non-answer. I'll ask again: What "problems" do you have with other people's faith?
What an arrogant prick. Your non-answer was understood for what it was. Are you saying that the fact that there are different faith-based beliefs negates all of them?
If so, does the fact that there are different theories on the same phenomenon negate all of those theories?
Arrogant prick now? Your true colours shine though, as does your Christian tolerance.
Insults instead of rational discussion. What I said was not understand.
What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
Maybe science isn't either? Once science had only four elements. Now the periodic table is open ended. And for how many hundreds of years were Newton's erroneous laws all but worshiped. Science is complete they said. It's easy to cite mistakes made along the way and sophistry to cite them as proof of something. Except humans make mistakes in all their endeavors.
And there is plenty of evidence starting with the high improbability of anthropic conditions which you seem to dismiss because they don't offer an ontological certainty. Or maybe it's just that they don't fit your desired result.
Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence...
You don't see the problem with that?
Whether there's a "problem" depends entirely on what the faith-based belief is.
Can you expand on that? Can you give a description with examples? Something that defines your distinction between problematic faith and non problematic faith and what makes the difference.
Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.
And Theology with Philosophy are not, in the ongoing investigation into the transcendent?
Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.
And Theology with Philosophy are not, in the ongoing investigation into the transcendent?
Classical philosophy is not the same as Theology, but may encompass it. One of the first questions being, what exactly is being referred to, what does 'transcendent' mean in this instance? What does it refer to? How is it investigated? What are the results of this investigation?
Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
I not the one quoting from biased creationist material, written by authors who are not qualified, who are dismissed as cranks by the vast majority of scientists who actually do the research.
The evidence for evolution is readily available, I have posted links and quotes that outline the case for evolution. But that is all ignored.
Once again, it is not my evidence or my argument, but the situation as it actually stands. Only a small minority of academics question the evidence and most of those are not qualified, they are first and foremost, creationists.
If it is "biased creationist" material then it should be easily refuted, yet you've steadfastly refused to even attempt the refutation you claim is so easy. Why? You cite majority scientific opinion, but scientific truth is not decided by consensus, but by evidence. As Einstein famously remarked (when Hitler employed your tactic by trotting out a bevy of his scientists to declare Einstein wrong) "it only takes one person to prove me wrong". Thomas Kuhn, in his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" documents how scientific truth changes as old paradigms are discarded when new ones emerge which better explain the evidence. All morphological changes are the product of complex, coded information working in almost incomprehensible synchronicity. The complexity of the coded information necessary to instantiate even the simplest working cell is almost unfathomable and is infinitely more complex than the most sophisticated computer program. Natural selection cannot account for either the appearance of that information in the simplest living organism in the first instance, or the changes to that coded information that are necessary in the manifestation of changes in morphology. The information problem is insurmountable and natural selection has never been shown capable of doing the work. As I previously noted, If you took every particle in the Universe and turned it into a computers, each one weighing a millionth of a gram and each one able to spin out 488 trials a million times a second producing random letters and you did that from the inception of the universe, chance would still not be able to produce even something so simple as a Shakespearian Sonnet. Yet the DNA coding necessary to produce even a simple protein is massively more complex than a Shakespearian Sonnet. The a priori commitment of folks like you to philosophical materialism has utterly blinded you to the fatal weaknesses in Darwin's theory. But candidly, we don't even have to go to the evidence to see that the theory cannot possibly be true. All we have to do is look at the way almost all Darwinists, including you, argue their case---by the use of caricatures, strawmen and appeals to authority. Heavy reliance on logical fallacies are massive indicators of intellectual bankruptcy and are on full display in the responses of most Darwinists to the very cogent problems that complex coded information and Shannon complexity present to the Darwinian edifice. Indeed, your responses are shot-through with those self-same indicators of intellectual bankruptcy. If you had a case to make, you'd make it instead of continuing to embarrass yourself with your incessant invocation of logical fallacies.
We do not know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite. ...?
infinity seems out of this world for us, on the other hand if its finite, then what's beyond the boundary of the universe..?
However adhering to religious dogma and limiting intellectual freedom, would not have allowed Einstein to break free of the constraints of his Jewish upbringing and Newtonian physics.
If it is "biased creationist" material then it should be easily refuted, yet you've steadfastly refused to even attempt the refutation you claim is so easy. Why?
There is no why. I have pointed out that evolution is so well supported by evidence that practically everyone in the field accepts it as proven, that there is no doubt that organisms evolve.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You cite majority scientific opinion, but scientific truth is not decided by consensus, but by evidence.
I don't cite scientific opinion because evolution is not an opinion. It is your opinion that it is an opinion. Science is not based on opinions, it is based on evidence and testing.
A for refutation of creationist misrepresentation and claims, that has been done by numerous qualified people, including the court case where both parties presented their argument and the intelligent design/irreducible complexity failed to make the grade.
Here is one creationist misrepresentation, the second law of thermodynamics;
''One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The classical version of this law may be stated as follows: The entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. (An isolated system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.) Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists.''
Open Systems
The creationist argument given in the first paragraph contains a gaping flaw, and evolutionist debaters wasted no time in pointing it out: While the classical version of the second law does indeed state that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, evolving systems are not isolated! One might expect that at this point the issue would be considered settled and everyone would pack up and go home. However, such an expectation would never be entertained by anyone familiar with the peculiar tenacity of creationists. The Creative Trinity
According to this creationist concept, a system can become entropy deficient only if three conditions are satisfied (Morris, 1976). (1) Free energy must be supplied to the system. This is actually incorrect, since a loss of energy can also generate an entropy deficiency; however, the need for the system to be open is universally recognized, so further discussion is unnecessary. (2) The system must contain an energy conversion mechanism. When creationists are pressed, we find that just about anything qualifies as having a "mechanism," including matter itself, so the statement becomes quite meaningless.
Mutations and the Genetic Code
The growth of a seed or egg into a mature organism constitutes an observable process involving a large and spontaneous increase in the entropy deficiency of a localized system. Creationists naturally claim that the genetic code making this possible is just the directing program included in their Creative Trinity. It is certainly true that the genetic program determines just what the egg will grow into. But it is not true that this program is what enables the system to develop an entropy deficiency. In the course of a year, the earth receives 1.6 x 1021 watt-hours of energy from the sun and reradiates almost the same amount into space. But, because the incoming radiation originates on a high-temperature source (the sun) and the outgoing radiation on a low-temperature one (the earth), the whole process results in an outflow of entropy or inflow of negentropy. This negentropy flux can be calculated to be 3.2 x 1022 joule/ °K per year (Tribus and Mclrvine, 1971). A significant portion of this negentropy is used in biological processes directed by genetic programs, but a considerably larger portion is used to generate entropy deficient meteorological systems without the benefit of directing programs. Thus, the genetic program only insures that a small portion of the negentropy is used to develop a particular type of entropy deficient system. The only legitimate question left is whether the first bit of replicating genetic material could have come about naturally without violating the second law.
We may first note that all the information stored in a fertilized mammalian egg-cell is equivalent to only about 4 x 10-12 joule/ °K of negentropy. Ordinary everyday processes that we observe all around us spontaneously develop entropy deficiencies that easily amount to billions of times this amount. Thus, it is not the generation of the entropy deficiency that constitutes the problem, although this is what creationists imply when they say that a natural origin of the genetic code would violate the second law.
Experiments of the type first performed by Stanley Miller have shown that the basic building blocks of life—amino acids and nucleotides—are generated spontaneously in a reducing atmosphere, consisting of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, when energy in the form of electrical discharges or high-energy radiation is supplied. We are unable to choose at this time the particular mechanism whereby these units assembled themselves into proteins and DNA (or RNA) respectively; there are several possibilities. A more important question is the probability of the spontaneous formation of such a chain with sufficient autocatalytic properties so that, once formed, it would promote its own duplication. Once this hurdle has been overcome, evolution can be expected to proceed through the combination of mutations and natural selection, as discussed later. For years creationists have been indulging in calculations intended to prove that the formation of the original functional chain is statistically impossible. Let us examine one such attempt by Dr. Gish, also of ICR (1978).
Gish begins by assuming that a functional chain would need to consist of 100 amino acids of the 20 different kinds found in living organisms. He then states that there are 10130 different varieties of such a sequence, which is correct.
He then assumes arbitrarily and, he thinks, generously that 1011 of these variations might be functional. Stated more directly, he has assumed, entirely without justification, that only 1 out of 10119 combinations is useful. But, to show what an extremely generous man he is, Gish then assumes that 1021 varieties are formed every second during a period of 5 billion years. He is still perfectly safe, of course; with his assumption of 1 in 10119, the useful chain would never form. Gish doesn't mention whether anyone has systematically examined the properties of any significant number of such sequences. But even if thousands had been investigated, this would be nowhere near 10119, and it would be just as reasonable to assume that 1 in a trillion (1012), 1 in a billion (109), or even 1 in a million (106) has the desired characteristics. Actually, the evidence we have points in this direction. For example, examination of hemoglobins of different species shows that only 7 out of a total of 140 sites always have the same amino acid (Perutz, 1968). The probability of these 7 sites being correctly occupied, assuming again 20 different amino acids, is 1 in a little over a billion (1.3 x 109).
Now, if we go by what little evidence we have and make the far more reasonable assumption that 1 in 109 is functional, and assume further that only one sequence forms each second (anywhere on earth), a functional one could be expected to form in about 32 years! On the time scales we are dealing with, even 32 million years is nothing, so we too can be generous and assume that only 1 out of 1015 randomly generated 100-member sequences is sufficiently autocatalytic. Let us see Gish or anyone else prove this impossible!
Perhaps the greatest unanswered question in biological evolution concerns the manner in which proteins and DNA (or RNA) became associated with each other. Creationists maintain that because we don't now know how this happened naturally, it could only have happened through divine design, and it is useless to investigate it further. We are fortunate that such attitudes have not prevailed universally at all times or science would never have evolved out of the Dark Ages.
We may speculate on whether evolution could at one time have proceeded through mutations and natural selection involving chains of amino acids only, but in the present discussion we will leave aside these early developments, of which enough is not yet known. Let us look, instead, at the evolution of the genetic program from that of primitive organisms even simpler than (and different from) modern viruses, to that of complex ones such as mammals. Although we recognize the enormous amount of variation possible in the normal genetic mixing associated with sexual reproduction, the only way in which something entirely new can be introduced is through mutations, including such phenomena as gene duplication. Creationists contend that, because of the second law, only detrimental mutations are possible. An examination of the mechanism involved will show that this contention is absurd.''
Originally Posted by Tarquin
As Einstein famously remarked (when Hitler employed your tactic by trotting out a bevy of his scientists to declare Einstein wrong) "it only takes one person to prove me wrong".
Einstein was not a creationist. Nor has evolution proved to be wrong despite 150 years of research and opportunities to do so. Your creationist poster boys should publish their papers, outlining their case with evidence for support.
I think it kind of amusing that a religion which at the most charitable promoted the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and as late as the late 15th century prosecuted as heretics anyone who dared to make claim otherwise. It kind of leaves the religion and it's entire belief system on pretty shaky ground. Especially when you have to rely on the accuracy and integrity of the religion since few others in the world were even literate, much less educated.
I think it kind of amusing that a religion which at the most charitable promoted the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and as late as the late 15th century prosecuted as heretics anyone who dared to make claim otherwise. It kind of leaves the religion and it's entire belief system on pretty shaky ground. Especially when you have to rely on the accuracy and integrity of the religion since few others in the world were even literate, much less educated.
It certainly calls into question whether or not we should allow any institutional authorities to tell us what Christians must believe.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
This is logic, not arrogance.
No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question asgain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms:
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence...
You don't see the problem with that?
Whether there's a "problem" depends entirely on what the faith-based belief is.
Can you expand on that? Can you give a description with examples? Something that defines your distinction between problematic faith and non problematic faith and what makes the difference.
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
This is logic, not arrogance.
No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question ask gain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms:
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
SP, it's simple set theory. For practical purposes, all creationist claims are faith-based, but not all people of faith are creationist.
As for how do you logically approach two contradictory hypothesis, each must face it's own burden of proof. Proving A wrong does not make B true. It's possible both could be wrong.
As an example, if tomorrow the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven wrong, that doesn't mean "god(s) did it", after all, there's other hypothesis like magic pixies, the computer simulation, or Gus's favorite, Aliens did it. Disproving any one of these doesn't prove any other, each requires it's own evidence.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
Maybe science isn't either? Once science had only four elements. Now the periodic table is open ended. And for how many hundreds of years were Newton's erroneous laws all but worshiped. Science is complete they said. It's easy to cite mistakes made along the way and sophistry to cite them as proof of something. Except humans make mistakes in all their endeavors.
And there is plenty of evidence starting with the high improbability of anthropic conditions which you seem to dismiss because they don't offer an ontological certainty. Or maybe it's just that they don't fit your desired result.
Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. Carl Sagan
Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.
And Theology with Philosophy are not, in the ongoing investigation into the transcendent?
I fail to see how Philosophy or Theology can either be self correcting, as new data is unavailable to either discipline.
The last time new data was added to the field of religion was the Writings of Joseph Smith, whom over 99% of the world dismisses as a charlatan.
Biologists make new discoveries every day, leading to a more complete picture of the world around us.
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day?
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
Maybe Rich can invite William Dembski to weight in on this thread. Not having an academic degree in Natural Sciences has never been a prerequisite to join in 'Proof of God' debates on the CF so he would fit right in. Plus, it seems William has resigned all of his professional Creationist positions, subsequent to being fired from a non-paying, non-teaching position at Baylor, so probably he has the time. Could be fun.
Note: Rich has had me on 'ignore' for forever so someone will have to quote me so he can see the proposal.
What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
This is logic, not arrogance.
No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question ask gain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms:
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
SP, it's simple set theory. For practical purposes, all creationist claims are faith-based, but not all people of faith are creationist.
As for how do you logically approach two contradictory hypothesis, each must face it's own burden of proof. Proving A wrong does not make B true. It's possible both could be wrong.
As an example, if tomorrow the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven wrong, that doesn't mean "god(s) did it", after all, there's other hypothesis like magic pixies, the computer simulation, or Gus's favorite, Aliens did it. Disproving any one of these doesn't prove any other, each requires it's own evidence.
Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question intended to show DBT that contradictions between different faith-based beliefs don't negate all faith-based beliefs.
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day?
But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday.
And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws.
New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong.
Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus.
Where is the data?
Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square.
Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation.
There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago.
But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day?
But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday.
And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws.
New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong.
Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus.
Where is the data?
Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square.
Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation.
There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago.
But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population.
Is that correction? Or diversion?
I have posted on several threads the question; what if the Bible authors had a Hubble and someone to explain what they were looking at?
Even just a Hubble photo would have changed what they wrote.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question intended to show DBT that contradictions between different faith-based beliefs don't negate all faith-based beliefs.
It shows no such thing. What a huge collection of contradictory faith based belief actually shows is that faith is an extremely poor means of sorting fact from fiction.
Something that was recognized a long time ago.
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
And, as a matter of logic, they don't have to in order for him to make perfectly valid arguments about and against neo-Darwinism. Dembski's arguments stand or fall on their intrinsic merits (on the accuracy of his facts and the validity of his premises and conclusions), not his academic degrees. Once again, apologists for Neo-Darwinism choose to employ a logical fallacy rather than respond on the merits, constituting yet another concession that they are powerless to defeat the underlying argument.
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
Basic logic tells us that if there is a contradiction, there is a problem. Two contradictory claims cannot both be true. One or the other must be false, or both are wrong.
If the Hindu belief that Brahman manifests the universe is true, for example, the Christian version of creation cannot be true and vice versa...both can be wrong, but both cannot be right
Originally Posted by smokepole
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence, you may be convinced that you'll win the lotto on Saturday, and that belief would be an article of faith.
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day?
But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday.
And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws.
New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong.
Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus.
Where is the data?
Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square.
Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation.
There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago.
But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population.
Is that correction? Or diversion?
Sometimes you can experimentally prove a philosophy wrong. We've run the experiment of Marxism, and have the 100 million corpses to prove it doesn't work.
That was some very expensive data. Hopefully this election doesn't lead America down the path of repeating that failed experiment.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Geno
How can God, who knows supposedly knows EVERYTHING collect new data and learn?
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
And, as a matter of logic, they don't have to in order for him to make perfectly valid arguments about and against neo-Darwinism. Dembski's arguments stand or fall on their intrinsic merits (on the accuracy of his facts and the validity of his premises and conclusions), not his academic degrees. Once again, apologists for Neo-Darwinism choose to employ a logical fallacy rather than respond on the merits, constituting yet another concession that they are powerless to defeat the underlying argument.
Go back and read the quoted exchanges again, and see if you can comprehend the real reason for my post.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
Maybe Rich can invite William Dembski to weight in on this thread. Not having an academic degree in Natural Sciences has never been a prerequisite to join in 'Proof of God' debates on the CF so he would fit right in. Plus, it seems William has resigned all of his professional Creationist positions, subsequent to being fired from a non-paying, non-teaching position at Baylor, so probably he has the time. Could be fun.
Note: Rich has had me on 'ignore' for forever so someone will have to quote me so he can see the proposal.
Rich has me on ignore as well.
I think my posts create too much cognitive dissidence for him to handle.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
It is neither an assertion, harsh or silly. Nor am I attacking anybody. You are interpreting anything I say in a way that suits your position and your own needs.
Evolution, unlike Faith, is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, anyone is free to falsify it, including creationists. Yet evolution has stood testing for 150 years and shows no sign of being toppled.
The creatipnist material is flawed for the reasons given in several articles that I have posted. That is simply an observation, not an attack.
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Your 97% statistic reminds me of my thought: 97% of statistics are made up at the time of use.
Your doubt of lots of people reminds me the majority of Muzzies are peaceful. The fact that 10% are not still makes 100,000,000 people. Lots of people is probably in the hundreds of millions. That is lots.
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Your 97% statistic reminds me of my thought: 97% of statistics are made up at the time of use.
Your doubt of lots of people reminds me the majority of Muzzies are peaceful. The fact that 10% are not still makes 100,000,000 people. Lots of people is probably in the hundreds of millions. That is lots.
Maybe you should watch the video also.
Rich,
Take some time to educate yourself. (But I know you won't)
NDT goes over the numbers of those who believe in creationism with in the scientific community, and relates it to their level of distinction with in the community.
Actually, he does a pretty good job overall of demonstrating why the more intelligent and the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in Creationism/Intelligent design.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Without regard to the accuracy of the 97% assertion, the "vast majority" of "scientists" support AGW.
And of course AGW is bullshit.
So you're in good company.
"Support of the scientific community" is not proof of anything.
The theory of evolution has not been proven.
A person asserting that the subject of their faith is "conclusive" is simply arrogance on the part of the person asserting it.
Evolution is a fact. Biologist Richard Lenski:"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, ... generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Stoning was considered the most harsh or dreaded method of death penalty, people could still be killed in other ways if the stoning method was deemed over the top for the offence.
over time they could completely omit stoning as a punishment , whist keeping other more humane methods of death penalty.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence proof to an ontological certainty
Proof entails evidence... sufficient evidence to prove a proposition.
A creationist evangelist said the [scientifically hybridized] modern day banana
displayed all the evidence needed to prove God created the perfect banana from the start.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Geno
How can God, who knows supposedly knows EVERYTHING collect new data and learn?
"He" can deem it new to him????
Besides, as Idaho mentioned, it's just the whims of society.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, ... generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Stoning was considered the most harsh or dreaded method of death penalty, people could still be killed in other ways if the stoning method was deemed over the top for the offence.
over time they could completely omit stoning as a punishment , whist keeping other more humane methods of death penalty.
As in Banishment? Into the Wilderness, away from the society and all its support systems? Leading to a most certain death at the hands of the beasts or starvation and thirst?
But in today's connected world that one might not work so well.
Besides, I sorta remember God determined the penalty to be stoning, no?
Old Testament capital punishment varied according to the offence.
Stragulation (the residuary capital punishment where no other mode of execution is prescribed) Slaying by sword (decapitation or other appropriate methods) Hanging Burning Stoning (confined to the 18 offenses for which scripture had expressly prescribed)
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Besides, I sorta remember God determined the penalty to be stoning, no?
They asked God which specific death penalty they should apply .
I am not ready to be an atheist, but anybody that believes in the creation story in the bible has to believe in evolution if they only look at the human race. You know, like the difference between Eskimos, Negros, Aztecs, Scandinavians, Japs, Hawaiians, Semites, and even West Africans vs East Africans. The list could be very long of folks that adapted to their environment and lived in isolation.
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
It is neither an assertion, harsh or silly. Nor am I attacking anybody. You are interpreting anything I say in a way that suits your position and your own needs.
Evolution, unlike Faith, is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, anyone is free to falsify it, including creationists. Yet evolution has stood testing for 150 years and shows no sign of being toppled.
The creatipnist material is flawed for the reasons given in several articles that I have posted. That is simply an observation, not an attack.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
[quote=DBT]A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
You are setting your own terms and conditions. Evolution is based on observation, evidence and testing, therefore it is falsifiable. You may be thinking of faith and conflating the two.
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
Wow. "Those of us who believe in evolution do so only because of our prejudices which disallow us to consider any alternative." Is that pretty much it?
Have you no concept of irony?
Many of us who now are convinced of the validity of evolution, were trained from birth in the religious tenets which demand creationism. And some of us, myself included, as we learned the truth of science, came to understand those tenets as mythology. Because (in my case anyway) I looked at both, the science and the religion, with an open mind.
But you see, if tomorrow, we discovered real evidence that something did plant on Earth each of the billions of species which we know have inhabited the Earth over the last dozen million years, I would have no problem accepting the alternate explanation.
The reality of my existence, my hope for an eternal afterlife of bliss and pleasure is not at risk. I have no investment in my belief in evolution. As opposed to the creationist?????????
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.
Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.
But you see, if tomorrow, we discovered real evidence that something did plant on Earth each of the billions of species which we know have inhabited the Earth over the last dozen million years, I would have no problem accepting the alternate explanation.
I hope that someday, God grants you the ability to prove the theory of evolution.
I am not ready to be an atheist, but anybody that believes in the creation story in the bible has to believe in evolution if they only look at the human race. You know, like the difference between Eskimos, Negros, Aztecs, Scandinavians, Japs, Hawaiians, Semites, and even West Africans vs East Africans. The list could be very long of folks that adapted to their environment and lived in isolation.
Hastings,
As I've said before, not all Theist are equal. There's a huge gap between the median American Christian and the 9/11 thugs.
There's a lot of Christian who are what I call "practical atheist". Sure, they believe in the tenants of one of the main stream forms of Christianity, but day to day, there's no real difference between how they live their lives compared to skeptical non-believers. These folks are not cut from the same cloth as the Young Earth Creationist who deny science and don't want it taught to our kids.
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.
Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.
I'm sorry. I mean no offense, but are you really that stupid? Any criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not, ipso facto, "creationism". Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He doubts that evolution can account for the instantiation of or increase in information necessary to either originate life or alter morphology. His doubts and criticisms do not mean he is a 6 day biblical literalist or that he thinks the only viable alternate theory is intelligent design. It is entirely possible that some modification of the theory of random mutation and natural selection might suffice to endow some form or evolutionary theory with the power to create the necessary information. If such a theory were ever developed and if it was fully naturalistic, it would not involve recourse to a supreme intelligence and therefore would not rely on "creation" broadly speaking. Secondarily, if the inference from the best explanation (which is the logical construct Darwin used) now shows that the information necessary to instantiate life and transform morphology could only have come from a designing mind (an intelligence). It would certainly imply the existence of a creator (Francis Crick hypothecates aliens/panspermia. That is "intelligence" but is certainly not God. (In his book the Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins effectively argues for intelligent creation [though he's too stupid to understand that such is the logical implication of his gene fitness theory] but surely he is not a "creationist"). Neither Crick or Dawkins's theories necessarily imply the existence of God even though they are broadly "creationist". In any event, if the inference to the best explanation tends to show the Universe and all life was the product of a pre-existing intelligence who might reasonably be called God, what is wrong with that? If that is where the evidence leads should we not embrace that truth, if in fact it is. You can caricature it as "creationism" if you want, which it broadly is (though not 6-day biblical literalism) but if that is where the truth leads, what is wrong with that? If you are going to argue effectively you need to start using language with a little precision.
Finally, your statement "anyone who argues against natural evolution in favor of creation is arguing for creation over evolution" is simply a tautology. It is an utterly meaningless statement. And again, the appropriate response is "so what"? If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.
Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.
I'm sorry. I mean no offense, but are you really that stupid? Any criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not, ipso facto, "creationism". Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He doubts that evolution can account for the instantiation of or increase in information necessary to either originate life or alter morphology. His doubts and criticisms do not mean he is a 6 day biblical literalist or that he thinks the only viable alternate theory is intelligent design. It is entirely possible that some modification of the theory of random mutation and natural selection might suffice to endow some form or evolutionary theory with the power to create the necessary information. If such a theory were ever developed and if it was fully naturalistic, it would not involve recourse to a supreme intelligence and therefore would not rely on "creation" broadly speaking. Secondarily, if the inference from the best explanation (which is the logical construct Darwin used) now shows that the information necessary to instantiate life and transform morphology could only have come from a designing mind (an intelligence). It would certainly imply the existence of a creator (Francis Crick hypothecates aliens/panspermia. That is "intelligence" but is certainly not God. (In his book the Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins effectively argues for intelligent creation [though he's too stupid to understand that such is the logical implication of his gene fitness theory] but surely he is not a "creationist"). Neither Crick or Dawkins's theories necessarily imply the existence of God even though they are broadly "creationist". In any event, if the inference to the best explanation tends to show the Universe and all life was the product of a pre-existing intelligence who might reasonably be called God, what is wrong with that? If that is where the evidence leads should we not embrace that truth, if in fact it is. You can caricature it as "creationism" if you want, which it broadly is (though not 6-day biblical literalism) but if that is where the truth leads, what is wrong with that? If you are going to argue effectively you need to start using language with a little precision.
Finally, your statement "anyone who argues against natural evolution in favor of creation is arguing for creation over evolution" is simply a tautology. It is an utterly meaningless statement. And again, the appropriate response is "so what"? If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?
Yes, of course. But you know the answer to the questions in your last paragraph. This entire thread shows the answer.
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
As IQ increases, doubt of evolution decreases.
Yet your IQ isn't even high enough to understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You're also the guy who rather stupidly thinks a Google search algorithm produces unbiased information.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
Wow. "Those of us who believe in evolution do so only because of our prejudices which disallow us to consider any alternative." Is that pretty much it?
Have you no concept of irony?
Many of us who now are convinced of the validity of evolution, were trained from birth in the religious tenets which demand creationism. And some of us, myself included, as we learned the truth of science, came to understand those tenets as mythology. Because (in my case anyway) I looked at both, the science and the religion, with an open mind.
But you see, if tomorrow, we discovered real evidence that something did plant on Earth each of the billions of species which we know have inhabited the Earth over the last dozen million years, I would have no problem accepting the alternate explanation.
The reality of my existence, my hope for an eternal afterlife of bliss and pleasure is not at risk. I have no investment in my belief in evolution. As opposed to the creationist?????????
Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.
If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?
Absolutely.....IF that is where the evidence leads and IF there were any better alternative theories for the changes in plant and animal life over time which are so easily observed as we dig through the sedimentary layers.
Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.
That is the very prejudice to which I refer.
Unless I misunderstand your writing, You seem to be claiming that I must believe in evolution because to not believe would be to admit to a sprituality.
And I am trying to explain to you that these are two separate domains. One does not demand the other.
I have no problem with the idea that some race of beings might be driving around the universe dropping off seeds and critters every hundred thousand years or so. But so far, the evidence does not support that.
The fact that I have determined religious doctrine to be mythology does not demand that I accept evolution as an origin for today's species. But it does leave my mind open to the possibilty.
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.
Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.
I'm sorry. I mean no offense, but are you really that stupid?
Gosh, I'm glad that you are not trying to be offensive! Maybe you should look in a mirror before posting?
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Any criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not, ipso facto, "creationism".
That is an example of the very thing you mention, stupidity, assuming something that was neither intended or related to the issue that is being discussed. We are not talking about rational criticism of evolution. The issue here has been the claim that evolution is not proven, has no evidence, that it is a faith, that life was created, hence the issue here is evolution versus creationism.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He doubts that evolution can account for the instantiation of or increase in information necessary to either originate life or alter morphology. His doubts and criticisms do not mean he is a 6 day biblical literalist or that he thinks the only viable alternate theory is intelligent design. It is entirely possible that some modification of the theory of random mutation and natural selection might suffice to endow some form or evolutionary theory with the power to create the necessary information. If such a theory were ever developed and if it was fully naturalistic, it would not involve recourse to a supreme intelligence and therefore would not rely on "creation" broadly speaking. Secondarily, if the inference from the best explanation (which is the logical construct Darwin used) now shows that the information necessary to instantiate life and transform morphology could only have come from a designing mind (an intelligence). It would certainly imply the existence of a creator (Francis Crick hypothecates aliens/panspermia. That is "intelligence" but is certainly not God. (In his book the Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins effectively argues for intelligent creation [though he's too stupid to understand that such is the logical implication of his gene fitness theory] but surely he is not a "creationist"). Neither Crick or Dawkins's theories necessarily imply the existence of God even though they are broadly "creationist". In any event, if the inference to the best explanation tends to show the Universe and all life was the product of a pre-existing intelligence who might reasonably be called God, what is wrong with that? If that is where the evidence leads should we not embrace that truth, if in fact it is. You can caricature it as "creationism" if you want, which it broadly is (though not 6-day biblical literalism) but if that is where the truth leads, what is wrong with that? If you are going to argue effectively you need to start using language with a little precision.
Finally, your statement "anyone who argues against natural evolution in favor of creation is arguing for creation over evolution" is simply a tautology. It is an utterly meaningless statement. And again, the appropriate response is "so what"? If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?
Referring to or quoting the ideas of unqualified individuals is not a refutation of evolution;
Among Nagel’s claims are that evolution is wrong because:
We don’t understand the origin of life We don’t understand the evolution of consciousness (is this list starting to sound familiar?) There are objective factors about morality, and evolution can’t explain them (Nagel is what philosophers call a “moral realist”) A reductionist and materialist program won’t suffice to understand evolution, ergo There is a missing factor, and that factor is teleology. That is, evolution is directed toward certain goals (e.g., consciousness) by a process we don’t understand
Now Nagel is not religious—he’s an atheist—so his teleology can’t involve a god. Instead, he apparently posits an unknown force that drives organisms onward and upward.
To a biologist (Orr is a Drosophila geneticist like me),the response is obvious: there is no direction in evolution, for when organisms evolve parasitism, or move into darkness, they often lose complex features like eyes and wings. And of course there are those dumb plants:
Nagel’s teleological biology is heavily human-centric or at least animal-centric. Organisms, it seems, are in the business of secreting sentience, reason, and values. Real biology looks little like this and, from the outset, must face the staggering facts of organismal
Among Nagel’s claims are that evolution is wrong because:
We don’t understand the origin of life We don’t understand the evolution of consciousness (is this list starting to sound familiar?) There are objective factors about morality, and evolution can’t explain them (Nagel is what philosophers call a “moral realist”) A reductionist and materialist program won’t suffice to understand evolution, ergo There is a missing factor, and that factor is teleology. That is, evolution is directed toward certain goals (e.g., consciousness) by a process we don’t understand
Now Nagel is not religious—he’s an atheist—so his teleology can’t involve a god. Instead, he apparently posits an unknown force that drives organisms onward and upward.
To a biologist (Orr is a Drosophila geneticist like me),the response is obvious: there is no direction in evolution, for when organisms evolve parasitism, or move into darkness, they often lose complex features like eyes and wings. And of course there are those dumb plants:
Nagel’s teleological biology is heavily human-centric or at least animal-centric. Organisms, it seems, are in the business of secreting sentience, reason, and values. Real biology looks little like this and, from the outset, must face the staggering facts of organismal diversity. There are millions of species of fungi and bacteria and nearly 300,000 species of flowering plants. None of these groups is sentient and each is spectacularly successful. Indeed mindless species outnumber we sentient ones by any sensible measure (biomass, number of individuals, or number of species; there are only about 5,500 species of mammals). More fundamentally, each of these species is every bit as much the end product of evolution as we are. The point is that, if nature has goals, it certainly seems to have many and consciousness would appear to be fairly far down on the list.
In fact, bacteria are still with us after billions of years, and they show no sign of a brain yet!''
Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.
That is the very prejudice to which I refer.
Unless I misunderstand your writing, You seem to be claiming that I must believe in evolution because to not believe would be to admit to a sprituality.
And I am trying to explain to you that these are two separate domains. One does not demand the other.
I have no problem with the idea that some race of beings might be driving around the universe dropping off seeds and critters every hundred thousand years or so. But so far, the evidence does not support that.
The fact that I have determined religious doctrine to be mythology does not demand that I accept evolution as an origin for today's species. But it does leave my mind open to the possibilty.
That is not what I am saying. I'm simply pointing out that the premise that the Universe is a permanently closed system of material cause and effect is a metaphysical assumption, not an empirical one. If one thinks that the Universe is comprised solely of material causes and effects then any theory or origin of life that does not patronize that assumption will be rejected out of hand, regardless of evidentiary problems because the philosophy comes first and the only "science" permitted is that which confirms the philosophy.
There is also the additional problem of thinking, sentient beings. The very idea of scientific truth implies that the mind is free from material causes because it only makes sense to speak of scientific truth if the mind is free to distinguish truth from error. But materialism is self-refuting because if all there is are material causes and effects, then truth is impossible, including the truth of materialism. Here is how George Gilder puts it: "Materialism generally and Darwinian reductionism, specifically, comprise thoughts that deny thought, and contradict themselves. As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” Nobel-laureate biologist Max Delbrück (who was trained as a physicist) described the contradiction in an amusing epigram when he said that the neuroscientist’s effort to explain the brain as mere meat or matter “reminds me of nothing so much as Baron Munchausen’s attempt to extract himself from a swamp by pulling on his own hair.” Analogous to such canonical self-denying sayings as The Cretan says all Cretans are liars, the paradox of the self-denying mind tends to stultify every field of knowledge and art that it touches and threatens to diminish this golden age of technology into a dark age of scientiftic reductionism and, following in its trail, artistic and philosophical nihilism."
I have linked Gilder's entire article. He's a wonderful thinker and writer.
Never mind the Universe, the planet earth is not a closed system.....
Materialism emphatically says otherwise. I read the reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
I read these paragraphs and I read them again and again, and I find more circles than a Hoola-hoop factory.
If you believe in evolution, you must be a realist. If you are a realist you have to believe in evolution. If you are a realist then you can have no mind. If you have a mind, you can not be a realist. If you are not a realist you can not believe in evolution.
Head shake......and shake again Zealot much?
But I observe facts which refute your belief. Therefor your belief is of no consequence to me. After 800 postings in this thread, there is little chance I shall enlighten you.
I got through about six pages of that drivel. Holy crap!
Sexual liberation, sexual suicide, "puriently probed the animality of human beings", "Darwinism banishes ideals and inspirations', Darwinism could be used to inspire Naziism or the feminist crusades of planned parenthood......WTF
The idiot attempts to tie computer science, and telecommunications into what is actually a study of paleontology, botony, and zoology. He conflates economics, psychology, and sociology into the mix where they have no bearing.
It is no wonder that no one can refute his thoughts. There is no logic in any of what I read. My mind could not take the errant rambling to read anymore.
I guess, on the plus side, he uses lots of big words in a confusing manner which could well impress the illinformed.
''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised? The Earth is an open system for energy
It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''
Originally Posted by Tarquin
I read the reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science.
''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.''
Apart from taking in solar energy, does not the earth system also take in matter in the form of space dust particles?
is there not also ~ atmospheric escape?...whereby certain gases [helium and hydrogen] do get away into space?
Of course, but apparently it's not significant enough to count as an open system as far as Matter goes, yet we do have matter input from space dust, meteorites, etc, adding to the mass of the planet.
Mars used to have water and some sort of atmosphere but because of its smaller size (and some additional event?) its gravity wasn't sufficient to hold onto it so it all disappeared into space.
Venus is about the same size as Earth but its atmosphere has gone all "greenhouse" - has water and atmosphere but is too hot now. Apparently was habitable some time ago.
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question.
About the only thing I've got out of all this rannygazoo is that true believers of the psychosomatic theory's of Chas. Darwin are taken as proven fact, infallible and anyone that questions it must be hopelessly insane because they question the belief that logical theory is indeed proven fact.
About the only thing I've got out of all this rannygazoo is that true believers of the psychosomatic theory's of Chas. Darwin are taken as proven fact, infallible and anyone that questions it must be hopelessly insane because they question the belief that logical theory is indeed proven fact.
You are trying mighty hard to ignore the obvious and undeniable. Clearly, ol' Chas. Darwin scares the jesus out of some of you guys. Why is that?
I'm always curious when I see folks that understand that there is such a thing as heredity, and there is variation, and yet deny that given these two things, evolution not only doesn't happen, but can't happen. How can it NOT happen?
There you go again proving that anyone that does not fall into line as a true believer is somehow ignoring "obvious and undeniable" what, proven fact? Then lay it out but don't just run around in circles beating your drum about being "obvious and undeniable".
The Theory of evolution has become a religion of itself much like the religion of global warming and before that global cooling.
It's not a religion at all. You do understand there are such things as genes? That they vary from one individual to the next? That they can mutate? That some genes are better than others for a given circumstance? These things are obvious and undeniable, no?
If so, how to you PREVENT evolution from happening?
Most charitably I think Darwinism can be described as a logical explanation based on observations of natural phenomena for which Darwin had little means of understanding. In human history, I think his theory can best be compared to the theories of medicine formulated in classical times by Hippocrates and Galen. For nearly 1500 years these theories of bodily humors and bile dominated medical thought. Today they seem hopelessly outdated and trite, but they really were quite significant. They were attempts to explain the functions of the body by natural means based on observations. They lacked the technology and the basic scientific knowledge actually understand what was going on in the body, so mostly the conclusions they reached were completely wrong. But to them, based on their understandings, all of their conclusions were proven by observations of bodily processes and results. Their theories could cause them to prescribe certain treatments and when the patient improved, the “science” behind their theories was proved.
When Darwin came up with his theory in the middle of the 19th Century, nearly every single science that would be needed to actually prove the nuts and bolts of how change might actually occur in an organism was either in its infancy or nonexistent. Chemistry was not much better than alchemy by then. The study of genetics was rudimentary. DNA and RNA were unknown and so and so forth. And none of this was Darwin’s or anyone else’s fault. Much of the technology needed to investigate these areas did not exist. Microscopes were rudimentary. Electricity as a source of practical power was 50 years in the future and so on and so forth. So, Darwin’s theory was necessarily incomplete by gaps in his knowledge. But to the extent that it explained things in accordance with 19th Century understandings, it was perfectly plausible and usuable.
Classical medicine held sway for 1500 years. Not until the Middle Ages did scientists and doctors begin to seriously challenge it. And at first this began with dissection of actual human bodies. The bodies had always been there to dissect, but classical taboos against dissection had carried over to the Christian Era and it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that they began to loosen enough to allow those first scientific explorations. Yet, these early pioneers face tremendous backlash and persecution. Was not medical science already established and backed by 1500 years of practice and observation? What could the upstarts hope to prove with their unscientific hacking and and prodding of dead bodies? But they persevered and slowly things changed. Yet, it was slow going. As late as the 1880s ad US president would die a slow and agonizing death from a massive infection because his physician did not believe in the germ theory of disease and never washed his hands nor even cleaned the president’s bullet wound. Think of it, a world leader, well into the mechanical age of global transportation and communication was cared for with methods that were effectively no different than those a thousand years before.
With Darwin it was nearly a hundred years of unquestioned supremacy before scientist could look at and begin to understand what happens at the molecular and chemical level. Only in the last fifty years has it even been possible to comprehend some of the workings required. Is that because Darwin was dumb? No, the technology and the base knowledge was not there for him. Does that mean that many observations don’t “prove” his theory? Oh no, like in past medicine, the observations often fit the theory quite well. But are they true? Not necessarily. If the can’t be explained and understood at the actual molecular and chemical level, then they can’t be said to be true. Just as a classical doctor could prescribe a course of treatment based on his understanding of the four bodily humors and see its success as proof that his understandings were correct without really understanding the actual processes, a modern Darwinist could cite the fossil record, the similarity of organisms, the fact of observable micro evolution, the self evidence of our existence as “proof” that Darwin was essentially correct. But without an actual understanding of the processes involved to the point that they can be logically explained and duplicated at the molecular, chemical, and cellular level, they remain merely elaborate guesses. Informed guesses to be sure, but guesses nonetheless.
None of this is to say that creation happened in six literal days. None of this is to say that evolution is necessarily wrong. None of this is to pose an alternate theory. All this is, is to say that there are some serious problems at the molecular, chemical, and cellular level that merely saying “well, yeah though...in a few billion years it would happen” don’t adequately answer. And until those questions are answered, it is possible that the last 150 years of Darwin has been as misguided as the 1,500 years of Hippocrates and Galen was.
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Your 97% statistic reminds me of my thought: 97% of statistics are made up at the time of use.
Your doubt of lots of people reminds me the majority of Muzzies are peaceful. The fact that 10% are not still makes 100,000,000 people. Lots of people is probably in the hundreds of millions. That is lots.
Maybe you should watch the video also.
So the 3% that doubt evolution are comparable to the extremist Muslims that want to blow us all up? You made that comparison, not me.
''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised? The Earth is an open system for energy
It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''
Originally Posted by Tarquin
I read the reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science.
''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.''
Your distinction between science and philosophy is analytically silly but a standard canard trotted out by Darwinists when some high-level thinker points out the logical flaws in the philosophy of neo-darwinism. In any event, Nagel recognizes that the odds are essentially impossible for evolution. The quote above does not tame those odds. See my prior reference to the math of physicist Gerard Schroeder on the long odds.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Happens all the time. It is not debatable (by intelligent, educate people).
Evolution is not a hypothesis. Futurism July 18th 2014
“One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.”
"One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.”
My religious nutter barber who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years has a perfectly logical (to him) response to that theory. Quote: "All the fossils that people are finding all over the world were buried by Atheists. He is a good barber though.
"One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.”
My religious nutter barber who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years has a perfectly logical (to him) response to that theory. Quote: "All the fossils that people are finding all over the world were buried by Atheists. He is a good barber though.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Happens all the time. It is not debatable (by intelligent, educate people).
Wouldn't that be educated people, genius?
Oh, and everything is debatable, unless you're a God forsaken lieberal demoncrap bound for Hell. They like to claim things undebatable, since they lose if they try.
Yeah, the "from goo to you by way of the zoo" cretins are brilliant! Just ask them. LOL
I have been hearing remarks like this since the '70s from my dearest Aunts, Uncles, cousins, and Grandparents. Each one of which I love dearly.
And their motivation is easily understood. To admit the slightest chance that evolution has happened on this planet, or is currently happening would be Heresy. Their minds are permanently closed to the slightest possibility of evolutionary fact, for such an admission would destroy everything they have devoted their entire life to. And it would destroy (in their mind) their chance at Salvation and eternal life.
How could one even coherently evaluate or discuss the subject when afflicted with such prejudice?
The thing is, no one truly knows much that actually happened a few centuries ago, let alone at the beginning of time or of first life, thanks to the fact that the victors write the history.
I accept natural selection, but in no way believe people or animals emerged from a primordial slime. We, and other species are made with such incredible features and abilities that distinguish all species, that I would suggest not to believe a Creator was involved takes far more faith than does believing in the Creator.
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question.
You're apparently incapable.
It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that.
''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised? The Earth is an open system for energy
It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''
Originally Posted by Tarquin
I read the reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science.
''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.''
Your distinction between science and philosophy is analytically silly but a standard canard trotted out by Darwinists when some high-level thinker points out the logical flaws in the philosophy of neo-darwinism. In any event, Nagel recognizes that the odds are essentially impossible for evolution. The quote above does not tame those odds. See my prior reference to the math of physicist Gerard Schroeder on the long odds.
I am not the one to make a distinction between science and philosophy. The distinction is there. It was a distinction that was recognized a long time ago. It's not even contraversy. You guys try every silly trick in the book to defend faith.
About the only thing I've got out of all this rannygazoo is that true believers of the psychosomatic theory's of Chas. Darwin are taken as proven fact, infallible and anyone that questions it must be hopelessly insane because they question the belief that logical theory is indeed proven fact.
It's both fact and theory, as pointed out. Evolution happens, theory is the exploration of how it happens.
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”
HP Lovecraft
Some folks on this thread have gone mad and fled from the light, others haven't. Who has and who hasn't will be a matter of interpretation, carry on.
Modern Science has discovered the cause of Black Death in the Dark Ages
yet with cHristians at the time, Anti-Semitism greatly intensified throughout Europe as Jews were blamed for the spread of the Black Death. A wave of violent pogroms ensued, and entire Jewish communities were killed by mobs or burned at the stake en masse.
The Black Death was also seen by many to be caused by the fury of God upon an errant people.
clutching Bibles and sending prayers didn't prevent or stop the bacterium effects of the Black Death epidemics.
Modern Science has discovered the cause of Black Death in the Dark Ages
yet with cHristians at the time, Anti-Semitism greatly intensified throughout Europe as Jews were blamed for the spread of the Black Death. A wave of violent pogroms ensued, and entire Jewish communities were killed by mobs or burned at the stake en masse.
The Black Death was also seen by many to be caused by the fury of God upon an errant people.
clutching Bibles and sending prayers didn't prevent or stop the bacterium effects of the Black Death epidemics.
so much for 'faith".
Even today; had an old friend that got cancer. Put his heath in a church instead of cancer doctors. At least he went sooner...
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question.
You're apparently incapable.
It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that.
Sure it is, you just can't answer one. If Iasked you if the sky was blue, three paragraphs later your answer would still be shrouded in a cloud of bullsh**.
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question.
You're apparently incapable.
It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that.
Sure it is, you just can't answer one. If Iasked you if the sky was blue, thr
ee paragraphs later your answer would still be shrouded in a cloud of bullsh**.
Maybe simple answers satisfy simple minds, and angry men, but not those who genuinely want to understand the world, which is vast and complex.
Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest....”
Yes, they're suggestions, not proof.
Like religious relics suggest that biblical stories are true.
They all *suggest* whatever a person's faith allows them to believe.
Keep "helpin", it's makin my job a lot easier.
Futurism July 18th 2014: What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions: • Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related? • Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography? • Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations? Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.
Maybe simple answers satisfy simple minds, and angry men, but not those who genuinely want to understand the world, which is vast and complex.
LOL. Here's the question again, and the answer just so you can see the possibilities:
Q: If two theories contradict each other, are both negated?
A: No.
What you fail to grasp is justification. A belief held without the support of evidence is an unjustified belief from the start. Whether it proves true or false being a matter of epistemological luck, Gettier, etc.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Try it sometime. Free yourself.
Yes, "the world" is vast and complex but some things are very simple.
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason.
Here's a start for you - the nature of justification of belief and epistemological luck, I hope it helps;
Why not say that knowledge is true belief? The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true.
The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck.
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason.
Took one, many years ago. That's where my yes/no question came from, it's called deductive reasoning in case you're not familiar.
It goes like this: You posited that faith-based beliefs could be proven erroneous because there are inconsistencies and contradictions among them.
I asked you if the same logic applied to theories, hence my question "if two theories contradict each other, are both negated?"
The obvious answer is "no" but you refused to answer the question because it exposes the fallacy inherent in your position that faith-based beliefs can be proven wrong by the contradictions among them. You can't have it both ways.
So, using decuctive reasoning,I can conclude that you're incapable of conceding a point even when proven wrong.
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason.
Took one, many years ago. That's where my yes/no question came from, it's called deductive reasoning in case you're not familiar.
It goes like this: You posited that faith-based beliefs could be proven erroneous because there are inconsistencies and contradictions among them.
I asked you if the same logic applied to theories, hence my question "if two theories contradict each other, are both negated?"
The obvious answer is "no" but you refused to answer the question because it exposes the fallacy inherent in your position that faith-based beliefs can be proven wrong by the contradictions among them. You can't have it both ways.
So, using decuctive reasoning,I can conclude that you're incapable of conceding a point even when proven wrong.
I have no point to concede. You seem incapable of understanding the nature of justification, the principle that a belief held without the support of evidence - being faith - that belief is either true or false on the basis of epistemological luck. And when we are talking about supernatural beliefs, that is a whole different ballpark when it comes to probability, never mind the lack of evidence.
Here's an example of what happens when you attempt to mix philosophy with Science, in this case, post modern philosophy. Talk about a [bleep] show.....
Time for a new thread on religion, this has deteriorated.
They all go the same way. Faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. Frustration sets in. Then come come the attempts to make it personal, the insults, as secure in their anonymity as they are cowardly.
Do you know what's cowardly? Refusing to answer a simple question because it would blow your argument out of the water.
That's cowardly. And anonymity works both ways, sport.
I not only answered your question, I addressed your question. It's not my fault that you can't understand what is being explained. That's an observation, not an insult.
Once again, the key to understanding lies in justification. Justification means that a belief or conviction of truth is adequately supported with evidence.
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
Faith as a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence may or may not be true, but if true, it is true as a matter of luck not justification.
What you stated above is an answer to a question, but not the question I asked.
It's not that I don't understand your answers, sport. You don't understand the question.
In fact, I don't beleve you've understood much of anything I've said on this thread. Take this gem for instance:
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
This may come as a shock to you, but I said the same thing many pages ago. So it's obviously not the answer to a question I would ask, and I find it curious that you feel the need to "enlighten" me on something I've already stipulated.
My question had nothing to do with whether faith is justified. My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
Try answering the question I asked, not the one you want to answer.
What you stated above is an answer to a question, but not the question I asked.
It's not that I don't understand your answers, sport. You don't understand the question.
In fact, I don't beleve you've understood much of anything I've said on this thread. Take this gem for instance:
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
This may come as a shock to you, but I said the same thing many pages ago. So it's obviously not the answer to a question I would ask, and I find it curious that you feel the need to "enlighten" me on something I've already stipulated.
My question had nothing to do with whether faith is justified. My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
Try answering the question I asked, not the one you want to answer.
It's quite clear that you don't understand explanations, or why definitions are given. I gave the definition of faith, not for your benefit, but to be clear on what I was referring to when I used the word (there being a fair bit of equivocation associated with the word ).
Which happens to relate to your question - If two theories contradict each other, are both negated? - for the reasons given: justification.
If you had paid attention to what I said, you'd understand that if two theories contradict each other, either one is wrong and the other is right, or both may be wrong. That depends on evidence.
One with crystals, karma, and good feelings? Don't forget the cannabis and/or shrooms. Or if you wanna go retro we can bring back those guys that bugged everyone at the airports.
Smokepole is apparently incapable of understanding explanations.
How difficult can it be?
If two 'theories' contradict, both cannot be true. One must be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both cannot be true. Whether something is true or false is determined by evidence.
Smokepole is apparently incapable of understanding explanations. .
Incorrect, I understood your "explanation" just fine. It just wasn't an answer to the question I asked.
That answer doesn't require an "explanation," it's a yes or no proposition.
But tell me something, does this technique you're using normally work? You know, the technique wherein you claim to be answering the question put before you but aren't, and insist that the other party just can't understand your answer?
Maybe if you keep repeating it someone will believe you, It might work.
Smokepole is apparently incapable of understanding explanations. .
Incorrect, I understood your "explanation" just fine. It just wasn't an answer to the question I asked.
That answer doesn't require an "explanation," it's a yes or no proposition.
But tell me something, does this technique you're using normally work? You know, the technique wherein you claim to be answering the question put before you but aren't, and insist that the other party just can't understand your answer?
Maybe if you keep repeating it someone will believe you, It might work.
In other words, despite your protestations to the contrary, you did not understand what I said.
And it still remains that faith is not a reliable means for sorting fact from fiction....being probably one of the worst. Flipping coins would be better.
Scientist did an experiment several years ago and in a contolled environment they actually produced the first building block to life that in there opinion proved that evolution is possible! Some other really smart people said that what they actually proved was that intelligent life was able to create the first building block of life!
And it still remains that faith is not a reliable means for sorting fact from fiction...
LOL, who/what are you arguing against, I never said otherwise. You're so wrapped up in your own opinions that you can't even register what I've said or not said. All you can do is argue against your own strawmen. Hopefully, you can win some of those arguments.
I'll admit, it's fascinating to watch.
Originally Posted by smokepole
But tell me something, does this technique you're using normally work? You know, the technique wherein you claim to be answering the question put before you but aren't, and insist that the other party just can't understand your answer?
Maybe if you keep repeating it someone will believe you, It might work.
LOL, who/what are you arguing against, I never said otherwise. You're so wrapped up in your own opinions that you can't even register what I've said or not said. All you can do is argue against your own strawmen. Hopefully, you can win some of those arguments.
LOL, quite a lot of dodging and weaving, smokepole. Even the irony of mentioning 'strawmen' appears to escape you.
The fact being; you asked me a question.
The question you asked was; If two theories contradict each other, are both negated?
To which I replied - If two 'theories' contradict, both cannot be true. One must be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both cannot be true. Whether something is true or false is determined by evidence - which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that I asserted that 'faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths'' and just shows that you failed to understand anything I said, instead relying on your childish antics of derision to get you through (only in the illusion of your own mind)
Originally Posted by smokepole
My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
There lies your error and your strawman. I didn't say that ''faith could be proven wrong due to contradiction'' but that contradictory beliefs cannot all be true, if one is true, the other must be false and to determine the truth requires evidence, not faith.
Poor Smokepole, I hope that you'll eventually understand what is being explained. Maybe a few more times in different ways?
God is said to have created both Satan and Evil. Satan being the agent of God, playing the role he was created for. You need to consider the implications of Omniscience and Omnipotence when it comes to this story.
But that story is wrong. Satan was created with free will and he chose to turn away from God in his pride. As can people.
Decision making is not free will. The decisions you make are determined by a range of factors. Character, personality, your immediate situation, culture, beliefs, etc, etc. An omniscient being knows exactly what will happen and an omnipotent one is able to create the best of all possible worlds.
So we're just God's wind up toys mindlessly going through life? Not buying that.
Where's it say God created evil? Musta missed that.
Nobody made mention of wind up toys. Just the complexity of the decision making process, which can't be reduced to the simplistic notion of 'free will' - as if that explains everything.
Read your bible, it tells you that God creates evil, including those who are 'fitted for destruction' - apparently their sole reason for existing.
In other word, if everyone has 'free will' but not everyone chooses to do evil, rob, kill, plunder.....there are other factors at work. Factors that shape character, personality, wants and needs, including genetics, and consequently, decisions that are made by the individual.
It would make us puppets if our decision making was controlled exclusively by our environment, and the creator who dictated that environment would necessarily be the puppet master. I will not doubt the existence of a transcendent spirit, and therein lies the power of choice. A non-transcendent spirit, existing in only the physical world, is controlled by it's environment.
It would make us puppets if our decision making was controlled exclusively by our environment, and the creator who dictated that environment would necessarily be the puppet master. I will not doubt the existence of a transcendent spirit, and therein lies the power of choice. A non-transcendent spirit, existing in only the physical world, is controlled by it's environment.
Nobody is saying that decision making is ''controlled exclusively by our environment'' least of all me - there are huge leaps made between what I say and the response I get. It's like there is no relationship between what I say and how it's interpreted. Please brush up on the neurocience of decision making.
''Our thoughts, though abstract and vaporous in form, are determined by the actions of specific neuronal circuits in our brains. The interdisciplinary field known as “decision neuroscience” is uncovering those circuits, thereby mapping thinking on a cellular level. Although still a young field, research in this area has exploded in the last decade, with findings suggesting it is possible to parse out the complexity of thinking into its individual components and decipher how they are integrated when we ponder. Eventually, such findings will lead to a better understanding of a wide range of mental disorders, from depression to schizophrenia, as well as explain how exactly we make the multitude of decisions that ultimately shape our destiny.''
Originally Posted by nighthawk
And my bible doesn't say that.
If that refer to the bible saying that God creates evil, it does indeed say that.
"there are other factors at work. Factors that shape character, personality, wants and needs, including genetics, and consequently, decisions that are made by the individual.
Yet say decision making is not dictated by our environment. You lost me. Influenced I'd agree with.
"Our thoughts though abstract and vaporous in form, are determined by the actions of specific neuronal circuits in our brains. "
There is evidence to the contrary. And as best as I can determine it's all very fuzzy, both sides.
"there are other factors at work. Factors that shape character, personality, wants and needs, including genetics, and consequently, decisions that are made by the individual.
Yet say decision making is not dictated by our environment. You lost me. Influenced I'd agree with.
"Our thoughts though abstract and vaporous in form, are determined by the actions of specific neuronal circuits in our brains. "
There is evidence to the contrary. And as best as I can determine it's all very fuzzy, both sides.
It's an interaction of environment and genetics. Our environment provides the information that the brain processes. Your mental abilities, strengths and weakness being determined by neural architecture.
''When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.
Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.
Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.''
- there are huge leaps made between what I say and the response I get.
It's like there is no relationship between what I say and how it's interpreted.
Christians often also make huge leaps from what the Bible says to how they interpret it [or simply ignore it when it suites them]
Why would they treat you any differently?
oNe of the best literal interpretationists of Bible on the CF is Ringman, but he didn't know that God will utterly destroy sinners by incineration - turning them to spent ash, despite Bible metioning such numerous times.
"It's an interaction of environment and genetics. Our environment provides the information that the brain processes. Your mental abilities, strengths and weakness being determined by neural architecture."
So then our choices are the product of environment and genetics? But then wouldn't our choices be dictated by what created that environment and genetics? Still puts us on the level of automatons. Still disregards that part of us which transcends physical laws, including environment and genetics.
Christians often also make huge leaps from what the Bible says to how they interpret it [or simply ignore it when it suites them]
You yourself find the bible self-contradictory if taken literally. It's a principal of hermeneutics to interpret various passages in a way which makes them consistent. Both internally and externally.
"Many Hebrew words have a broad range of meanings. While the Hebrew word translated “evil” in the King James Version usually refers to unethical or immoral activity, it can also mean times of distress (Amos 6:3) and is sometimes contrasted with shalom (peace). "
Part of hermeneutics (love that word) is getting the nuance in the translation right, not the easiest thing even among romance languages.
"It's an interaction of environment and genetics. Our environment provides the information that the brain processes. Your mental abilities, strengths and weakness being determined by neural architecture."
So then our choices are the product of environment and genetics? But then wouldn't our choices be dictated by what created that environment and genetics? Still puts us on the level of automatons. Still disregards that part of us which transcends physical laws, including environment and genetics.
What do you respond to if not your environment. Your environment being composed of everything around you, family, friends, strangers, work, play, animals, plants, objects, events, all being you in relation to your environment and the information that makes up your whole life and existence. Of course it's an interaction.
Christians often also make huge leaps from what the Bible says to how they interpret it [or simply ignore it when it suites them]
You yourself find the bible self-contradictory if taken literally. It's a principal of hermeneutics to interpret various passages in a way which makes them consistent. Both internally and externally.
You can't change the words of the bible from what they say and mean to something that they do not say or mean. If the words state that God is responsible for evil, that is the meaning.
Evolution is a theory. Nobody has ever proven any different.
The problem is, you do not have the slightest clue what a theory is in science. You conflate it with hypothesis and from there, you just can't keep up.
You can't change the words of the bible from what they say and mean to something that they do not say or mean. If the words state that God is responsible for evil, that is the meaning.
Right. The bible was originally written in English and only the KJV was dictated by God. Again, for the reasonable:
The Hebrew word that is translated “evil,” or ra, can indeed mean moral evil such as in Genesis 2:9, “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [ra].” However, ra can also refer to natural evil, such as in Psalm 34:19: “Many are the afflictions (ra) of the righteous; but the LORD delivers him out of them all.”
The Hebrew words used for peace and evil in this verse are shalom and ra. The word shalom is a greeting and along with literally meaning “peace” it is an informal way of wishing someone well. Prior to this verse, Isaiah is describing how God is in complete control of the universe. The Israelite’s suffering is not the result of God being unable to fend off other evil gods, a belief common among non-Jews of the time. Rather, when the Israelites suffer, the prophet has made it clear that God is aware of their suffering and is directing it toward a good end.
You can't change the words of the bible from what they say and mean to something that they do not say or mean. If the words state that God is responsible for evil, that is the meaning.
Right. The bible was originally written in English and only the KJV was dictated by God. Again, for the reasonable:
The Hebrew word that is translated “evil,” or ra, can indeed mean moral evil such as in Genesis 2:9, “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [ra].” However, ra can also refer to natural evil, such as in Psalm 34:19: “Many are the afflictions (ra) of the righteous; but the LORD delivers him out of them all.”
The Hebrew words used for peace and evil in this verse are shalom and ra. The word shalom is a greeting and along with literally meaning “peace” it is an informal way of wishing someone well. Prior to this verse, Isaiah is describing how God is in complete control of the universe. The Israelite’s suffering is not the result of God being unable to fend off other evil gods, a belief common among non-Jews of the time. Rather, when the Israelites suffer, the prophet has made it clear that God is aware of their suffering and is directing it toward a good end.
No, it goes much further than that. It clearly paints a picture of a God in control, not one who lost control because of pesky 'free will' - a God who deliberately creates evil for His own purpose.
That the bible states God as the author of evil cannot be denied;
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''The Lord is a man of war'' Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
LOL, who/what are you arguing against, I never said otherwise. You're so wrapped up in your own opinions that you can't even register what I've said or not said. All you can do is argue against your own strawmen. Hopefully, you can win some of those arguments.
LOL, quite a lot of dodging and weaving, smokepole. Even the irony of mentioning 'strawmen' appears to escape you.
The fact being; you asked me a question.
The question you asked was; If two theories contradict each other, are both negated?
To which I replied - If two 'theories' contradict, both cannot be true. One must be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both cannot be true. Whether something is true or false is determined by evidence - which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that I asserted that 'faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths'' and just shows that you failed to understand anything I said, instead relying on your childish antics of derision to get you through (only in the illusion of your own mind)
Originally Posted by smokepole
My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
There lies your error and your strawman. I didn't say that ''faith could be proven wrong due to contradiction'' but that contradictory beliefs cannot all be true, if one is true, the other must be false and to determine the truth requires evidence, not faith.
Poor Smokepole, I hope that you'll eventually understand what is being explained. Maybe a few more times in different ways?
That's rich, DB. It's true that you didn't explicity say faith could be proven wrong, but you implied as much by discussing all faiths collectively and saying there are "problems with faith" due to contradictions. In saying that you branded all faiths collectively as problematic. You didn't parse it as you did above by saying if one is true, the other must be false, that's obvious. You backtracked later with your "explanations" by saying that faith is not a good way to get at the truth, in this case the truth about evolution. And I agree with that, by the way.
But the erroneous and simple-minded assumption you're making is that all people of faith (or at least all Christians) are creationists and reject evolution, which is obviously not the case. There are plenty of people who believe that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. These people are not looking to their faith to get at the truth about evolution. So your "explanations" are meaningless, and serve no purpose for them. Or me.
LOL, who/what are you arguing against, I never said otherwise. You're so wrapped up in your own opinions that you can't even register what I've said or not said. All you can do is argue against your own strawmen. Hopefully, you can win some of those arguments.
LOL, quite a lot of dodging and weaving, smokepole. Even the irony of mentioning 'strawmen' appears to escape you.
The fact being; you asked me a question.
The question you asked was; If two theories contradict each other, are both negated?
To which I replied - If two 'theories' contradict, both cannot be true. One must be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both cannot be true. Whether something is true or false is determined by evidence - which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that I asserted that 'faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths'' and just shows that you failed to understand anything I said, instead relying on your childish antics of derision to get you through (only in the illusion of your own mind)
Originally Posted by smokepole
My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
There lies your error and your strawman. I didn't say that ''faith could be proven wrong due to contradiction'' but that contradictory beliefs cannot all be true, if one is true, the other must be false and to determine the truth requires evidence, not faith.
Poor Smokepole, I hope that you'll eventually understand what is being explained. Maybe a few more times in different ways?
That's rich, DB. It's true that you didn't explicity say faith could be proven wrong, but you implied as much by discussing all faiths collectively and saying there are "problems with faith" due to contradictions. In saying that you branded all faiths collectively as problematic. You didn't parse it as you did above by saying if one is true, the other must be false, that's obvious. You backtracked later with your "explanations" by saying that faith is not a good way to get at the truth, in this case the truth about evolution. And I agree with that, by the way.
But the erroneous and simple-minded assumption you're making is that all people of faith (or at least all Christians) are creationists and reject evolution, which is obviously not the case. There are plenty of people who believe that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. These people are not looking to their faith to get at the truth about evolution. So your "explanations" are meaningless, and serve no purpose for them. Or me.
Just more long-winded BS.
Offering long winded BS even while complaining about what you see as being long winded BS....that's irony for you.
It doesn't matter that some folk believe that evolution is compatible with the idea of a Creator or 'God' because evolution does not need a Creator as an explanation. Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God.
If people want to believe in the existence of a God, be it Brahma, Allah, Zeus or whatever, as a matter of faith, that is their own business and their right.
Offering long winded BS even while complaining about what you see as being long winded BS....that's irony for you.
That's laughable. There's not a single post I've made that's as long as your average post. It's all there for anyone to see. But just like your "explanations," keep repeating that, it might work.
Originally Posted by DBT
Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God.
So you say. Where's your evidence for that? Specifically, the part about God having nothing to do with it.
Offering long winded BS even while complaining about what you see as being long winded BS....that's irony for you.
That's laughable. There's not a single post I've made that's as long as your average post. It's all there for anyone to see. But just like your "explanations," keep repeating that, it might work.
The post I responded to met all the criteria, length and volume of BS, hence my comment on the irony of it. You dodge that by appealing to averages, lol.
Quote
So you say. Where's your evidence for that?
Found, listed and explained in any textbook on evolution or genetics. Readily available online. There is no sign of the presence of a God who regulates or manipulates genetic activity, for example.
It's too quiet here so I'm going metaphysical to see what happens. Regarding God creating evil, since God is all-good, he cannot engage in moral evil, because it is impossible for him to act against the good (Himself). However, God can cause natural evil (a natural event with at least immediate unsatisfying consequences) because pain can ultimately serve God’s good ends or purpose for creation. It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
It's too quiet here so I'm going metaphysical to see what happens. Regarding God creating evil, since God is all-good, he cannot engage in moral evil, because it is impossible for him to act against the good (Himself). However, God can cause natural evil (a natural event with at least immediate unsatisfying consequences) because pain can ultimately serve God’s good ends or purpose for creation. It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
The bible states far more than ''natural evil'' You appear to be ignoring verses that clearly state that God creates not only evil, not only jealousy, strife and war but the evildoer himself. Once again;
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''The Lord is a man of war'' Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
It's too quiet here so I'm going metaphysical to see what happens. Regarding God creating evil, since God is all-good, he cannot engage in moral evil, because it is impossible for him to act against the good (Himself). However, God can cause natural evil (a natural event with at least immediate unsatisfying consequences) because pain can ultimately serve God’s good ends or purpose for creation. It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
Would human parents bring 'calamity' in the form of war, disease and all forms of unnecessary suffering upon their own children for their own good? I do not mean challenges that build character. ~The Riddle of Epicurus~ Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
There is no sign of the presence of a God who regulates or manipulates genetic activity, for example.
That's a far cry from evidence that God is not involved, don't you think? You made the contention that God is not involved, to prove that requires that you prove the negative, not just say "there's no evidence for it.". Where's your evidence to prove the negative?
I've read a few of those books, nowhere did I see any discussion on any evidence for or against God's involvement.
There is no sign of the presence of a God who regulates or manipulates genetic activity, for example.
That's a far cry from evidence that God is not involved, don't you think? You made the contention that God is not involved, to prove that requires that you prove the negative, not just say "there's no evidence for it.". Where's your evidence to prove the negative?
I've read a few of those books, nowhere did I see any discussion on any evidence for or against God's involvement.
An absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence of absence. If I believe that I left a carton of milk in the fridge, but upon searching for the carton in all the places it could be, I find that there is no carton of milk in the fridge, there is no evidence for the presence of a carton of milk in the fridge. There is no milk in the fridge.
Absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence of absence.
The same for the gods, there is no evidence for the presence of Zeus and his family of gods on Mt Olympus, so there is no reason to believe or be convinced that they are in fact there alive and well on Mt Olympus.
Of course, the gods could be invisible and undetectable, but that's another issue.
There was a man, a sailor, who was tougher than any here. A salve trader, a blasphemer, a non believer if there was one. The man's name was John Newton, you can look him up if you want.
I win the lottery. Did God say I'm deserving or was it a statistical fluke? How would you know?
That's easy. There's no evidence of God's involvement, so that means you're just one lucky SOB.
There was plenty of opportunity for God's involvement "evidence" notwithstanding. So again how would you know He didn't put a thumb on the scale and it's lost in the statistical noise that is probability?
I win the lottery. Did God say I'm deserving or was it a statistical fluke? How would you know?
That's easy. There's no evidence of God's involvement, so that means you're just one lucky SOB.
There was plenty of opportunity for God's involvement "evidence" notwithstanding. So again how would you know He didn't put a thumb on the scale and it's lost in the statistical noise that is probability?
If there are other explanations, reasonable ecplanations that account tor the evidence, it is not reasonable to be convinced that you have evidence for the existence of God. Evolution, for example, does not need a God as an explanation for how it works.
I win the lottery. Did God say I'm deserving or was it a statistical fluke? How would you know?
Statistically speaking, someone is likely to win at some time. It's then that person who thinks 'gosh, how lucky am I" - or if religious, "praise the Lord for His blessing" - never mind the millions of losers.
900 plus replies. Just curious have any minds have come close to changing? PLease let us know if you were formerly agnostic , atheist, or theist-diest, but changed your beliefs after these 44 pages. None of my business, just curious.
I'm not asking what "some" consider good evidence, I'm asking you.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?
An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.
I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.
He's proven it: evolution is a statistical impossibility. In fact, its the impossible odds that convinced long-time atheist intellectual and philosopher Anthony Flew that life could not have begun by chance. Its the long odds that convinced highly regarded philosopher of mind and atheist Thomas Nagel that naturalism (and Neo-Darwinism, its instrumental handmaiden) cannot account for the emergence of or complexity of life on earth. In fact, the odds are so bad for Darwin that even Francis Crick has been forced to hypothecate space aliens as the source of the necessary coded information. Employing Darwin's logic (reasoning from the best explanation) the best explanation is clearly some sort of intelligent causal agent because in all of human experience, Shannon complexity (specified complex information) only comes from mind, from intelligence. That is an irrefutable and irreducible fact.
900 plus replies. Just curious have any minds have come close to changing? PLease let us know if you were formerly agnostic , atheist, or theist-diest, but changed your beliefs after these 44 pages. None of my business, just curious.
I'm not asking what "some" consider good evidence, I'm asking you.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?
An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.
I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.
He's proven it: evolution is a statistical impossibility. In fact, its the impossible odds that convinced long-time atheist intellectual and philosopher Anthony Flew that life could not have begun by chance. Its the long odds that convinced high regarded philosopher of mind and atheist Thomas Nagel that naturalism (and Neo-Darwinism, its instrumental handmaiden) cannot account for the emergence of or complexity of life on earth. In fact, the odds are so bad for Darwin that even Francis Crick has been forced to hypothecate space aliens as the source of the necessary coded information. Employing Darwin's logic (reasoning from the best explanation) the best explanation is clearly some sort of intelligent causal agent because in all of human experience, Shannon complexity (specified complex information) only comes from mind, from intelligence. That is an irrefutable and irreducible fact.
You are imagining things. The statistics prove no such thing. Quoting the beliefs of philosophers offering their views does not negate the evidence for evolution, which is more than sufficient to prove evolution.
Maybe you can back your claim about Crick and 'space aliens?' I think that you are misrepresenting his position.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
900 plus replies. Just curious have any minds have come close to changing? PLease let us know if you were formerly agnostic , atheist, or theist-diest, but changed your beliefs after these 44 pages. None of my business, just curious.
Maybe not here, but minds and beliefs can and do change.
I'm not asking what "some" consider good evidence, I'm asking you.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?
An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.
I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.
Wow, where to begin. Let's start with your hypothetical construct of God "appearing out of nowhere" as your example of good evidence, along with your contention that God should "not have much of a problem" proving to you and I that He exists.
First, it presumes that God needs to "show evidence" or "proof" that he exists. Where does that come from, I find it rather presumptuous. Personally I never thought God owed me anything of the sort, do you think He owes you incontrovertible proof of His existence? What is your presumption based on? Is your concept of God similar to that of a scientist who publishes in peer-reviewed journals and is subject to the same rules as everyone else? Above you describe Him as "all powerful, all knowing," so why would he be subject to the same "rules" that humans are?
It's as if the three year-old boy next door called you a wimp and challenged your manhood, would you feel the need to throw down and show him who's boss?
Next, you skipped right past my question and went straight to the question of God's existence. Which I suspect is the basis of your opinions but it's irrelevant to my question which was: What would you consider good evidence of God's involvement in evolution?
Let's see if you can stay focused on that one. You've cited intelligent design/irreducible complexity but that's not an answer to my question, those are just men's theories. Disproving them just means that the theories don't fit the evidence. The answer to my question is this: Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.
I have read that there is a huge "missing link" in the chain of human evolution, and some other critters. In other words, for some animals we have un-earthed remains of the critter evolving over the eons into what they are now. A clear chain of development so to speak. But with humans and some other animals, my understanding is there is a huge gap in the fossil record between our believed-to-be ancient ancestors and what we are now. If true that leaves open the possibility that a Creator/God made us, or there was some other outside or Alien source that helped us bridge that gap.
If true it seems that true and un-altered Darwinian evolution does not answer our evolution.
I have read that there is a huge "missing link" in the chain of human evolution, and some other critters. In other words, for some animals we have un-earthed remains of the critter evolving over the eons into what they are now. A clear chain of development so to speak. But with humans and some other animals, my understanding is there is a huge gap in the fossil record between our believed-to-be ancient ancestors and what we are now. If true that leaves open the possibility that a Creator/God made us, or there was some other outside or Alien source that helped us bridge that gap.
If true it seems that true and un-altered Darwinian evolution does not answer our evolution.
Missing links can be for many reasons. In some cases, these 'missing links' could still be buried and we just haven't discovered them yet. With millions of years of sediment and erosion cycles as well as plate tectonics, lava flows, and more, a great many of these fossils will also have been lost, and probably all evidence of most species will never be found as a result. What we find are snapshots at various times throughout history, and these snapshots are not daily, weekly or monthly but often hundreds of thousands or millions of years apart. It is often during periods of erosion in an area that we find new fossils, such as in the case of many river beds or desert areas where wind, rain and snow do the work of uncovering previously deposited fossil beds. Paleontology (and archaeology) is like solving a crime with forensics. You don't know everything about what happened, but you do uncover enough to give you some solid ideas on what happened. Often enough to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
None of it proves that there is not a creator. Evolution has no opinion on it. It is only young earth creationists who create the false dichotomy by claiming (foolishly imho) that the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old because Bishop Usher counted all of the days in the bible in a fit of OCD. The bible itself says that the life of a man is but a blink of an eye to God. Were the 7 days of creation 7 man days or 7 God days? It is not for me to say. As far as science is concerned, it is almost impossible to prove that God does not exist and credible scientists do not waste their time trying to do so - they just follow the evidence the universe provides, create hypotheses from those observations, and then test the hypotheses until they are pretty sure (ok, pretty damned sure) they are correct.
I'm not asking what "some" consider good evidence, I'm asking you.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?
An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.
I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.
Wow, where to begin. Let's start with your hypothetical construct of God "appearing out of nowhere" as your example of good evidence, along with your contention that God should "not have much of a problem" proving to you and I that He exists.
Hypothetical construct? You don't realize that God "appearing out of nowhere" was a flippant remark, cynicism, not meant to be taken literally. Look at the context.
Originally Posted by smokepole
First, it presumes that God needs to "show evidence" or "proof" that he exists. Where does that come from, I find it rather presumptuous. Personally I never thought God owed me anything of the sort, do you think He owes you incontrovertible proof of His existence? What is your presumption based on? Is your concept of God similar to that of a scientist who publishes in peer-reviewed journals and is subject to the same rules as everyone else? Above you describe Him as "all powerful, all knowing," so why would he be subject to the same "rules" that humans are?
It has nothing to do with 'God having to show evidence.' The question being; is there evidence for the existence of a God? The answer; there is not. The world appears to function naturally according to physical principles.
It doesn't matter if the universe is teeming with gods, one hidden in every nook and cranny, one to blow the wind, one to form waves on the oceans, keep the currents moving....if there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods, it is not justified to be convinced that a hidden God or gods exist. The question of their existence is mere speculation
Originally Posted by smokepole
[quote=DBT] It's as if the three year-old boy next door called you a wimp and challenged your manhood, would you feel the need to throw down and show him who's boss?
Next, you skipped right past my question and went straight to the question of God's existence. Which I suspect is the basis of your opinions but it's irrelevant to my question which was: What would you consider good evidence of God's involvement in evolution?
Let's see if you can stay focused on that one. You've cited intelligent design/irreducible complexity but that's not an answer to my question, those are just men's theories. Disproving them just means that the theories don't fit the evidence. The answer to my question is this: Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.
Your initial assumption was false, then you gleefully run with it as if you are making some sort of a real point. The actual point being justification of belief. Justification entails evidence. If there is a hidden God, an undetectable God, a God that does not interact with its Creation...that is the same as no God at all. We know nothing about it.
Quote
''Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.''
As pointed out before, if there is a God involved with evolution, would you not expect to see some sign of manipulation? Some sign of purpose? So again, justification of belief, if God exists but is undetectable, what reason do we have to be convinced in the existence of a God?
The ''mathematical challenge to evolution'' is based on a set of assumptions that do not necessarily represent the full picture of evolutionary processses, regardless of mathematical or theoretical modelling, evolution itself is a reality. The problems lie in the modelling not the evidence.
''Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.''
As pointed out before, if there is a God involved with evolution, would you not expect to see some sign of manipulation? Some sign of purpose? So again, justification of belief, if God exists but is undetectable, what reason do we have to be convinced in the existence of a God?
Let me see if I've got this straight. The evidence you'd look for to determine if God is involved in evolution is "some sign of manipulation" or "some sign of purpose." In other words, you don't really know what you're looking for.
But you believe that since you haven't found it, it doesn't exist. Does that about sum it up?
Sounds like the scientific method at its finest. Is the absence of evidence evidence of absence,when you don't really know what you're looking for?
When you answer, keep this in mind: I'm not the one trying to prove a point here, you are. I didn't say there was evidence of God's involvement, you said God was not involved and I asked how you knew that. So don't keep asking me what I think the evidence would look like, I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know.
I'm not asking what "some" consider good evidence, I'm asking you.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?
An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.
I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.
He's proven it: evolution is a statistical impossibility. In fact, its the impossible odds that convinced long-time atheist intellectual and philosopher Anthony Flew that life could not have begun by chance. Its the long odds that convinced high regarded philosopher of mind and atheist Thomas Nagel that naturalism (and Neo-Darwinism, its instrumental handmaiden) cannot account for the emergence of or complexity of life on earth. In fact, the odds are so bad for Darwin that even Francis Crick has been forced to hypothecate space aliens as the source of the necessary coded information. Employing Darwin's logic (reasoning from the best explanation) the best explanation is clearly some sort of intelligent causal agent because in all of human experience, Shannon complexity (specified complex information) only comes from mind, from intelligence. That is an irrefutable and irreducible fact.
You are imagining things. The statistics prove no such thing. Quoting the beliefs of philosophers offering their views does not negate the evidence for evolution, which is more than sufficient to prove evolution.
Maybe you can back your claim about Crick and 'space aliens?' I think that you are misrepresenting his position.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
The atheistic/materialistic evolutionary hypothesis can be completely dismissed on the basis of mathematical and statistical improbability, as a valid scientific theory to explain the origin of the cosmos. It only continues to exist as a theory because there is a subjective prejudice against the objective evidence that requires intelligent Design. No court case of liberals can successfully refute the logic of statistical and mathematical probability--they can only overrule it--which is what liberals do with truth.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
We know enough already to know this model will never be developed because we already know it is impossible. We also know that just like liberalism, which is also bereft of sound logic, it will continue to be popular among those who want to believe it.
Science requires the miracle of creation because it has already proven that it cannot start without that pre-existing miracle to have first occurred. In other words science and logic require a start from something that is eternally self-existent in order to provide a starting point for science to have something to study and observe.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
We know enough already to know this model will never be developed because we already know it is impossible. We also know that just like liberalism, which is also bereft of sound logic, it will continue to be popular among those who want to believe it.
Science requires the miracle of creation because it has already proven that it cannot start without that pre-existing miracle to have first occurred. In other words science and logic require a start from something that is eternally self-existent in order to provide a starting point for science to have something to study and observe.
''Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.''
As pointed out before, if there is a God involved with evolution, would you not expect to see some sign of manipulation? Some sign of purpose? So again, justification of belief, if God exists but is undetectable, what reason do we have to be convinced in the existence of a God?
Let me see if I've got this straight. The evidence you'd look for to determine if God is involved in evolution is "some sign of manipulation" or "some sign of purpose." In other words, you don't really know what you're looking for.
I am not the one making the claim of Gods existence or presence in world, be it evolution or anything else. It's not up to me to disprove. I can only point out that there is no evidence for it, hence no reason to believe it.
It falls on the claimant to prove their own claim.
Originally Posted by smokepole
But you believe that since you haven't found it, it doesn't exist. Does that about sum it up?
No. You are making up your own narrative. It was and still is about justification. It doesn't matter whether a God exists or a million gods exist, without evidence it is not justified to believe in their existence. If someone believes that a God exists, it's up to them to prove their claim.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Sounds like the scientific method at its finest. Is the absence of evidence evidence of absence,when you don't really know what you're looking for?
What is being looked at, examined, evaluated, tested, is how evolution works, the mechanisms by which evolution works, and as it stands it is not necessary to propose a creator as an explanation for evolution.
If someone makes that claim, it falls upon the claimant to prove their proposition.
Originally Posted by smokepole
When you answer, keep this in mind: I'm not the one trying to prove a point here, you are. I didn't say there was evidence of God's involvement, you said God was not involved and I asked how you knew that. So don't keep asking me what I think the evidence would look like, I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know.
What I actually said was: there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is supposed to be), nor is such a thing necessary to explain evolution or how it works.
The claim that God, whatever that is, has a hand in evolution is a claim that theists make, therefore it is up to the theist to explain what precisely they mean by ''God'' and how this ''God'' has a hand in evolution.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether this analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is to essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally vapid, nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem is really nothing more than hand-waving. It is therefore not much of a response at all. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out, but calling his analysis an expression of faith is not merely utterly stupid, it is false. By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith!
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence.
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence.
Stupid you say? Stupid is offering faith and opinion instead of evidence and research as if opinion and faith means something. Stupid is asserting the existence of supernatural agency when there is no evidence for it.
Stupidity is clinging to the creation myths of bronze age goat herders as if they are actual explanations for the existence of the universe and life. Each faith asserting its own version of truth, fighting and arguing over points of meaningless dogma. There lies the stupidity.
Try again when you have an actual argument to offer.
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
This is simply more obfuscation. You don't have a cosmos until you consider all the factors needed to make a cosmos. This line of reasoning does not prove anything other than that in a controlled environment, with in an induced model, certain aspects life of forms can propagate. This does not even come close to engaging with the real issues of spontaneous generation on a cosmic scale through random processes.
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence.
Stupid you say? Stupid is offering faith and opinion instead of evidence and research as if opinion and faith means something. Stupid is asserting the existence of supernatural agency when there is no evidence for it.
Stupidity is clinging to the creation myths of bronze age goat herders as if they are actual explanations for the existence of the universe and life. Each faith asserting its own version of truth, fighting and arguing over points of meaningless dogma. There lies the stupidity.
Try again when you have an actual argument to offer.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
[quote=Thunderstick]How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
Jesus, you are one stupid man DBT. Of course Thunderstick is offering his opinion (analysis actually). The issue is whether his analysis is correct. Merely because it is "his" however does make it incorrect. Therefore, responding to his analysis by saying "you are merely offering your opinion" is essentially to respond with unintelligible nonsense. Your statement that his opinion is "the expression of his faith" is equally nonsensical and and utterly false. In the first place, are all opinions mere expressions of faith, or just the ones you don't like? But Thunderstick pointed out quite cogently that the article you "cut and pasted" in response to the statistical problem evolution must overcome to be true is really nothing more than hand-waving. His response was quite substantive. He did not offer a belief held without evidence, he offered a logical deconstruction of the article you pasted. If you want to refute him, knock yourself out by address his actual argument. But calling his analysis an expression of faith is no response at all because his deconstruction of your cut and paste is in o way an expression of faith. Its an actual argument! By the way, if you want to talk about faith, then let's discuss the faith required to belief in the neo-Darwinian creation story---that against impossible statistical odds, evolution just has to be true because our a priori commitment to materialism demands a naturalistic creation story. Talk about metaphysical faith! Oh and by the way, faith is not a belief held without evidence. It is a belief held where the evidence is insufficient to provide certain knowledge. You've just demonstrated that you're unable to understand, conceptualize and articulate the definition of even a simple one syllable word. Come back when you've gained some intelligence.
and then he quotes other's viewpoints as if they are not opinions...
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
Soldier on.
Eliminate atheistic/materialistic evolution and Communism has no starting point and would never have been propagated. Communism has clearly failed and shown that a state created opiate can fail and leave behind a lot of disillusionment in its wake. Its starting point is the very premise that we are discussing. This all could be considered humorous from an intellectual stand point, if it were not true, and if it had not produced such horrific results. Both evolution and Communism rely on false scientific propaganda and the premise that theism should be eradicated. Both systems of thought have proven that the masses of the people, and the masses of scientists can blindly accept state supported propaganda. Evolutionary theory today is largely state regulated propaganda that is required to be taught in the classroom--which goes against the Declaration of Independence which supports the equal creation of all mankind.
When skeptics cannot reply with a substantive argument, they resort to scorn--and they continue on the road of scorn until they implode from within.
I don't see a reason to be upset either way you currently believe. I believe in both creation and evolution. If something powerful enough to create something from nothing it is certainly able to manipulate time. Science has proven this with quantum mechanics. It is inexplicable but true. The Bible is a manual for a good life, much of it in parables, and I do believe in good and evil forces that are simply around us. The Bible even predicts the science and does not give us more than humans can conceptualize. It doesn't say there were no dinosaurs either. Time can be manipulated concurrently, back and forth and over great distances- Quantum science says so. Humans don't have the understanding how( and never will)God Bless you all.
Uh ... Communists have conflated atheism, evolution, and Communism for decades. I am merely pointing out their affinity for atheistic evolution and their conflation of those principles.
To clarify -- theists largely believe in adaptation and evolutionary processes within a species over time. They do not believe that it is a viable starting point for the universe.
Evolution as a starting point for the cosmos cannot be scientifically proven, but yet is required by the state to be taught in the schools. This makes it pretty clear that it is simply state propaganda.
What I actually said was: there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is supposed to be), nor is such a thing necessary to explain evolution or how it works.
No, that's wrong. What you "actually said" went quite a bit further than that, here it is verbatim:
Originally Posted by DBT
Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God.
What you "actually said" was a definitive statement with no qualifiers. That's why I'm asking you for the evidence you're using to support your contention that God is not involved with evolution. Are you backing off that now? If so, go ahead and admit that what you actually said was wrong, don't just deny you said it. That would be "cowardly" as you put it.
You've said repeatedly that there is no evidence that God is involved with evolution and I've never challenged that. Because in your context of scientific evidence, I don't believe there is, and I don't believe it can be "proven" scientifically one way or the other. Because I'm not one who believes that we currently understand everything there is to know about the universe and how it works. Are you?
Earlier, you laid out your concept of God as being "all-powerful" and "all-knowing." Either that was a strawman you created to argue that such a being "should have no problem proving His existence" or you actually believe it. If you actually believe that there could be a Creator that is all-powerful and all-knowing, why on earth would you presume that you or anyone else is capable of understanding how He operates?
It is a good conversation, in my opinion human kind has not the ability to grasp this concept. I read the bible daily and see something new in it often. Perhaps one of the false prophets is the total belief in science ? Just putting it out there. I keep my cowboy bible handy and old style King Jame's version by the bed. The mystery of faith- love it.
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
Soldier on.
In thinking further--this is a very interesting postulation--because in order for it to be true a person would need a perfect knowledge of the entire internet. Obviously lacking the substance of that knowledge we are left with a speculative emotional outburst. But setting that aside, do I get some form of an honorary degree for achieving this status?
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.
Well first of all the thread is about whether evolution is a myth, and evolution states that it is based wholly on science. But science cannot prove evolution as a starting point, so it fails.
To entertain the question ... Some things are proven by deduction and positive evidence. Mathematical calculations make it quite clear that the first existence needs to be an uncaused first cause and a miraculous beginning. So yes I have faith in what the evidence shows whereas in your position you have doubt in what the evidence shows. In this case there is far more scientific evidence for faith than doubt.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.
Well first of all the thread is about whether evolution is a myth, and evolution states that it is based wholly on science. But science cannot prove evolution as a starting point, so it fails.
To entertain the question ... Some things are proven by deduction and positive evidence. Mathematical calculations make it quite clear that the first existence needs to be an uncaused first cause and a miraculous beginning. So yes I have faith in what the evidence shows whereas in your position you have doubt in what the evidence shows. In this case there is far more scientific evidence for faith than doubt.
So we can assume that you probably have not looked into the assumptions and the math based on those assumptions.
Was hoping you would be able to defend your position with a real mathematical proof.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.
How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.
Well first of all the thread is about whether evolution is a myth, and evolution states that it is based wholly on science. But science cannot prove evolution as a starting point, so it fails.
To entertain the question ... Some things are proven by deduction and positive evidence. Mathematical calculations make it quite clear that the first existence needs to be an uncaused first cause and a miraculous beginning. So yes I have faith in what the evidence shows whereas in your position you have doubt in what the evidence shows. In this case there is far more scientific evidence for faith than doubt.
So we can assume that you probably have not looked into the assumptions and the math based on those assumptions.
Was hoping you would be able to defend your position with a real mathematical proof.
Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.
and that evolution is a flawed system. I could could agree with both points.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.
No. The experiment shows that the neo-Darwinian claim that time and chance can create life or even alter a life form is unlikely to be true.
Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.
Hmmmm. A clever twist on argumentum ad verecundiam, I'll grant you that.
A good summary of the problem: "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor)... It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.' Design is a search problem and this is what kills Darwinism, let me quote Stephen Meyer: 'Natural Selection selects for the functional advantage, but the mutational search has to find it within the combinatorial sequence that's being explored...natural selection doesn't work until you have something functional to be selected.' Ultimately, Darwinians are unable to respond to the high level of randomness required to create a certain protein before natural selection could begin to choose it.
Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.
Hmmmm. A clever twist on argumentum ad verecundiam, I'll grant you that.
He didn't make an argument from authority dunce. He merely pointed out that the math doesn't support Neo-Darwinism's claims.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.
No. The experiment shows that the neo-Darwinian claim that time and chance can create life or even alter a life form is unlikely to be true.
Your conclusion is pretty much out over your skis.
Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.
Hmmmm. A clever twist on argumentum ad verecundiam, I'll grant you that.
He didn't make an argument from authority dunce. He merely pointed out that the math doesn't support Neo-Darwinism's claims.
Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.
“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”
And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.
Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.
and that evolution is a flawed system. I could could agree with both points.
You've not yet proved that evolution is a flawed system .
Making it simple: 1. Logic requires a pre-existing designer to precede a designed entity--apply this to God and the cosmos 2. Statistics argue for the same and show the improbability of a random process duplicating what typically happens in a logical process 3. Complex math cannot be done to show something contrary to what logic and statistics have already shown 4. Common math can support the logic of a designer and a design and can quantify when it occurs statistically.
Common math proves the existence of a pre-existing intelligent designer preceding intelligent design because it can quantify when it occurs. Complex math cannot disprove this proposition. Therefore both common and complex math support the existence of an intelligent designer known as God.
Making it simple: 1. Logic requires a pre-existing designer to precede a designed entity--apply this to God and the cosmos 2. Statistics argue for the same and show the improbability of a random process duplicating what typically happens in a logical process 3. Complex math cannot be done to show something contrary to what logic and statistics have already shown 4. Common math can support the logic of a designer and a design and can quantify when it occurs statistically.
Common math proves the existence of a pre-existing intelligent designer preceding intelligent design because it can quantify when it occurs. Complex math cannot disprove this proposition. Therefore both common and complex math support the existence of an intelligent designer known as God.
If the math is so common, please explain. Show your work.
One thing we know too, even from something as simple as baseball is that stats matter. Yeah, a career .200 hitter will jump up and go five for five from time to time. But if he has been a career .200 hitter long enough, that is the level he will come back to.
So, yes, it is possible that there will be random mutations that occur despite the unimaginable probabilities involved. And given the diversity of life, there will be lots of examples, just like you could probably find hundreds of examples of the .200 hitters having big days in 150 years of MLB. But in the end, the numbers win.
Making it simple: 1. Logic requires a pre-existing designer to precede a designed entity--apply this to God and the cosmos 2. Statistics argue for the same and show the improbability of a random process duplicating what typically happens in a logical process 3. Complex math cannot be done to show something contrary to what logic and statistics have already shown 4. Common math can support the logic of a designer and a design and can quantify when it occurs statistically.
Common math proves the existence of a pre-existing intelligent designer preceding intelligent design because it can quantify when it occurs. Complex math cannot disprove this proposition. Therefore both common and complex math support the existence of an intelligent designer known as God.
If the math is so common, please explain. Show your work.
Seriously, you are obfuscating the obvious ... I have yet to see a building that did not have a builder and we all can count when that occurs. Math problem: I building here plus 2 buildings there = 3 buildings all of which had a builder.
Making it simple: 1. Logic requires a pre-existing designer to precede a designed entity--apply this to God and the cosmos 2. Statistics argue for the same and show the improbability of a random process duplicating what typically happens in a logical process 3. Complex math cannot be done to show something contrary to what logic and statistics have already shown 4. Common math can support the logic of a designer and a design and can quantify when it occurs statistically.
Common math proves the existence of a pre-existing intelligent designer preceding intelligent design because it can quantify when it occurs. Complex math cannot disprove this proposition. Therefore both common and complex math support the existence of an intelligent designer known as God.
If the math is so common, please explain. Show your work.
Seriously, you are obfuscating the obvious ... I have yet to see a building that did not have a builder and we all can count when that occurs. Math problem: I building here plus 2 buildings there = 3 buildings all of which had a builder.
That you have shown you cannot distinguish apples from oranges explains how you have confused yourself.
I am late to the discussion, and I have little desire to scan 42 pages for the possibility that this been mentioned, but has anyone considered...
What if evolution is God's creative power put into practice?
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
Also, what if this is all (for us humans) a continual progression to becoming someone (something) greater, roughly compared to Hindu beliefs?
Example: 3,000 years ago, let's say you were a beetle in the S. Pacific. Having lived that life, your next life is a progression to say, a snake. You are born a garden snake, live out that life successfully, and then are born as a goat. You live life as a goat, die, and then are born as a horse, etc... Perhaps it takes us 3000 years of progression to become human?
Or, alternately, you are a slow learner and you are now on your 68th trip to Earth. You are learning, growing, and progressing each time you are born and die. What about disabled children who are born and pass on at a young age? Perhaps they are WAY beyond you and I in progression and don't need to do anything except that final task of enduring that struggle?
Carbon 12 if you think you can provide solid evidence for materialistic evolution being the genesis of the universe please enlighten us.
Question makes no sense and indicates the poster doesn't understand much.
Evolution did not provide the genesis of the universe. Evolution only occurred long after the genesis of the universe and also after the first life.
The big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. Life did not arise until about 10 billion years later (at least not on earth, which is 4.6 billion years old). it has been evolving ever since, though for most of the 4 billlion years life has existed, it was simply one-celled stuff.
I am late to the discussion, and I have little desire to scan 42 pages for the possibility that this been mentioned, but has anyone considered...
What if evolution is God's creative power put into practice?
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
Also, what if this is all (for us humans) a continual progression to becoming someone (something) greater, roughly compared to Hindu beliefs?
Example: 3,000 years ago, let's say you were a beetle in the S. Pacific. Having lived that life, your next life is a progression to say, a snake. You are born a garden snake, live out that life successfully, and then are born as a goat. You live life as a goat, die, and then are born as a horse, etc... Perhaps it takes us 3000 years of progression to become human?
Or, alternately, you are a slow learner and you are now on your 68th trip to Earth. You are learning, growing, and progressing each time you are born and die. What about disabled children who are born and pass on at a young age? Perhaps they are WAY beyond you and I in progression and don't need to do anything except that final task of enduring that struggle?
Just a few things to mull over...
Every thing you said is plain stupid. If you believe god created you then STFU because what you believe dosen't matter...
After the alleged Big Bang and the alleged intervening 10 billion years what spontaneously and randomly caused the alleged evolutionary processes to start?
I am late to the discussion, and I have little desire to scan 42 pages for the possibility that this been mentioned, but has anyone considered...
What if evolution is God's creative power put into practice?
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
Also, what if this is all (for us humans) a continual progression to becoming someone (something) greater, roughly compared to Hindu beliefs?
Example: 3,000 years ago, let's say you were a beetle in the S. Pacific. Having lived that life, your next life is a progression to say, a snake. You are born a garden snake, live out that life successfully, and then are born as a goat. You live life as a goat, die, and then are born as a horse, etc... Perhaps it takes us 3000 years of progression to become human?
Or, alternately, you are a slow learner and you are now on your 68th trip to Earth. You are learning, growing, and progressing each time you are born and die. What about disabled children who are born and pass on at a young age? Perhaps they are WAY beyond you and I in progression and don't need to do anything except that final task of enduring that struggle?
Just a few things to mull over...
Every thing you said is plain stupid. If you believe god created you then STFU because what you believe dosen't matter...
Hey Stubert- did you see all those little punctuation marks at the end of each sentence? They look like this: ? Since you apparently need an introduction to basic English grammar, those marks indicate a question is being asked. Here is more grammar for you, F*ckwit: A question proposes an idea, it does not state a fact. Are these words small enough for you to understand? It's a typical Bolshevik reaction, yours. Also typically leftist- shout down all ideas and theories which don't support your self-centered little thoughts.
Statements like this prove my theory about your level of education: "...( this was a matiance free battery)" WTF is a matiance free battery...notice I left the question mark off so you could catch a clue.
After the alleged Big Bang and the alleged intervening 10 billion years what spontaneously and randomly caused the alleged evolutionary processes to start?
No one knows for sure---yet. But we are certain how life evolved once it existed.
I am late to the discussion, and I have little desire to scan 42 pages for the possibility that this been mentioned, but has anyone considered...
What if evolution is God's creative power put into practice?
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
Also, what if this is all (for us humans) a continual progression to becoming someone (something) greater, roughly compared to Hindu beliefs?
Example: 3,000 years ago, let's say you were a beetle in the S. Pacific. Having lived that life, your next life is a progression to say, a snake. You are born a garden snake, live out that life successfully, and then are born as a goat. You live life as a goat, die, and then are born as a horse, etc... Perhaps it takes us 3000 years of progression to become human?
Or, alternately, you are a slow learner and you are now on your 68th trip to Earth. You are learning, growing, and progressing each time you are born and die. What about disabled children who are born and pass on at a young age? Perhaps they are WAY beyond you and I in progression and don't need to do anything except that final task of enduring that struggle?
Just a few things to mull over...
Every thing you said is plain stupid. If you believe god created you then STFU because what you believe dosen't matter...
Hey Stubert- did you see all those little punctuation marks at the end of each sentence? They look like this: ? Since you apparently need an introduction to basic English grammar, those marks indicate a question is being asked. Here is more grammar for you, F*ckwit: A question proposes an idea, it does not state a fact. Are these words small enough for you to understand? It's a typical Bolshevik reaction, yours. Also typically leftist- shout down all ideas and theories which don't support your self-centered little thoughts.
Statements like this prove my theory about your level of education: "...( this was a matiance free battery)" WTF is a matiance free battery...notice I left the question mark off so you could catch a clue.
3584elk, contrary to the popular mantra, not all questions are good questions. Obviously, you are not asking a serious question, why dignify it with a serious answer. Try a little harder at your facetious questions next time.
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
No. You are mistakenly assuming that humans are descended from living apes. In fact, humans and modern apes are both descended from an earlier species of ape.
If a population is separated into two groups, living in different environments, each group will evolve different characteristics and (eventually) not be able to mate with the other group. For instance Caucasians and Asians separated from Negroes about 70,000 years ago. Each group has evolved many features different from the other though they can still interbreed. Humans and [bleep] separated much earlier, about 7 million years ago. They have greater differences and cannot interbreed.
Incidentally humans are more closely related to [bleep] than [bleep] are to gorillas.
Thanks for the honesty. Why does God "need" to be created if nothing else does in the universe?
God didn't necessarily "need" to be created. So how could God "always" exist? Perhaps what was created was time, and without time the word "always" has no meaning. We know for a fact that "time" was created along with all matter, energy, and even the laws of physics, by the big bang. Incidentally that means that physics can never discover what caused the Big Bang or whether or not something called "God" did it.
This is simply more obfuscation. You don't have a cosmos until you consider all the factors needed to make a cosmos. This line of reasoning does not prove anything other than that in a controlled environment, with in an induced model, certain aspects life of forms can propagate. This does not even come close to engaging with the real issues of spontaneous generation on a cosmic scale through random processes.
No it's not. The article simply exposes the dishonesty and the tactics of Theists who make false claims about evolution and statistical probability.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
and then he quotes other's viewpoints as if they are not opinions...
Which shows that you have no understanding of science. Religion is your thing. Creation through Magic. Rather than scientific research into the natural world, preferring the explanation that a Magical undetectable Entity did it, ancient mythology over reason.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
It's quite ironic when the purveyors of Bronze age myths talk about the intelligence of their opponents. But that's the nature and tactics of faith when under threat for you.
What I actually said was: there is no evidence for the existence of a God (whatever that is supposed to be), nor is such a thing necessary to explain evolution or how it works.
No, that's wrong. What you "actually said" went quite a bit further than that, here it is verbatim:
Originally Posted by DBT
Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God.
What you "actually said" was a definitive statement with no qualifiers. That's why I'm asking you for the evidence you're using to support your contention that God is not involved with evolution. Are you backing off that now? If so, go ahead and admit that what you actually said was wrong, don't just deny you said it. That would be "cowardly" as you put it.
You've said repeatedly that there is no evidence that God is involved with evolution and I've never challenged that. Because in your context of scientific evidence, I don't believe there is, and I don't believe it can be "proven" scientifically one way or the other. Because I'm not one who believes that we currently understand everything there is to know about the universe and how it works. Are you?
Earlier, you laid out your concept of God as being "all-powerful" and "all-knowing." Either that was a strawman you created to argue that such a being "should have no problem proving His existence" or you actually believe it. If you actually believe that there could be a Creator that is all-powerful and all-knowing, why on earth would you presume that you or anyone else is capable of understanding how He operates?
If you can't see that there are no contradictions between 'Life evolves for reasons that have nothing to do with a God'' and ''there is no evidence for the existence of a God'' or that ''evolution does not need a creator/god as explanation'' there is no hope of understanding.
Once again, evolution does not need a Creator as an explanation for how organisms adapt and evolve. Therefore the burden of proof falls upon those who make the claim of creation, intelligent design or irreducible complexity.
In other words, justification of beliefs and claims.
God, being undetectable, is not something that is falsifiable. You can claim Micky Mouse runs the Universe for all its worth.
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
No. You are mistakenly assuming that humans are descended from living apes. In fact, humans and modern apes are both descended from an earlier species of ape.
If a population is separated into two groups, living in different environments, each group will evolve different characteristics and (eventually) not be able to mate with the other group. For instance Caucasians and Asians separated from Negroes about 70,000 years ago. Each group has evolved many features different from the other though they can still interbreed. Humans and [bleep] separated much earlier, about 7 million years ago. They have greater differences and cannot interbreed.
Incidentally humans are more closely related to [bleep] than [bleep] are to gorillas.
Who are these bleeps you keep referring to? Are you trying to type chimpanzees?
You can claim Micky Mouse runs the Universe for all its worth.
You still don't get it. I'm not claiming anything, you are.
I am pointing out that there is abundant evidence to support the reality of natural evolution and absolutely none for the existence of a God....whatever that is supposed to be. Therefore the former is an observation and the latter a claim...a faith based claim.
The chances of an explosion causing the formation of one protein out of hundreds it takes to make a cell is 1x10 to the 27th power.
IOW, put all the components in a pile and explode it enough times to end up with an airliner and that's the chances of creating one cell protein.
The Lord has set a great dilusion on you.
The mathematical odds you give being meaningless because there are more than a few models on the table. The fact is, it is not known whether time and the universe began with the BB or its cyclic or a part of an infinite multiverse, etc, etc.
It is the theist who claims knowledge where none exists. It is the theist who claims the existence of a God or gods that created the universe.
You're a fanatical troll that waits for any type of thread that involves religion, then you wade in with your bullshit google-bombs.
Alla these posts of yours, completely incompetent and a waste of time, fortunately yours.
You've changed no opinion, except from those that might have considered you a serious fire member, before you started your crusade against religion.
Insults and baseless allegations being the standard fallback for the theist. Circle the wagons and fire away. Ammo is cheap when you can make it up at will.
Darwinian evolution can explain the selection of the mutation but it cannot explain the arrival of the mutation.
The arrival of the mutation? Mutations happen quite frequently in the animal kingdom anyway.
Did you never do the fruitfly experiment in 10'th grade biology? In just a few weeks you can observe many mutated specimens produced from a population contained within a quart mason jar.
Modern man contains many genes which simply can not be found in remains from hominid populations of 100,000 years ago. The source of those genes is mutations. Populations which migrated out of Africa carry many genes which are not found in the peoples left behind. If it were not for mutations acquired by different human populations at different times in history, "23 and Me" would have no way to determine the source of our ancestry. We would all still be carrying the same genes we left Africa with.
Human population is still evolving. We are selectively breeding humans for low intelligence and low motivation.
No? What are the fastest growing populations across the world? Hint, of the top twenty only Iraq lies north of Egypt. China and India no longer make the cut of the top twenty in % rate of population increase.
Even in America, which populations are growing fastest? Hint again? It is not College Professors, Bank Managers, Captains of Industry, or those holding advanced Engineering degrees.
If a description of your behavior is an insult, you can only blame yourself.
It is the descriptions, being expressions of the theists defence mechanism, that are false, being false, they are intended to insult and discourage rational discussion or argument. Ad Homs instead of arguments. Reducing 'discussion' to a pissing contest in order to avoid the facing the truth.
This is simply more obfuscation. You don't have a cosmos until you consider all the factors needed to make a cosmos. This line of reasoning does not prove anything other than that in a controlled environment, with in an induced model, certain aspects life of forms can propagate. This does not even come close to engaging with the real issues of spontaneous generation on a cosmic scale through random processes.
Nor did the question of the Original Post engage the issue of spontaneous generation on a cosmic scale.
The theory of evolution is an invention of scientists that get paid ta study the theory of evolution.
The blind dedication to an article of faith is a valid corollary.
And the waste of time dedicated to such a worthless theory could only be maintained by those with an economic interest in being the beneficiary of the funding of the theory.
For the pure theory of evolution to work, using the idea humans that descended from apes, wouldn't the apes be therefore extinct?
No. You are mistakenly assuming that humans are descended from living apes. In fact, humans and modern apes are both descended from an earlier species of ape.
If a population is separated into two groups, living in different environments, each group will evolve different characteristics and (eventually) not be able to mate with the other group. For instance Caucasians and Asians separated from Negroes about 70,000 years ago. Each group has evolved many features different from the other though they can still interbreed. Humans and [bleep] separated much earlier, about 7 million years ago. They have greater differences and cannot interbreed.
Incidentally humans are more closely related to [bleep] than [bleep] are to gorillas.
Americans came from British. By Elks logic, there should be no more British.
Readin the thread, and seein the fanatic blind faith of evolutionians, helps me understand how muslims recruit homicide bombers.
It is actually folks like you that made me realize a long time ago that it was man that created god and not the other way around.
Your 72 virgins told you that.
72 virgins is an invention of some followers of "The God of Abraham." Never heard of such from a student of Biology and Paleontology.
And the 72 virgins is a mis-translation from the underlying plagiarized Coptic. It's 72 Raisins, not virgins awaiting the martyrs in Paradise.....or is it Virgins that are shriveled up like raisins?
You walk outside to take a leak tonight. Look up at that moon and the star just off it to the southwest which will be there in the same suspended in orbit position next year and in 10 more years after your buds and maybe you have died, just as it was 2000 years ago after He died for us.
Then, tell me the explosion that made us just stopped in midstream and make your plans to go to Hell.
Yet it remains true that evolution is an evidence based reality and a belief in the existence of God or gods (there are so many versions) is a matter of faith.
Yet it remains true that evolution is an evidence based reality and a belief in the existence of God or gods (there are so many versions) is a matter of faith.
You're really sensitive about your faith in the theory of evolution being seen as the same as faith in theology.
Hard ta delude yourself into your delusions of superiority, when your faith is the same as anyone else's, although in a different direction.
You walk outside to take a leak tonight. Look up at that moon and the star just off it to the southwest which will be there in the same suspended in orbit position next year and in 10 more years after your buds and maybe you have died, just as it was 2000 years ago after He died for us.
Then, tell me the explosion that made us just stopped in midstream and make your plans to go to Hell.
Yeah, it was a accident.
Hahaha. You deniers speak from a position of hope. Hahaha, I wonder why. You seem to hope HE fulfills the fruit of thy lips.
Yet it remains true that evolution is an evidence based reality and a belief in the existence of God or gods (there are so many versions) is a matter of faith.
You're really sensitive about your faith in the theory of evolution being seen as the same as faith in theology.
Still a false assertion. Perhaps a bit of study on evolution may help. I doubt it though. Some folks just prefer their own beliefs.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Hard ta delude yourself into your delusions of superiority, when your faith is the same as anyone else's, although in a different direction.
Which is of course what makes you inferior.
Who is actually assuming 'superiority' when one side is referring to evidence and ongoing research, science being a work in progress where assumptions are tested, and the other side claiming absolute knowledge, that a God (whatever that's supposed to be) created the universe and all that's in it....because that's what it says in this or that holy book, or it happens to be emotionally appealing?
You hide behind your claim that because your faith in the theory of evolution is based in science, it is superior to another's faith in theology, which may, or may not, be based in science.
Faith is faith, no matter the source.
But there's no doubt that faith in theology is superior, because at the least, theology as a social control agent provides a benefit to society, whereas faith in the theory of evolution, and all its studies, provide no benefit to society.
You can't prove a scientific theory so God must have done it.
Round and round we go.
There is no evidence for the existence of a God or gods, so there is no reason to be convinced in their existence.
Of course there is but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an ontological proof. Same is true of science as far as cosmology goes.
Obviously not. I merely refer to science and research, which as I pointed out, is an ongoing process. Science does not claim to know the answer to the origin of the universe or how life got started, which theists claim to have the answers, their version of God created the universe and life and that is that.
You try every trick in the book to discredit evidence based science, testing and review, in an attempt to justify faith, beliefs held without evidence.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
You hide behind your claim that because your faith in the theory of evolution is based in science, it is superior to another's faith in theology, which may, or may not, be based in science.
I hide behind nothing. You are equivocating science and faith by ignoring evidence.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Faith is faith, no matter the source.
Still the fallacy of equivocation. A belief in the realty of Allah is not to be compared to research into genetics, paleontology, etc.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
But there's no doubt that faith in theology is superior, because at the least, theology as a social control agent provides a benefit to society, whereas faith in the theory of evolution, and all its studies, provide no benefit to society.
You can't prove a scientific theory so God must have done it.
Round and round we go.
There is no evidence for the existence of a God or gods, so there is no reason to be convinced in their existence.
Of course there is but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an ontological proof. Same is true of science as far as cosmology goes.
You hide behind your claim that because your faith in the theory of evolution is based in science, it is superior to another's faith in theology, which may, or may not, be based in science.
Faith is faith, no matter the source.
But there's no doubt that faith in theology is superior, because at the least, theology as a social control agent provides a benefit to society, whereas faith in the theory of evolution, and all its studies, provide no benefit to society.
A man who looks at the wonders of the vast universe, or the complexities of the smallest organisms and then sees no evidence of “design” or a designer is like a man who “misses the forest for the trees”. He seeks to be superior in his own eyes and tickles his desire for argument but in the end, is a fool.
Yet it remains true that evolution is an evidence based reality and a belief in the existence of God or gods (there are so many versions) is a matter of faith.
You're really sensitive about your faith in the theory of evolution being seen as the same as faith in theology.
Hard ta delude yourself into your delusions of superiority, when your faith is the same as anyone else's, although in a different direction.
Which is of course what makes you inferior.
They have seen one world while we have seen two and they call us liars when we tell them the truth.
They know for sure we are telling a lie rather than asking Him to show them too.
A man who looks at the wonders of the vast universe, or the complexities of the smallest organisms and then sees no evidence of “design” or a designer is like a man who “misses the forest for the trees”. He seeks to be superior in his own eyes and tickles his desire for argument but in the end, is a fool.
Which is evidence for the existence of a vast and complex universe, but says nothing about how it came about, or if it did (cyclic, a part of a multiverse, etc, etc) It is an assumption to claim that the universe must have been created because complex systems cannot form naturally...when in fact they can and do.
Have you considered bible cosmology? Theirs was a far simpler version of the world.
Quote; ''Myths tell the stories of ancestors and the origin of humans and the world, the gods, supernatural beings (satyrs, nymphs, mermaids) and heroes with super-human, usually god-given, powers (as in the case of Heracles or Perseus of the Greeks). Myths also describe origins or nuances of long-held customs or explain natural events such as the sunrise and sunset, the cycle of the moon and the seasons, or thunder and lightning storms.''
''Mythology has played an integral part in every civilization throughout the world. Pre-historic cave paintings, etchings in stone, tombs, and monuments all suggest that, long before human beings set down their myths in words, they had already developed a belief structure corresponding to the definition of `myth’ provided by Leach and Fried. According to psychiatrist Carl Jung, myth is a necessary aspect of the human psyche which needs to find meaning and order in a world which often presents itself as chaotic and meaningless Etiological myths can offer explanations for why the world is the way it is – as in the story from Greek mythology of Pandora’s Box which explains how evil and suffering was released into the world''
''In ancient times, something like a clap of thunder must've caused quite a fright. They didn't understand the inner workings of meteorology. Imagine the panic a hurricane or earthquake would've incited.
In order to understand these phenomena and, perhaps, bring comfort to people, myths were created as explanations for the many mysteries of life. Even our ancestors contemplated the creation of earth, natural disasters, flaws in humanity, death, and love.
The word myth is derived from the Greek word mythos, which means "story." Myths usually came about during a time when science, philosophy, and technology were not very precise.
Myths exist in every culture and country. Most cultures have their own creation myth. The majority of myths, regardless of their premise, tend to involve the exploits of gods or heroes who possess god-like qualities. ''
Yet it remains true that evolution is an evidence based reality and a belief in the existence of God or gods (there are so many versions) is a matter of faith.
You're really sensitive about your faith in the theory of evolution being seen as the same as faith in theology.
Hard ta delude yourself into your delusions of superiority, when your faith is the same as anyone else's, although in a different direction.
Which is of course what makes you inferior.
They have seen one world while we have seen two and they call us liars when we tell them the truth.
They know for sure we are telling a lie rather than asking Him to show them too.
Being wrong is not lying. Theists genuinely believe something to be true. Which just means a mistaken belief, not a lie.
Hahaha, you're driven by your serpent master to attack any near do wells. 24/7 .
Serpent master? Not at all. The bible story has Satan as the created agent of God, fulfilling the purpose of God, doing the will of God. Refer to Judaism.
dinasours couldn't get into space for whatever reason. maybe too slow & clumsy because they were cold-blooded
How do you know that? Star Trek Voyager episode "Distant Origin"
Voyager encounters an alien race, but runs afoul of their principles. The Voth are sort of humanoid lizards, and the plot revolves around one particular scientist that has taken an interest in studying Voth origins.
Turns out that the Voth evolved on Earth to be a space fairing species before the great extinction event. They left Earth and arrived at a habitable planet in the Delta quadrant. It became their belief that they originated and evolved on that planet. Hence the conflict when Voyager encountered the Voth with evidence otherwise. (And the evolved-here Vothians won by forcing dissenting Vothians to recant.)
BTW Some would say birds are warm blooded dinosaurs.
Let me rephrase: Of course there is evidence for the existence of God but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an absolute, incontrovertible and unassailable proof of the existence of God.
You can say the same of science. No scientific theory has ever been proven. People are still devising experiments regarding Einstein's theories. Each experiment not showing a divergent result adds to the evidence making a divergent result less likely to be observed but cannot prove that a divergent result will not be observed. Sir Issac can attest to that.
The bible story has Satan as the created agent of God, fulfilling the purpose of God, doing the will of God.
Refer to Judaism.
Christians have serious difficulty accepting what the Book says in that regard, some are that silly they even claim not to have know about it.
God set Lucifer up knowing he would rebel, God set Adam up for temptation, knowing he would take the bait, God set Judas up for temptation, knowing he would take the bait.
NONE of which would be possible had God not allowed evil to be an official ingredient of his divine plan.
Satan is so important to God, that he even invites him to angel councils in heaven.
iF God tells Satan to do something, he follows it to the letter without fail, something which christians cannot do.
Originally Posted by DBT
.. clinging to the creation myths of bronze age goat herders as if they are actual explanations for the existence of the universe and life.
.
The archetypal good/evil tales are entertaining, but when gOd sanctions incest for Noah after the flood, iT gets real ugly.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
They have seen one world while we have seen two ...
and some are convinced they can see the shooter in the storm drain or Grassy Knoll.
... My question, how did this world even get here? Creationist answer usually goes like this . There was an explosion and the world was created from the energy and that created matter!!! My next question is,, where did the energy come from? You can not get energy from nothing! It has to be created. You can not get rock, heat, energy, liquids, light, or any matter from something else from nothing. It is impossible. If it is not , you show us how, ok! Take NOTHING , and make something out of it and I will believe your theory. Better yet, you make a new world! Make it out of nothing. ...
Let me rephrase: Of course there is evidence for the existence of God but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an absolute, incontrovertible and unassailable proof of the existence of God.
You can say the same of science. No scientific theory has ever been proven. People are still devising experiments regarding Einstein's theories. Each experiment not showing a divergent result adds to the evidence making a divergent result less likely to be observed but cannot prove that a divergent result will not be observed. Sir Issac can attest to that.
Maybe you should brush up on the nature of evidence. Subjective experience alone is not an example of evidence. What someone happens to believe is not evidence. What it tells us in this or that holy book is not evidence. The existence of a complex universe is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, it does not say anything about creation by magic. As there are many possibilities, assuming that a Creator exists is not supported by the available information. The fact is, we do not know what the ultimate nature of the universe is, part of a larger system, fluctuation, branes, etc, etc. It is the theist who claims to know.
The bible story has Satan as the created agent of God, fulfilling the purpose of God, doing the will of God.
Refer to Judaism.
Christians have serious difficulty accepting what the Book says in that regard, some are that silly they even claim not to have know about it.
God set Lucifer up knowing he would rebel, God set Adam up for temptation, knowing he would take the bait, God set Judas up for temptation, knowing he would take the bait.
NONE of which would be possible had God not allowed evil to be an official ingredient of his divine plan.
Satan is so important to God, that he even invites him to angel councils in heaven.
iF God tells Satan to do something, he follows it it to the letter without fail, something which christians cannot do..
That appears to be a case of inconvenient information. ''Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 8 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” - the book of Job.
Let me rephrase: Of course there is evidence for the existence of God but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an absolute, incontrovertible and unassailable proof of the existence of God.
You can say the same of science. No scientific theory has ever been proven. People are still devising experiments regarding Einstein's theories. Each experiment not showing a divergent result adds to the evidence making a divergent result less likely to be observed but cannot prove that a divergent result will not be observed. Sir Issac can attest to that.
Maybe you should brush up on the nature of evidence. Subjective experience alone is not an example of evidence. What someone happens to believe is not evidence. What it tells us in this or that holy book is not evidence. The existence of a complex universe is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, it does not say anything about creation by magic. As there are many possibilities, assuming that a Creator exists is not supported by the available information. The fact is, we do not know what the ultimate nature of the universe is, part of a larger system, fluctuation, branes, etc, etc. It is the theist who claims to know.
Nice deflection but it doesn't address what I said. I said nothing of faith, a holy book, or magic. And again, you're ignoring evidence because it's not a dispositive proof.
Let me rephrase: Of course there is evidence for the existence of God but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an absolute, incontrovertible and unassailable proof of the existence of God.
You can say the same of science. No scientific theory has ever been proven. People are still devising experiments regarding Einstein's theories. Each experiment not showing a divergent result adds to the evidence making a divergent result less likely to be observed but cannot prove that a divergent result will not be observed. Sir Issac can attest to that.
Maybe you should brush up on the nature of evidence. Subjective experience alone is not an example of evidence. What someone happens to believe is not evidence. What it tells us in this or that holy book is not evidence. The existence of a complex universe is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, it does not say anything about creation by magic. As there are many possibilities, assuming that a Creator exists is not supported by the available information. The fact is, we do not know what the ultimate nature of the universe is, part of a larger system, fluctuation, branes, etc, etc. It is the theist who claims to know.
Nice deflection but it doesn't address what I said. I said nothing of faith, a holy book, or magic. And again, you're ignoring evidence because it's not a dispositive proof.
There was no deflection, I outlined what some folk consider to be evidence, with a short summary for why it actually isn't evidence for the existence of a God or gods. You say that I am ignoring evidence without actually providing examples of your evidence, or a rational argument to support your claim.
The statement that God created evil, given that God is the essence of good, is irrational. As stated many pages back and not refuted.
You say that it is irrational, yet the bible itself says what it says;
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''The Lord is a man of war'' Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey . . . so shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for Mount Zion" Isa. 31:4
''For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil'' Proverbs 16:4
From science: The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe Thehigh improbability of other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants)
Or from Philosophy: Aquinas' five proofs, contemporary version Proof of God from transcendent desires
You say that it is irrational, yet the bible itself says what it says;
If you completely ignore the nuances in translating the Hebrew word "ra." Which you did when I mentioned this pages ago. As far as your favorite quote Isaiah 45:7, see Here for alternate translations which prove the point.
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
As the resident rattle-shaker here, I suppose it is my duty to chime in.
A short while ago, I engaged an old friend of mine in a conversation regarding the Bible. He's somewhat of a Christian SF writer. He'd found my novel out on Amazon, and we've been discussing it, and a couple of my other writing projects and his current work-in-progress. It's a Horror/SF thing in which Death Incarnate is the main character.
He wanted to know my take on the Bible. Specifically, whether or not the Bible was the literal word of God. My answer was that when I read the Bible, I am transported out of normal day-to-day Reality, and allowed to hear the word of God. Anything else is spurious and irrelevant.
Similarly, I have a view on Noah and The Flood. At the end of the last Ice Age, there was a lot of upheaval on the landscape. There were events that we as modern Humans can barely conceive. As the ice retreated, it left large puddles of freshwater-- some bigger than the Great Lakes. The influx of icemelt also caused the oceans to rise. As the land adjusted great calamities happened. Some were gradual. Some were inconceivably swift.
At one point, a natural dam in North America breached and flooded what eventually became the Mississippi basin. In Europe, the Mediterranean Sea had dried out, and the rising sea levels caused a breach at Gibraltar. First the Western Med filled up, and then spilled over into the Eastern Med. Finally, the Bosphorus was breached, and water filled the Black Sea. The people of the time-- pretty much the entire early population of Mankind had to face a period of cataclysmic flooding. The stories survived. In each case, these events became known as The Flood, because no one had ever seen anything like it before or after. Furthermore, no one had been far enough in the world to have witnessed more than one of these events. Over time, these merged and melded, and eventually, we have The Flood as mentioned in the Bible.
Like the Bible, I find it impossible and absurd to argue whether the Bible is the exact literal word of God. What I do know is that for any one person living in at the end of the last Ice Age, the sheer magnitude of what they witnessed would have put them in touch with the Divine. Watching the Pillars of Atlas breach would have convinced anyone of the power of the Almighty. The big breach in North America, the one that formed The Badlands, would have convinced me that God was afoot in my world.
Now for the money shot: Evolution. Look, I'm a good Methodist boy. It's all God, all God's doing, all God's plan. If Natural Selection is at play, I'm happy to have some insight into God's way of doing things. It doesn't make it less Divine. Did I evolve from a common ancestor of apes? Yes, probably. I'm not sure, However, what I'm sure of is that I've been to the zoo, and I've had some fairly intimate exchanges with great apes. There is consciousness behind those eyes, and intelligence too. I can believe that one of my ancestors hugged a mother that looked somewhat like that and headed off onto the savannah and left her and the rest of the family back in the trees.
There is a hill overlooking downtown Cincinnati, the summit of which is now Bellevue Park. When they televise NFL games from here, you'll often times see a shot of the skyline from the park. I spent a lot of time there when I was younger, especially out past the safety fence, out on the cliff.
At the turn of the last century, there was an incline going up the hill and there was a place called The Bellevue House up on top. For a dime, a city dweller could beat the summer heat, travel up the funicular, and get a good meal, get a drink, and enjoy the view on the veranda. Nothing remains of the Bellevue House. However, if you dig around in the weeds on the hillside, you can still find the piers of the incline.
One day, I was sitting on my spot, contemplating this very subject. I was trying to wrap my head around the concept of the literal meaning of the Bible. It was getting the best of me, and I put my Bible down and rested. There are limestone formations throughout Cincinnati. The strata are named by the locations where they stick the most prevalent. There is one called the Bellevue strata, and it has lots of various fossils from 200 million years ago. It was on this ancient limestone I was sitting. There was a margin there, where the limestone met the sharp shale and clay, and it was on that interface my pack was sitting. I noticed something glistening.
There was a snail leaving a slime trail over the rock. He'd just come from the mud, and you could see his trail. In the space of six inches, he'd traversed a bunch of clay with not only shale, but a bunch of unfossilized snail shells that were embedded. They'd been there a long time, but not long enough to fossilized. The snail then moved over a fully fossilized version of himself, embedded in the rock on which I was sitting.
Bang! It all made sense. All of a sudden I understood God's hand in this world.
... My question, how did this world even get here? Creationist answer usually goes like this . There was an explosion and the world was created from the energy and that created matter!!! My next question is,, where did the energy come from? You can not get energy from nothing! It has to be created. You can not get rock, heat, energy, liquids, light, or any matter from something else from nothing. It is impossible. If it is not , you show us how, ok! Take NOTHING , and make something out of it and I will believe your theory. Better yet, you make a new world! Make it out of nothing. ...
This ^^^^.
We've already been down this road. I even provided an outline for the math behind it.
From science: The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe Thehigh improbability of other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants)
Or from Philosophy: Aquinas' five proofs, contemporary version Proof of God from transcendent desires
Note that this constitutes evidence, not proof. Merely makes a conclusion more or less likely.
Obviously, you are not familiar with the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. Of course the first clue was that you called it a "proof" and not a Theorem, and then misrepresented the very nature of what it's even about, and thought to provide evidence for.
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
A quarter million people wiped out in the Asian Tsunami of 2004. Did the mothers of the dead children weep less because your (alleged) God killed them with a physical vs. a moral wickedness?
Was it moral for these deaths to be part of God's plan and his divine will?
that one written by desmond morris, also the territorial imperative written by robert ardrey helped the professor explain to us how in his view, those underlying human traits affected the israili, palistinian conflict in the middle east. yes, way back then, some 50 years ago.
You say that it is irrational, yet the bible itself says what it says;
If you completely ignore the nuances in translating the Hebrew word "ra." Which you did when I mentioned this pages ago. As far as your favorite quote Isaiah 45:7, see Here for alternate translations which prove the point.
Nuances won't help you. Context doesn't help you. The verses are quite clear in their meaning. Rationalizing won't change what they say and what they mean.
From science: The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe Thehigh improbability of other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants)
There's your problem right off the bat. There is no way to calculate or assign probability to the existence of the universe....it may be eternally cyclic, a part of a multiverse, etc. Currently there is no way of knowing.
Meanwhile, evolution is not a matter of 'pure chance' because it is an interaction of chemistry, genes and environment...a physical process based on principles of physics.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Or from Philosophy: Aquinas' five proofs, contemporary version Proof of God from transcendent desires
Note that this constitutes evidence, not proof. Merely makes a conclusion more or less likely.
The philosophy of Aquinas died with Descartes.
Within the scientific community, "reason alone" is dead. The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment.
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
The verses specify calamity, evil and the evildoer for the 'day of evil' God is said to be responsible for everything. Which in the context of the story, if you actually consider the implications of omniscience and omnipotence, must be the case.
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
Or is God supposed to be an incompetent creator, neither omnipotent or omniscient?
My next question is,, where did the energy come from? You can not get energy from nothing! It has to be created. You can not get rock, heat, energy, liquids, light, or any matter from something else from nothing. It is impossible. If it is not , you show us how, ok! Take NOTHING , and make something out of it and I will believe your theory. Better yet, you make a new world! Make it out of nothing. We all know that God did it. Many just can't admit it like a liberal can't admit President Trump beat Hillary. God did it . He is the superior being that was here before anything. He did it to be glorified and that bothers many people.
Yet there are some who believe that a God created the universe and everything within it out of NOTHING. So if something cannot exist without being created and God exists, God cannot be excluded from that rule.
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
Yet there are some who believe that a God created the universe and everything within it out of NOTHING. So if something cannot exist without being created and God exists, God cannot be excluded from that rule.
Perhaps your rule is wrong. But then you say Aquinas and Metaphysics and Logic are passe and long since discredited.
Plainly, you would insist that God exists only within the physical universe and so is subject to time which is very closed minded.
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Yet there are some who believe that a God created the universe and everything within it out of NOTHING. So if something cannot exist without being created and God exists, God cannot be excluded from that rule.
Perhaps your rule is wrong. But then you say Aquinas and Metaphysics and Logic are passe and long since discredited.
Plainly, you would insist that God exists only within the physical universe and so is subject to time which is very closed minded.
speaking of the mighty Ra, an important egyptian god, it somehow doesn't surprise me that the hebrews referred to that entity as evil, bad, or poorly expressed.
somehow, i suspect there's lot's of self-interest flowing in the theology of the past residents on the urth.
it's kinda like busting boulders of granite & sandstone into smaller and smaller pieces?
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Here is philosophy professor Edward Feser on the logical proofs for the existence of God---all of which has nothing to do with the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an impossibility.
"But at length he [God] grew old and soft and mellow and compassionate, more like a grandfather than a father, most like a tottery old grandmother.
Then he sat, shrivelled, in his chimney corner, fretting over his weak legs, world-weary, weary of willing, and one day suffocated through his excessive pity...
He was also indistinct. How angry he was with us, this snorter of wrath, because we mistook his meaning! But why did he not speak more clearly?
He had too many failures, this potter who had not learned his craft! But that he took vengeance on his pots and creations because they had turned out badly-- that was a sin against good taste."
Zarathustra, 'Retired From Service' in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Philosophical theology is a poor means of understanding the world as it is. If the initial assumptions are false, the existence of a God being unproven....
Breezed through Fesser's clip. Really fast, there are other things I should be doing. Seems he too rejects everything that doesn't constitute absolute, unassailable proof of God or the soul. But to have absolute proof, according to Ethics, would mean free will does not exist. And therefore we do not exist but are merely extensions of God's mind.
Breezed through Fesser's clip. Really fast, there are other things I should be doing. Seems he too rejects everything that doesn't constitute absolute, unassailable proof of God or the soul. But to have absolute proof, according to Ethics, would mean free will does not exist. And therefore we do not exist but are merely extensions of God's mind.
What exactly do you mean by 'free will?' Do you mean decision making ability or something else?
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Here is philosophy professor Edward Feser on the logical proofs for the existence of God---all of which has nothing to do with the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an impossibility.
Logic without evidence proves nothing. The logic may be sound but if the propositions are flawed, the conclusion does not relate to the real world. You can apply logic to anything, Comic book Superheros, the strengths and weaknesses of Batman....
''Aquinas dismissed the problem of evil by saying: 'This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.''
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.''
''This cosmological argument asserts that God must be the cause of all movement in the Universe. Aquinas contends that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, meaning that there must be an unmoved mover that initiated all motion - and that this mover is called God. One could just as easily call the first mover "Charlie", or any other preferred name, since the argument does not establish that the "unmoved mover" has any of the characteristics that are usually associated with the concept of God, such as consciousness, benevolence, omnipotence, or a proclivity to intervene in our universe. Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity.''
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Here is philosophy professor Edward Feser on the logical proofs for the existence of God---all of which has nothing to do with the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an impossibility.
Logic without evidence proves nothing. The logic may be sound but if the propositions are flawed, the conclusion does not relate to the real world. You can apply logic to anything, Comic book Superheros, the strengths and weaknesses of Batman....
''Aquinas dismissed the problem of evil by saying: 'This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.''
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.''
''This cosmological argument asserts that God must be the cause of all movement in the Universe. Aquinas contends that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, meaning that there must be an unmoved mover that initiated all motion - and that this mover is called God. One could just as easily call the first mover "Charlie", or any other preferred name, since the argument does not establish that the "unmoved mover" has any of the characteristics that are usually associated with the concept of God, such as consciousness, benevolence, omnipotence, or a proclivity to intervene in our universe. Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity.''
But not that we understand forces such as gravity, there's no need for an "unmoved mover" to push the planets around the sun.
God in effect prepared and brought such evil onto Job , and did it through an evil agent entity he permits to exist and at the instruction of God.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
NO , it seems you fail to realize Job suffers evils/calamities as result of both physical and moral evil brought on directly by an arrangement between God and Satan.
Job 1:13. a messenger comes to Job and tells him that the Sabeans had attacked and stolen all his oxen and asses and killed all the servants with them.
16, another messenger comes and says that the fire of God had fallen and destroyed all his sheep and the servants with them.
17, another messenger comes and says that the Chaldeans had raided the camel herd and taken them all and killed the servants.
18–19, the message comes that all of his children were crushed to death when a tornado caused the house to collapse.
(Two of the calamities were caused by evil men.)
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
it is part of Gods original plan that moral evil should exist , and that it should be created by prior arrangement through God. calamities/evils [be they moral or physical] do not happen without Gods empowering authorisation to natural forces, or to Satan and wicked mankind.
Satan is Gods spiritual attack dog that he let off the leash. giving him dominion-making him prince of this world, ..Satan can do no more or less than God permits.
if you as a master let a savage pit bull off the leash knowing it would attack and kill people, you are responsible. its no different with Gods knowledge and control of Satan.
God in effect prepared and brought such evil onto Job , and did it through an evil agent entity he permits to exist and at the instruction of God.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
You fail to distinguish moral evil or wickedness from physical "evil" such as calamity, disaster, etc, Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
NO , it seems you fail to realize Job suffers evils/calamities as result of both physical and moral evil brought on directly by an arrangement between God and Satan.
Job 1:13. a messenger comes to Job and tells him that the had attacked and stolen all his oxen and asses and killed all the servants with them.
16, another messenger comes and says that the fire of God had fallen and destroyed all his sheep and the servants with them.
17, another messenger comes and says that the Chaldeans had raided the camel herd and taken them all and killed the servants.
18–19, the message comes that all of his children were crushed to death when a tornado caused the house to collapse.
(Two of the calamities were caused by evil men.)
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Allowing moral evil to exist is not the same as creating moral evil.
it is part of Gods original plan that moral evil should exist , and that it should be created by prior arrangement through God. calamities/evils [be they moral or physical] do not happen without Gods empowering authorisation to natural forces, or to Satan and wicked mankind.
Satan is Gods spiritual attack dog that he let off the leash. giving him dominion-making him prince of this world, ..Satan can do no more or less than God permits.
if you as a master let a savage pit bull off the leash knowing it would attack and kill people, you are responsible. its no different with Gods knowledge and control of Satan.
So you would conclude that God is evil? In league with Satan to drive all men to eternal damnation?
“When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.”
What exactly do you mean by 'free will?' Do you mean decision making ability or something else?
The ability to tell my creator to stick it?
First off it needs to be shown that your God exists. For example, how do you feel about the Hindu gods? Do they exist? Can you tell them to ''stick it?'' Can you insult Brahma? Maybe Shiva will get upset?
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
If Christ rose from the dead, all your atheist arguments are folly, if he didn’t, Christians (especially those persecuted around the world) are to be most pitied. As for me, I believe he physically rose from the dead and that there is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. Convince yourself of the opposite if you wish. We all make choices.
We are convinced, or not, for reasons other than 'making choices' - information that appears convincing to some may not appear convincing to others. That is not a choice.
Can you choose to not believe something that you are convinced is true?
You are certainly free to at as if you do not believe. Happens all the time. We call it "sin."
You didn't answer the question: can you choose to disbelieve that of which you are convinced is true? Or in other words, did you choose to believe what you believe through an act of will?
Are you saying that all Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc, etc, chose to be Muslims or whatever through an act of will rather than a process of conviction, conditioning, culture, birth and so on?
Can you disbelieve what you believe? Nonsensical question. You can change your beliefs or choose to act contrary to what you believe. A belief may not be well founded or strongly held, or may even be in error if that's what you're asking.
Can you disbelieve what you believe? Nonsensical question. You can change your beliefs or choose to act contrary to what you believe. A belief may not be well founded or strongly held, or may even be in error if that's what you're asking.
It's not a nonsensical question in the face of the claim that it is sinful to not believe/reject God/free will issue.
If a belief is a process of conviction, then it is not a willed process, it is the information we acquire that either convinces us or not. Whether we find something convincing also depends on many factors, education, mental capacity to understand, hopes, fears, desires, biases, flaws...none of which include 'free will'
So if a God, assuming existence for the sake of argument, sees sin in a lack of conviction in the absence of evidence, and condemns people on that basis...there is something very seriously wrong.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Well, I guess I could choose to PRETEND to believe. That would have made my saintly Grandmother very, very happy.
Nor can I choose to believe the sun sets in the East, or that 2+2=7, or that this nation will be better off after the commies win and we are living Lenin's Dream.
It's not a threat just a statement and we all will eventually find out.
Of course it's a threat. Your underlying message is repent now or burn forever in a lake of fire.
You say it's just a "statement", great, provide good evidence for it.
Additionally your claim "we all will eventually find out" is also unsupported. If you are dead, and there's no existence after death, you will not exist in a state capable of experience, so no, you won't find out....
Well, I guess I could choose to PRETEND to believe. That would have made my saintly Grandmother very, very happy.
Nor can I choose to believe the sun sets in the East, or that 2+2=7, or that this nation will be better off after the commies win and we are living Lenin's Dream.
Do the Christians think there "all knowing" god is too stupid to know who's just pretending as a ploy to get into heaven?
You can claim Micky Mouse runs the Universe for all its worth.
You still don't get it. I'm not claiming anything, you are.
I am pointing out that there is abundant evidence to support the reality of natural evolution and absolutely none for the existence of a God....whatever that is supposed to be. Therefore the former is an observation and the latter a claim...a faith based claim.
As I said, you still don't get it. What "claim" have I made on here?
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
So you say that you choose to be convinced that something is true? Or you can choose not to be convinced. In which case you can choose to be convinced that Brahman is the Creator of the Universe rather than the God of the bible? Or you can choose to believe that the Moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat?
That conviction/belief is all a matter of ''free will'' right?
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
Why would you 'desire' to change your views? Is that not a matter of evidence? Do you 'desire' to change your beliefs because you see that they are wrong, or that you hope for reward? Reward in the promised afterlife? The carrot and the stick that the gospel writers loved to invoke...believe this or suffer eternal damnation?
As I said, you still don't get it. What "claim" have I made on here?
I was referring to creationist claims, obviously. I am talking about the issue of creationism versus natural evolution and justification through evidence or the absence of it.
It being the creationist who makes the claim of creation when the evidence supports natural evolution.
This is not a person thing between you and me...at least not for me.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
One does not get rewards for believing, nor is being saved a reward.
One is saved by the grace of God alone. you cannot earn salvation. One only gets heavenly rewarded according to ones works as judged by God.
This thread has shown how little a number of christians know about the Lord explained in the Book, the fact they don't grasp the fundamentals clearly and plainly laid out in print, is embarrassing but not at all uncommon or unusual for supposed christians.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Do the Christians think there "all knowing" god is too stupid to know who's just pretending as a ploy to get into heaven?
but God didn't say they could not go on fooling themselves with a 'fake it till you make it' approach.
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs....maybe it only happens if you believe? But you can't, because it seems ridiculous to you. This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs....maybe it only happens if you believe? But you can't, because it seems ridiculous to you. This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, nor can it be proven within the scientific knowledge possessed by mankind at the present time.
You don't have the intellectual capacity to argue the point, so you just bullshit your way through by repeatin ta yourself that it's proven.
You've gone on and on in this thread and others, with a mania that would be concerning to a mental health professional, but the good news is nobody on the fire gives a shat.
And you've accomplished nothing, because your lame google cut and paste crap hasn't changed a single opinion.
If you choose to disregard those facts, that is your problem.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs ....maybe it only happens if you believe? ....
Believing is not about rewards (on earth or in heaven.)
accepting Jesus as savior allows one to receive the Holy Spirit, ... .if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ.
Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe.
if one has the Spirit ,they are then controlled not by their sinful nature but by the Spirit.
but Thats what makes me highly sceptical as to the number of genuine christians in the world, [ie:] how many claiming to be christian actually have the Spirit?...where are all those people that are controlled by the Spirit and not their evil nature...???
Fubes, Evolution has been proven over and over and over again. And that and all the evidence is all the supporting phenomena (genetics, heredity, math, etc. etc.) is why they call it a THEORY and not a hypothesis. You are embarrassing. Read any elementary biology text.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs....maybe it only happens if you believe? But you can't, because it seems ridiculous to you. This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
Would have to agree.
The statement is just too stupid for words...
Maybe not so stupid....I will risk using a silly example... but..... for example, do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Probably not and you could provide the reasons why you don’t believe. There may be evidence that the Easter Bunny does indeed live.... at least on the Hallmark Channel, but after looking at the evidence, you choose ....”not” to believe in the Easter Bunny. It is indeed a choice you have made.
You likely make similar choices about “right” and “wrong”..... and about political philosophies.... you get the idea... you make choices about what you believe.
Now one might say that a person is simply a product of his environment and really cannot overcome that and make his own choices. Only the weak minded and cowardly hold to that thinking. It implies that one is not responsible for his own choices.... I choose not to believe that..... based on the evidence seen in our human experiences.
Anyway, I have examined the evidence for the existence of God.... I looked at this argument for and that argument against and I chose to believe. Simple.
Warning: there are bible verses that clearly indicate that a man does indeed choose ...God or not....see Joshua’s statement about choosing God. But, it also teaches that God has a hand in it as well.... see Acts and the conversion of Lydia. These “side by side” teachings are somewhat of a mystery to me, but.... just because I do not fully understand simply means I do not fully understand....yet.
This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
Believe as you like. As a Christian I don't judge you, condemn you or even reproach you. That's way above my pay grade. And any Christian that does otherwise is in peril of the sin of pride.
It's not a threat just a statement and we all will eventually find out.
Of course it's a threat. Your underlying message is repent now or burn forever in a lake of fire.
You say it's just a "statement", great, provide good evidence for it.
Additionally your claim "we all will eventually find out" is also unsupported. If you are dead, and there's no existence after death, you will not exist in a state capable of experience, so no, you won't find out....
Where is (good) evidence there is no existence after death?
Where is your (good) evidence you will not exist in a state capable of experience?
Where is your evidence that you won’t find out?
If you claim God doesn’t exist, you bear the burden of proof. Your evidence for atheism is missing. I have yet to see scientific evidence that God doesn’t exist.
Your convince-me scientific mindset is growing wearisome...
It is the positive claim that has the burden of proof.
Well, maybe there’s another way to look at this..... perhaps the being that was ....created....has a responsibility to the one who created him and will indeed be held accountable for the life he has been given?
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
You keep anthropomorphizing God. God is infinite. Therefore what we call good and what we call evil are created by Him and for Him. We humans are closer in likeness to a dirt clod than we are to an Infinite God.
If you read the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" and don't reject evolution you choose evolution over the facts, not because of the facts. Try not to disparage the author. He is way ahead of you in education and perhaps intelligence. After all in invented the gene splicing gun and has at least seventy patents in that area.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs....maybe it only happens if you believe? But you can't, because it seems ridiculous to you. This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
Jesus received the holy Sprit at his baptism and he was clearly influenced by it when being led into the wilderness.
You would have to be a goose to say Jesus was not controlled /steered/guided by the Spirit in some way.
C'mon, we all know what control, as in I control that radio control toy truck, means. Jesus could have said screw it, I'm going fishing with my buddy Peter.
C'mon, we all know what control, as in I control that radio control toy truck, means. Jesus could have said screw it, I'm going fishing with my buddy Peter.
I will stick to adullt dictionary definitions.
control = steer = direct = influence = guide= adjust = regulate.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Nobody is "controlled" by the Holy Spirit. Guided maybe, but not controlled. You are free to ignore your guide's advice.
People who use hunting guides or PHs, ..are they controlled like a radio controlled truck?
or do they put themselves under the control/inifluence of their guide/PH..?
1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events. "the whole operation is under the control of a production manager" synonyms: jurisdiction, sway, power, authority, command, dominance, domination, government, mastery, leadership, rule, reign, sovereignty, supremacy, ascendancy, predominance, hegemony; More
It’s real grace that changes a believer. The transformational power of our rebirth in Jesus is what keeps us from continuing to sin (as before the Holy Spirit connected us to God).
We’re still sinners in sinful bodies, but now we have the Holy Spirit within us to guide, direct, and and prompt us along the rocky road of life.
What I don't accept is cherry picking alternate definitions to force the result you want. To the common meaning of control on par with with "suggest" is absurd.
I used a dictionary with a variety of definitions too, you seemed to have overlooked that. Of course the synonyms I underscore like "dominance" don't support your argument.
Or are you capitulating that being "controlled" by the Holy Spirit does not negate free will to do other than He suggests? It's a little hard to tell.
I used a dictionary with a variety of definitions too, you seemed to have overlooked that. Of course the synonyms I underscore like "dominance" don't support your argument.
Actually they do.....dictionaries define 'dominate' as being controlling.
(Women complain of having over-controlling or domineering partners)
so again, control does not have to mean rigid robotic control like an RC truck
control can mean = influence , regulate, guide, lead, steer, direct,....
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Or are you capitulating that being "controlled" by the Holy Spirit does not negate free will to do other than He suggests? It's a little hard to tell.
I have made no mention of free will, my point is all about control/influence.
I can't finally capitulate to something I have not mentioned or not been debating with you.
Have you ever heard the term about someone having controlling influence over someone?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Nobody is "controlled" by the Holy Spirit. Guided maybe, but not controlled.
If being guided by someone, do they have a controlling influence ?
The ones written by liberals determined to destroy the country, like you?
Pass.
That's quite a leap. From science to destroying the country.
Not to mention the liberal part as well. Biology is the same in every country, every political party.
The theory of evolution could be interesting from a science standpoint, as a curiosity, but has no worth as a mean to advance human understanding, or any practical use in modern times.
Math, geometry physics, genetics, all have useful applications to humans. All the theory of evolution can postulate, even if someday proven, is that animals that lived in the past are different than those that will live in the future. No shat, never woulda thought of that. And even that part of it is worthless, due to genetic engineering and species protection.
It's so worthless, there would have to be an agenda for it to be taught in a school at all.
Its only use, is as a socialist, liberal tool to be used to dissuade others from believing in some variety, any variety, of theology.
That's why it's over-promoted as a science, funded and taught in schools.
AGW followed in the footsteps of the theory of evolution, BS "science" applied to theory-confirming, overstated and inaccurate observations, and followed only by true believers in the faith, for the purpose of destroying modern society.
Supporters of both AGW and evolution theories on the fire are the proof.
The ones written by liberals determined to destroy the country, like you?
Pass.
That's quite a leap. From science to destroying the country.
Not to mention the liberal part as well. Biology is the same in every country, every political party.
The theory of evolution could be interesting from a science standpoint, as a curiosity, but has no worth as a mean to advance human understanding, or any practical use in modern times.
funny you should say that given that science is wholly involved in studying it, and using it to understand the world. Not bad for a mere curiosity of no practical use. Obviously, you still have your head in the sand.
You will never get a clue, not even one, but that's why you are so funny. Pathetic funny, but funny.
Quote
Math, geometry physics, genetics, all have useful applications to humans. All the theory of evolution can postulate, even if someday proven, is that animals that lived in the past are different than those that will live in the future. No shat, never woulda thought of that. And even that part of it is worthless, due to genetic engineering and species protection.
It's so worthless, there would have to be an agenda for it to be taught in a school at all.
Its only use, is as a socialist, liberal tool to be used to dissuade others from believing in some variety, any variety, of theology.
That's why it's over-promoted as a science, funded and taught in schools.
AGW followed in the footsteps of the theory of evolution, BS "science" applied to theory-confirming, overstated and inaccurate observations, and followed only by true believers in the faith, for the purpose of destroying modern society.
Supporters of both AGW and evolution theories on the fire are the proof.
gibberish, girl. just gibberish. One hell of a conspiracy and only you and a tiny handful of idiots have tumbled on to it. Amazing.
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
You keep anthropomorphizing God. God is infinite. Therefore what we call good and what we call evil are created by Him and for Him. We humans are closer in likeness to a dirt clod than we are to an Infinite God.
If you read the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" and don't reject evolution you choose evolution over the facts, not because of the facts. Try not to disparage the author. He is way ahead of you in education and perhaps intelligence. After all in invented the gene splicing gun and has at least seventy patents in that area.
The key word is 'infinite' - it is the meaning and signifance of the word that sets the terms, not me.
Infinite goodness means absolute goodness, which means the absence of badness or evil.
Something that is partly bad cannot be described as infinitely or absolutely good.
Math, geometry physics, genetics, all have useful applications to humans. All the theory of evolution can postulate, even if someday proven, is that animals that lived in the past are different than those that will live in the future. No shat, never woulda thought of that. And even that part of it is worthless, due to genetic engineering and species protection.
It's so worthless, there would have to be an agenda for it to be taught in a school at all.
Its only use, is as a socialist, liberal tool to be used to dissuade others from believing in some variety, any variety, of theology.
That's why it's over-promoted as a science, funded and taught in schools.
I suppose the same could be said of Astronomy and Cosmology. Why would we waste time and money in study of the cosmos. It can do nothing for humanity.
Why do we waste all that money on SETI? What a joke!
Meteorology? It is not like we can change the weather patterns. That is God's pervue. What a waste.
Quantum Physics? What a waste. We can not see it. We can not use it.
Plate tectonics? It is not like we can change the drift of continents.
And NASA? OMG, what might have been accomplished if we had used those funds for peaceful pursuits, instead of sending men to the moon?
These things are worth pursuing just for curiosity's sake. Anything which expands the base of human knowledge is a blessing. Knowledge is never detrimental. Except perhaps to those dependent upon their ancient myths.
If scientific research were controlled by folks like you and my dear Grandparents, we would have never exceeded 50,000 feet in altitude or broken the sound barrier.
I can still remember Grandpa and Grandma commenting on the Apollo Program.
"The heavens belong to God. God will never allow man to go past the edge of our atmosphere.?
Math, geometry physics, genetics, all have useful applications to humans. All the theory of evolution can postulate, even if someday proven, is that animals that lived in the past are different than those that will live in the future. No shat, never woulda thought of that. And even that part of it is worthless, due to genetic engineering and species protection.
It's so worthless, there would have to be an agenda for it to be taught in a school at all.
Its only use, is as a socialist, liberal tool to be used to dissuade others from believing in some variety, any variety, of theology.
That's why it's over-promoted as a science, funded and taught in schools.
I suppose the same could be said of Astronomy and Cosmology. Why would we waste time and money in study of the cosmos. It can do nothing for humanity.
Why do we waste all that money on SETI? What a joke!
Meteorology? It is not like we can change the weather patterns. That is God's pervue. What a waste.
Quantum Physics? What a waste. We can not see it. We can not use it.
Plate tectonics? It is not like we can change the drift of continents.
And NASA? OMG, what might have been accomplished if we had used those funds for peaceful pursuits, instead of sending men to the moon?
These things are worth pursuing just for curiosity's sake. Anything which expands the base of human knowledge is a blessing. Knowledge is never detrimental. Except perhaps to those dependent upon their ancient myths.
If scientific research were controlled by folks like you and my dear Grandparents, we would have never exceeded 50,000 feet in altitude or broken the sound barrier.
I can still remember Grandpa and Grandma commenting on the Apollo Program.
"The heavens belong to God. God will never allow man to go past the edge of our atmosphere.?
Many of the sciences you cited as worthless, have useful applications, especially when a person lives in tornado alley.
Evolutionists tend to become more frantic when exposed, just like the AGW faithful.
One either chooses to believe or not. We all have free will and sometimes we trust what we think we know rather than what truly is. God gives us a choice. In the end you will reap the reward you have earned.
Why do people keep trotting out this utterly stupid statement? Time and again, every religious thread brings it out. Can people simply not think? Choose to believe in the Easter bunny....go ahead, try it. How about Santa Claus? There's no downside, only benefits. Free presents, free chocolate eggs....maybe it only happens if you believe? But you can't, because it seems ridiculous to you. This is why Christians generally won't respond to this question, because it makes it a bit of a problem to judge and condemn people who believe wrongly in their eyes.
Would have to agree.
The statement is just too stupid for words...
Maybe not so stupid....I will risk using a silly example... but..... for example, do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Probably not and you could provide the reasons why you don’t believe. There may be evidence that the Easter Bunny does indeed live.... at least on the Hallmark Channel, but after looking at the evidence, you choose ....”not” to believe in the Easter Bunny. It is indeed a choice you have made.
You likely make similar choices about “right” and “wrong”..... and about political philosophies.... you get the idea... you make choices about what you believe.
Now one might say that a person is simply a product of his environment and really cannot overcome that and make his own choices. Only the weak minded and cowardly hold to that thinking. It implies that one is not responsible for his own choices.... I choose not to believe that..... based on the evidence seen in our human experiences.
Anyway, I have examined the evidence for the existence of God.... I looked at this argument for and that argument against and I chose to believe. Simple.
Warning: there are bible verses that clearly indicate that a man does indeed choose ...God or not....see Joshua’s statement about choosing God. But, it also teaches that God has a hand in it as well.... see Acts and the conversion of Lydia. These “side by side” teachings are somewhat of a mystery to me, but.... just because I do not fully understand simply means I do not fully understand....yet.
Thank you TF49 for taking this on and actually trying to make sense of it. I still cannot quite agree though. The Easter Bunny/Santa Claus examples were admittedly silly, and chosen for that reason, but you correctly pointed out there is no evidence that would make a rational person even consider their existence. Still, I would say that there is no choice available there to the reasonable man, you really couldn't force yourself to believe it, even if you wanted to.
Let's take something like UFO's for an example,and assume they are aalien beings from other worlds. There is "evidence" for this, at least according to some. I want them to be real. I want them to be from far off exotic worlds. I want them to come here and tell us awesome mind blowing things. I really,really do. I've watched documentaries, read books, listened to interviews etc, and I still can't say I believe. The evidence presented is usually not verifiable, or the people aren't credible,or the stories seem just a little too implausible for me to get fully on board. On the other hand, someone else may see the exact same documentaries,interviews and articles and be fully convinced, completely sure that other-worldly aliens do indeed exist.
I believe that people are indeed largely a product of their environment, but not completely. Many factors are at play, but no doubt the environment has a massive influence. For example, how many who consider themselves Christian would admit that had they been raised in a Muslim country,by Muslim parents, they would now almost certainly be Muslim? Not all, of course,as some people raised Muslim do indeed convert to other religions,or abandon it all together. So, maybe you wouldn't be a Muslim, but you have to admit that the chances are much greater that you would be.
Closer to home, we have Mormons. I know good, smart people who are Mormons, people as capable of rational thought in most matters as anyone else, I would say. These people believe things that I find baffling. I read their stuff and it seems totally bizarre to me. If one of them were to say "you have to want to believe it for it to make sense", I don't think I could actually make myself want to believe it. It's just too far out there for my brain to say "yeah this might be legit, let's look into it". Those Mormons could now say I've chosen not to believe, but I maintain I had no choice, I simply found it unbelievable.
Evolutionists tend to become more frantic when exposed, just like the AGW faithful.
I don't know of any frantic evolutionists. Creationists appear to get a little hot and bothered though, jumping from science to the destruction of the country within the blink of an eye.
I think first you have to believe there is something about people that goes beyond a physical existence. The ancient Greeks struggled with that and that's where any consideration of Western Philosophy starts. Then you can consider exploring that part of human existence. Exploring the physical nature of human existence is a whole 'nother endeavor. If you conflate the two you get something like 1,196 posts that pretty much end up where they started.
I think first you have to believe there is something about people that goes beyond a physical existence. The ancient Greeks struggled with that and that's where any consideration of Western Philosophy starts. Then you can consider exploring that part of human existence. Exploring the physical nature of human existence is a whole 'nother endeavor. If you conflate the two you get something like 1,196 posts that pretty much end up where they started.
Can't be done. Back to, "Do you exist?" (That is as an individual apart from all other individuals i.e. not a sock puppet) There must be a presumption of existence for you to even consider the question. Or any other question. And you need to define the discussion - a (hopefully) mutually understood definition of what is being discussed.
Can't be done. Back to, "Do you exist?" (That is as an individual apart from all other individuals i.e. not a sock puppet) There must be a presumption of existence for you to even consider the question.
Permanent memory function loss destroys personality, character, comprehension, the ability to think and reason while still alive. The body is alive but the person is no longer functional.
In any case the question would be valid whether you are aware or not. But the point is that to engage even in the contemplation of philosophy you must assume that there is something capable of contemplation. Or more broadly certain assumptions must be (carefully) made before the question posed can be rationally discussed.
In any case the question would be valid whether you are aware or not. But the point is that to engage even in the contemplation of philosophy you must assume that there is something capable of contemplation. Or more broadly certain assumptions must be (carefully) made before the question posed can be rationally discussed.
I was specifically talking about the consequences of the loss of memory function, not terminal consciousness. Nor was I talking about being aware.
Quote; ''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''
The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:
Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror. Little capacity for self-care. Can't communicate with words. Can't control bowels, bladder.
Examples: Needs help with bathing, dressing, eating and toileting. May groan, scream or make grunting sounds.
The point on terminal lucidity is that consciousness seems to involve more than brain function. Credible reports that people who have insufficient brain function have become lucid for the last day or so. Nobody knows exactly what's going on, but something unexpected is.
The point on terminal lucidity is that consciousness seems to involve more than brain function. Credible reports that people who have insufficient brain function become lucid for the last day or so. Nobody knows exactly what's going on, but something unexpected is.
Nobody is lucid or conscious once the brain no longer functions. Some confuse the timing of reports during near death situations where the brain still has activity, albeit reduced....or during peak stress bursts. The patient is revived and reports an experience that they assume happened after 'death' but in reality the brain was still functioning.
Eben Alexander was one, but it turned out that his claims regarding timing were not quite accurate, to say the least.
Plus the near death experience can be simulated in healthy subjects..
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
You keep anthropomorphizing God. God is infinite. Therefore what we call good and what we call evil are created by Him and for Him. We humans are closer in likeness to a dirt clod than we are to an Infinite God.
If you read the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" and don't reject evolution you choose evolution over the facts, not because of the facts. Try not to disparage the author. He is way ahead of you in education and perhaps intelligence. After all in invented the gene splicing gun and has at least seventy patents in that area.
The key word is 'infinite' - it is the meaning and signifance of the word that sets the terms, not me.
Infinite goodness means absolute goodness, which means the absence of badness or evil.
Something that is partly bad cannot be described as infinitely or absolutely good.
You're trying to limit God to one aspect. With God there is no limit of any kind. You just refuse to accept that. You remind me of the Jehovah's Witness who claim God is infinite from neutral to nice. That is not the God of the Bible.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
Not talking about near death experiences. Try Googling "terminal lucidity". Fascinating phenomena.
You need to explain how ""terminal lucidity" helps with whatever you are trying to argue. It's not clear what your argument is. You just throw this out as if it's obvious. You should provide an actual argument.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
It's not known whether time had a beginning or not, the BB may be cyclic, brane collision, a patchwork multiverse or any number of other possibilities...or something not yet imagined. If a God, whatever that is, created the universe there is no evidence for it. Stars, galaxies and solar systems form on the basis of physics, they are not created, they form under gravity and matter/energy interaction, so it is not necessary to propose the existence of a Creator yet alone be convinced that this is fact true.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
It does more than just follw one track of change. Evolutionary theory explores the mechanisms of evolution, genetic, epigenetic, molecular, etc, the environment driving adaption and change - none of which indicates special creation or the hand of 'God' at work, just life forns adapting to their environmental niche or role in the ecosystem.
If the hand of God (whatever that is) is at work, that needs to be shown, not just claimed or asserted.
It's much easier to wonder, and try and talk about other sciences, than it is to justify the waste of time that is the theory of evolution, isn't it
Why don't we just stick to the theory of evolution, and all its practical uses?
You start.
Okay here are a few things I know as certain true facts. 1: Earth had a Mesozoic era which lasted from 245 million years ago until 66 million years ago
2: During the Mesazoic period reptiles were the dominant species upon Earth.
3: Over the course of almost 200 million years many types of dinosaurs existed, gained dominance, went extinct, and were replaced by other types, families, and genera.
4: 66 million years ago Dinosaurs suddenly ceased to exist, with the exception of a few bird like species and crocodile types.
5: This event usually referenced as the K-T Extinction Event is coincidental to a seven mile diameter bolide which struck the Yucatan Peninsula at the same point in time.
6: 75% to 80% of known terrestrial plant and animal species went extinct at that time, 66 million years ago.
7: A few small mammals were extant prior the K-T event. Some such species are known to have survived.
Would you deny any of these statements to be factual?
Absent evolution, how did the many varied species of dinosaurs come about over the course of those millennia as families died out and were replaced by other families?
Absent evolution, how did those little mouse like creatures become equine, and elephant, and feline, and canine, and bovine, and ursus, and cervidae, and simian, and hominid?
At what point in this history was Man dropped into the mix? What became of CroMagnon? Of Neanderthal? Of Denosovan?
ETA: No, the more appropriate question would be, "Where did these and all the other species of extinct hominids come from? Failed prototypes, perhaps?
That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Here is philosophy professor Edward Feser on the logical proofs for the existence of God---all of which has nothing to do with the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an impossibility.
Logic without evidence proves nothing. The logic may be sound but if the propositions are flawed, the conclusion does not relate to the real world. You can apply logic to anything, Comic book Superheros, the strengths and weaknesses of Batman....
''Aquinas dismissed the problem of evil by saying: 'This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.''
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.''
''This cosmological argument asserts that God must be the cause of all movement in the Universe. Aquinas contends that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, meaning that there must be an unmoved mover that initiated all motion - and that this mover is called God. One could just as easily call the first mover "Charlie", or any other preferred name, since the argument does not establish that the "unmoved mover" has any of the characteristics that are usually associated with the concept of God, such as consciousness, benevolence, omnipotence, or a proclivity to intervene in our universe. Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity.''
More obfuscation... Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
Infinite goodness does not presuppose infinite evil because evil can be created--therefore the argument fails.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
It does more than just follw one track of change. Evolutionary theory explores the mechanisms of evolution, genetic, epigenetic, molecular, etc, the environment driving adaption and change - none of which indicates special creation or the hand of 'God' at work, just life forns adapting to their environmental niche or role in the ecosystem.
If the hand of God (whatever that is) is at work, that needs to be shown, not just claimed or asserted.
And it lacks the explanation of how or why it started spontaneously and how it brought all the right conditions into play when needed in order for the most simple cell to survive--all within a random context of random processes. Please explain how that occurred and the mathematical probability of it occurring. The logic being used to defend this proposition also has random strains which are not tying in with logic.
As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
It's not known whether time had a beginning or not, the BB may be cyclic, brane collision, a patchwork multiverse or any number of other possibilities...or something not yet imagined. If a God, whatever that is, created the universe there is no evidence for it. Stars, galaxies and solar systems form on the basis of physics, they are not created, they form under gravity and matter/energy interaction, so it is not necessary to propose the existence of a Creator yet alone be convinced that this is fact true.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
Atheistic evolutionary science proponents and their legal liberal socialist lackeys are the ones who trying to shut down free speech and intelligent scientific discussion by using legal suppression. They are trying to suppress it on the basis of a constitution that was written by theists. The constitution says there should be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion and yet atheistic evolutionary proponents says that we cannot allow theism to influence our understanding of science, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for atheism to control our understanding of science. How illogical is that? If the arguments of evolution are reasonably incontrovertible, then all reasonable people will believe them. If all reasonable people will not believe them, why not have a reasonable debate?
And it lacks the explanation of how or why it started spontaneously and how it brought all the right conditions into play when needed in order for the most simple cell to survive--all within a random context of random processes. Please explain how that occurred and the mathematical probability of it occurring. The logic being used to defend this proposition also has random strains which are not tying in with logic.
That has been done multiple times on this thread. Were you not paying attention?
Atheistic evolutionary science proponents and their legal liberal socialist lackeys are the ones who trying to shut down free speech and intelligent scientific discussion by using legal suppression. They are trying to suppress it on the basis of a constitution that was written by theists. The constitution says there should be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion and yet atheistic evolutionary proponents says that we cannot allow theism to influence our understanding of science, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for atheism to control our understanding of science. How illogical is that? If the arguments of evolution are reasonably incontrovertible, then all reasonable people will believe them. If all reasonable people will not believe them, why not have a reasonable debate?
Because ID is not science. The reasonable debate has been done. ID lost - by a landside. Time to move on.
This is a typical liberal response lacking the essence of the real facts of what happened in my area. It never truly was a scientific debate--because that would not happen in a court--it was a legal case. This case establishes the point I was making that evolution is propped up by the Federal government in various ways.
The federal courts first addressed intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. A local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania voted to require teachers to read a statement about intelligent design prior to discussions of evolution in high school biology classes. The judge found that the practice violated the Establishment clause, concluding that intelligent design is not a science because it fails to seek a natural cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.
And on the same logical grounds we could indite atheistic evolution because it does not seek to identify a theistic cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.
There is no doubt that the drive from the federal funding aspect is to keep evolution taught as the main scientific curriculum without acknowledging theistic options as science which is a denial of a founding principle of our country - which is theism.
Not talking about near death experiences. Try Googling "terminal lucidity". Fascinating phenomena.
You need to explain how ""terminal lucidity" helps with whatever you are trying to argue. It's not clear what your argument is. You just throw this out as if it's obvious. You should provide an actual argument.
It appears you didn't do as he suggested and check it out on google.
It's not known whether time had a beginning or not, the BB may be cyclic, brane collision, a patchwork multiverse or any number of other possibilities...or something not yet imagined. If a God, whatever that is, created the universe there is no evidence for it. Stars, galaxies and solar systems form on the basis of physics, they are not created, they form under gravity and matter/energy interaction, so it is not necessary to propose the existence of a Creator yet alone be convinced that this is fact true.
Apparently you have not read much literature about time. From what I read most accept time had a beginning just as matter and energy had a beginning. The idea gravity caused "stars, galaxies and solar systems" is ludicrous. The gas pressure is at least fifty times stronger pushing the particles apart rather than gravity bringing them together. So your conclusion of not needing a Creator is built on a flawed premise.
NEA's position in this debate has been firm. Most recently, our 1982 Representative Assembly made clear that NEA opposes all efforts to alter the science curricula in any way that would place the teaching of scientific creationism on an equal footing with the teaching of evolution.
While the National Education Association believes that educational materials should accurately portray the influence of religion in our nation and throughout the world, we also believe that for American education to flourish, religious dogma must neither guide nor hamper the pursuit of knowledge by students and teachers in our public schools.
The public teacher's union has a firm position that discounts scientific creationism as being on equal footing with atheistic evolutionary science. It believes that religious dogma should not guide or hamper the pursuit of knowledge. Well, what about irreligious dogma guiding or hampering the pursuit of knowledge? We are asked to pay taxes to support teachers' salaries whose union is firmly opposed to any theistic understanding of science and yet if they teach science they will need to mention famous scientists who were theists. This statement itself should be considered unconstitutional because we have state and public supported teachers whose agenda is atheism and evolution and who are firmly opposed to any theistic possibility.
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.
Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.
just as an expression of principle, i'd never capitalize the name of an avowed enemy. i'd choose to demonize them in any way possible?
i figure the experiment that is happening before the very eyes of some 7 plus billions peoples eyes is that we're seeing a frenzy development?
a frenzy? what could that be? we have tornadoes & hurricanes as an act of nature.
the heat from fossil fuel combustion gets exhausted into the atmosphere.
it's purpose is to hold back the advent of another ice age.
As I said, you still don't get it. What "claim" have I made on here?
I was referring to creationist claims, obviously. I am talking about the issue of creationism versus natural evolution and justification through evidence or the absence of it.
It being the creationist who makes the claim of creation when the evidence supports natural evolution.
This is not a person thing between you and me...at least not for me.
You were responding to me, obviously. And it's curious that you keep bringing up creationism and arguing against it when you respond to my posts, because way back about 70 or 80 pages I pretty clearly stated I''m not a creationist. If you want to argue against creationism you should probably do that with a creationist, it'll be more productive for you.
Nice diversion with the "it's not personal" comment though. You side step so well, you should've been a Motown singer.
Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
There is no logic in this argument at all.
The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable.
It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth.
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
Infinite goodness does not presuppose infinite evil because evil can be created--therefore the argument fails.
If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
I don't know the full details of US law, but I assume that it is banned from being taught in science classes because it is not science (tried in court and failed). It is religion, so I guess that it is not banned in religious study classrooms.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground.
usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder.
but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.
Not talking about near death experiences. Try Googling "terminal lucidity". Fascinating phenomena.
You need to explain how ""terminal lucidity" helps with whatever you are trying to argue. It's not clear what your argument is. You just throw this out as if it's obvious. You should provide an actual argument.
It appears you didn't do as he suggested and check it out on google.
I know what it is, but it doesn't help. It is still being researched, but it is known that the brain can give a final burst of exceptional activity in the moment of death, which not only produces terminal lucidity but near death experiences.
Even patients who suffer from permanent memory loss may have moments or short periods of relative lucidity, like the connections somehow come together for a period then fail.
Nor does TL occur with all patients with memory loss. It is being researched. As yet, there are no conclusions, there being something like 83 cases of terminal lucidity in the last 250 years, some accounts (not certain).
Recent findings of surges in brain activity at the point of death seem to indicate that the brain is very active at the time when the body is shutting down
''But could a ‘rational’ explanation exist? We can only speculate, but there are cases of individuals, often autistic, who go years without speaking, but later demonstrate the ability. These are murky waters most of the evidence is anecdotal. It sometimes involves ‘facilitated communication’ (of which the Ehmer case could be seen as a kind of strange prototype). But the mere fact that Ehmer did not speak, doesn’t prove that she could not speak.''
TL is not definitive proof of an afterlife or non material mind.
83 cases, reported cases compiled by whom? Could be many more.
Doesn't prove anything but is one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm?"
In case you forgot the original issue was ancient Greeks and their belief that there is an aspect to human existence beyond the physical, distinguishing us from animals.
83 cases, reported cases compiled by whom? Could be many more.
Doesn't prove anything but is one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm?"
In case you forgot the original issue was ancient Greeks and their belief that there is an aspect to human existence beyond the physical, distinguishing us from animals.
The ancient Greeks were great thinkers but that does not mean that they were right about everything they deduced about the nature of the world.
83 cases, reported cases compiled by whom? Could be many more.
Doesn't prove anything but is one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm?"
In case you forgot the original issue was ancient Greeks and their belief that there is an aspect to human existence beyond the physical, distinguishing us from animals.
this has been the one greatest schism between the pharisees, sadducees, and the heathens, pagans and others involving greece & egypt?
i don't have the "training" nor knowledge to disagree with any of their various beliefs, or ideas.
indeed, did humans come here to live, & die?
or did they come here to live, die & then depart?
serious stuff here. it divides a lot of tribal groups.
83 cases, reported cases compiled by whom? Could be many more.
Doesn't prove anything but is one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm?"
In case you forgot the original issue was ancient Greeks and their belief that there is an aspect to human existence beyond the physical, distinguishing us from animals.
There could be many more, however it does not happen in the majority of cases of brain damage and dying. Which indicates that there was some residual function activated under a final frantic burst of neuronal activity. There are probably far more living patients with brain damage/memory function loss that have moments of lucidity. There are some who have been in a coma for decades, yet became conscious. What can be said confidently is that the brain is an absolute marvel of complexity and functionality
83 cases, reported cases compiled by whom? Could be many more.
Doesn't prove anything but is one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm?"
In case you forgot the original issue was ancient Greeks and their belief that there is an aspect to human existence beyond the physical, distinguishing us from animals.
The ancient Greeks were great thinkers but that does not mean that they were right about everything they deduced about the nature of the world.
They're the folks who told us that a canon ball will fall from a tower faster than a bb because it's heavier.
In any case the question would be valid whether you are aware or not. But the point is that to engage even in the contemplation of philosophy you must assume that there is something capable of contemplation. Or more broadly certain assumptions must be (carefully) made before the question posed can be rationally discussed.
We've already demonstrated why this argument is fallacious.
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.
So your hypothesis about Satan ruling on Earth. Should that be part of the Science Curriculum?
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground.
usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder.
but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.
What good reason is there to assume any supernatural being?
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground.
usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder.
but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.
What good reason is there to assume any supernatural being?
Why assume god(s) and not pixies?
there's more potential payoffs in assuming gods, vs. something less?
i mean, if we're going to assume "something" then let's go for the gold?
well, silver is good. it'll be the lesser of the two, and it'll buy meals at the store.
now, if pixies want to challenge the gods, and offer more, then let's hear their argument?
if the marketeers who represent and support the pixies, and can offer a good payoff, then why not?
right now, we're looking for a leader, down here on the urth, where we eat, work, and pay taxes. what next?
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground.
usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder.
but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.
What good reason is there to assume any supernatural being?
Why assume god(s) and not pixies?
there's more potential payoffs in assuming gods, vs. something less?
i mean, if we're going to assume "something" then let's go for the gold?
well, silver is good. it'll be the lesser of the two, and it'll buy meals at the store.
now, if pixies want to challenge the gods, and offer more, then let's hear their argument?
if the marketeers who represent and support the pixies, and can offer a good payoff, then why not?
right now, we're looking for a leader, down here on the urth, where we eat, work, and pay taxes. what next?
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
How about I start campaigning for reincarnation to be taught in our schools? How about life according to Buddha? Or the tenets of Shintoism? I am sure most of the existing Amerindian nations have some thoughts on the mystery of creation. Out of fairness, their beliefs must be represented in the schools if any are.
How are the teachings you happen to believe in, any more worthy of representation in the school than the beliefs of any other people? Because you believe yours to be true? HMMMM, that must be why we have that separation of church and state thing/
Why should any religious teachings replace the discoveries of science in the schools?
How about I start campaigning for reincarnation to be taught in our schools? How about life according to Buddha? Or the tenets of Shintoism? I am sure most of the existing Amerindian nations have some thoughts on the mystery of creation. Out of fairness, their beliefs must be represented in the schools if any are.
How are the teachings you happen to believe in, any more worthy of representation in the school than the beliefs of any other people? Because you believe yours to be true? HMMMM, that must be why we have that separation of church and state thing/
Why should any religious teachings replace the discoveries of science in the schools?
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea.
The fact that you are appealing to hard solipsism to defend your position tells the rest of us everything we need to know about your position.
I'm defending a position? Coulda fooled me. All I'm saying is in any rational discussion there are assumptions and they should be acknowledged if not tacitly assented to.
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.
Classic non-sequitur.
The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil
Infinite goodness does not presuppose infinite evil because evil can be created--therefore the argument fails.
If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness. God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.
Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
There is no logic in this argument at all.
The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable.
It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth.
Of course He cannot be explained or tested or He would not be God. I cannot explain or test a thought while its going through your mind or test that you think before you speak or write--therefore should I assume that you never had a thought or that you never think before you speak or write?
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof.
The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence.
The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem.
If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
I don't know the full details of US law, but I assume that it is banned from being taught in science classes because it is not science (tried in court and failed). It is religion, so I guess that it is not banned in religious study classrooms.
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems.
So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.
So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?
You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
How about I start campaigning for reincarnation to be taught in our schools? How about life according to Buddha? Or the tenets of Shintoism? I am sure most of the existing Amerindian nations have some thoughts on the mystery of creation. Out of fairness, their beliefs must be represented in the schools if any are.
How are the teachings you happen to believe in, any more worthy of representation in the school than the beliefs of any other people? Because you believe yours to be true? HMMMM, that must be why we have that separation of church and state thing/
Why should any religious teachings replace the discoveries of science in the schools?
These are good questions. But let's consider them within the context of America since that is where most of us reside. Our countries founders were all theists. Everyone signed the declaration which talks about all men being created and being endowed by their creator. As theists they wrote a constitution from the basis of a theistic framework of logic, experience, and truth. Any usage of that document to undermine theism is an unconstitutional argument or agenda because it seeks to destroy the very foundation on which the document rests. The constitution never attempted to remove theism from our institutions but rather it limited government from prohibiting the free exercise of it.
The context of this thread is not about teaching religion in public schools but about whether evolution is a myth. The question is whether science can only be taught from an atheistic perspective which is also a belief system or whether it can be taught from a theistic perspective as well. Do you really think our theistic founders formulated their document to be used to ban a theistic understanding of science? Theistic science was in progress long before Darwin came along and introduced an atheistic and materialistic bias.
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.
So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?
You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance.
Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.
"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.
So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?
You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance.
Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.
Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that.
So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it?
Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it?
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
1
So when have these odds been demonstrated before? Unless it can be demonstrated and repeated it is not science .. aye?
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.
So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?
You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance.
Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.
Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that.
So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it?
Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it?
Science was taught long before Darwin postulated his theories, so to assume evolution as an apriori of science is a bit irrational.
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
1
So when have these odds been demonstrated before? Unless it can be demonstrated and repeated it is not science .. aye?
Look into the "Law of Large Numbers" also sometimes knows and "Limiting Probabilities"
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning.
So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them?
You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance.
Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.
Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that.
So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it?
Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it?
Science was taught long before Darwin postulated his theories, so to assume evolution as an apriori of science is a bit irrational.
You are deflecting again. Once more, you avoid the question with an answer to a question that was never asked and not relevant.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense.
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
Quote
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.
Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems.
So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
The question is: why do people assume that their own holy book, the Bible, Quran,Gita, etc, is a source of factual information about the world as it is? That the world was created by Brahman or Yahweh or Allah....?
Each assuming that they have the truth, that their own book is reliable, while the other are wrong.
"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
[b]The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.
Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing.
You don't seem to get the idea your argument is even less valid than the creationist's. At least they appeal to intelligence to create information. There's nothing in nature to show information coming from anything other than a mind.
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense.
The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.
a. They can be and have been.
b. Evolution is NOT a random occurrence. Mutations of genes may occur randomly. However, whether they (a) go away, (b) propogate throughout a population, thus causing the species to evolve, or (c) have no effect at all depends on whether or not they are good or bd for the survival and increase in the population.
You don't seem to get the idea your argument is even less valid than the creationist's. At least they appeal to intelligence to create information. There's nothing in nature to show information coming from anything other than a mind.
What is my argument? Can you say? I get the impression that you either don't understand what I said, or you misrepresent what I say for your own purposes.
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense.
The world isn't random. Evolution is not random.
Additionally, natural processes create order all the time.
The Rings of Saturn are "herded" into place Sheppard moons.
Look at our Solar System as a whole, with planets in orderly orbits around our sun.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems.
So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
I can tell it's been a loooooong time since you've been in school, or even had kids in school. Either that, or you never cared enough to actually look at their homework?
Education today is less about what to think and much more about how to think. As early as 4th grade they have lessons on evaluating the quality of arguments and the strengths and weakness of the evidence presented. Sure you first need to learn our agreed upon conventions and labels, there are the letters and how they sound, and these are the numbers and how to count, but after that, it's time to get onto most kids favor question, "Why", and more importantly, and more importantly, how do we know, and how they can evaluate for themselves it that's a good answer or not.
[quote=GunGeek]In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.[/quote] YUP! Well said.
[quote=GunGeek]In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise. What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.[/quote] YUP! Well said.
Sadly, this same inability to reason and accept the world for what it is, extends to many other issues with these same people. They live a life of almost constant denial to stay true to their dogma.
You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
First, if you are going to argue infinities I'll state that lead will turn into gold. It just takes time approaching infinity. Prove me wrong.
Second. Change a constant like the gravitational constant either way by something like 1 part in 10e50 and life CANNOT exist. The universe either blows up or collapses.
Not a proof but to be completely dismissive of the long odds is absurd. Most would call it of some probative value. a.k.a. evidence.
You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
First, if you are going to argue infinities I'll state that lead will turn into gold. It just takes time approaching infinity. Prove me wrong.
Second. Change a constant like the gravitational constant either way by something like 1 part in 10e50 and life CANNOT exist. The universe either blows up or collapses.
Not a proof but to be completely dismissive of the long odds is absurd. Most would call it of some probative value. a.k.a. evidence.
Your assertion about the gravitational constant brings up another flaw in your reasoning. That presumes all other constants remain constant.
A multi-variable equation can have more than one solution.
Remember those pesky functions in high school algebra?
For each x there a given y, but as x changes, so does y giving many such equations an infinite number of solutions.
If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands
.... God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
BIble clearly shows GOD is responsible for sanctioning and instigating both moral and natural calamties/evils.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
Your God designed/created Lucifer knowing he would fall, then God let him loose on the world with certain powers.
Satan and wickedness cannot exist and operate without Gods express permission. clearly God has given evil a mission in Gods divine plan.
Originally Posted by DBT
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
what Bibles and Dictionaries say , are not something some christians are all that willing to accept.
They will argue till blue in the face rather than accept what is verifiable and in plain sight print.
What was God, for the sake of argument, doing for an eternity before creating this Universe?
Nothing for an eternity...suddenly, ''hey, lets create a Universe, a great big Universe, that'll be nice!''
Don't get your hopes up for a sensible answer, I've asked multiple times where God/heaven was before creation of the universe ...and where God/heaven is now relative to the universe, no christian on the CF is willing or capable of answering.
nIghthawk gave some desperate feeble attempt by saying its beyond the time & space 3D world,.. yet Bible clearly talks in worldly 3D dimensions regarding the ascention of Jesus - disappearing through the clouds on the way to heaven.
If they cannot mistify-baffle people with their BS they just go cold on the subject.
nIghthawk gave some desperate feeble attempt by saying its beyond the time & space 3D world,.. yet Bible clearly talks in worldly 3D dimensions regarding the ascention of Jesus - disappearing through the clouds on the way to heaven.
What's so feeble about saying a supreme being is not limited by physical laws he created? Pretty much in the definition. Don't be so narrow minded.
So with the great technical sophistication of 2,000 years ago how would you do the assertion thing so people would get the concept? I mean, a flash of light then nothing would have them staring at one another going WTF. Which would be funny though. Would be very Mel Brooks-ish, nu?
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
Quote
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.
Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing.
How is the "assertion" that "God did it" any more speculative than "God didn't do it?" You would need to have omniscient knowledge to authoritatively say "God didn't do it". In fact you would need to be what you say does not exist in order to validate the statement which you already made. There is far more statistical evidence that points towards a Being as described by the Bible than there is to support the assumptions that energy and matter always was, and that was the catalyst for a Big Bang which was the catalyst for a universe that randomly developed into a fine tuned operation. You are fighting an uphill battle that defies logic, common sense, math, and statistical probability--but that is what you must do to advance your alleged scientific cause.
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems.
So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
The question is: why do people assume that their own holy book, the Bible, Quran,Gita, etc, is a source of factual information about the world as it is? That the world was created by Brahman or Yahweh or Allah....?
Each assuming that they have the truth, that their own book is reliable, while the other are wrong.
This thread is not about which holy book ... but about the myth of evolution. We have discussed holy books on another thread. The issue being addressed is the approach to evidence and education and specifically as it pertains to evolution. I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory. However my starting point is to seek truth, facts, and evidence, and it is not to deny all that I can possibly deny--which is what I was pointing out. Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
[b]The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
“I can’t imagine how X can be true; therefore, X must be false.”
“I can’t imagine how X can be false; therefore, X must be true.”
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be. Conclusions: proposition X is false.
and yet you follow the same deductive reasoning process to support evolution but without the support of any mathematical probability. The evidential and philosophical basis upon which you dismiss the evidence for God when equally applied to evolution will totally destroy it.
However your syllogism is completely wrong because we do not argue from what we do "not" know, but we argue from what we "do" know. We don't begin with what we imagine but we begin with the statistics and math that we do know. However you are trying to refute what we clearly know on the basis of what you think we cannot know for sure. Our position starts with statistical knowledge whereas yours begins with a denial of it.
The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.
a. They can be and have been.
b. Evolution is NOT a random occurrence. Mutations of genes may occur randomly. However, whether they (a) go away, (b) propogate throughout a population, thus causing the species to evolve, or (c) have no effect at all depends on whether or not they are good or bd for the survival and increase in the population.
So did this process and it's laws begin randomly or was it order by design?
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery.
Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places.
They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is.
And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws.
You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much.
I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much.
I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old.
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery.
Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places.
They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is.
And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws.
You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that.
Seriously as most people recognize--many, many evolutionists are atheists and most all if not all atheists believe in evolution.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much.
I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old.
I could have said "earth" instead of "universe," though the earth is typically considered as part of the equation of dating the universe because it is a part of the universe, and is the vantage point from which any extrapolations are made. So I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method--which is heavily used as evidence to support the age of the earth--which is part of the dating equation--which assumes uniformitarianism as part of its dating methodology. Even in physics we extrapolate by what we know in the present.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much.
I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old.
Ok I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method.
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery.
Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places.
They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is.
And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws.
You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that.
Seriously as most people recognize--many, many evolutionists are atheists and most all if not all atheists believe in evolution.
You are conflating atheists with evolution. Not the same. Not all evolutionists are atheists. Practice your Venn Diagrams.
I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory.
How's this for logic:
Hypothesis: Life forms evolve over time into different life forms.
Prediction: If the hypothesis is true, we should find different life forms at different times, and some intermediate between living and extinct ones.
Findings: We actually found the predicted results.
Prediction #2: Life forms which appear similar have similar DNA. The more similar the anatomy, the more similar would be the DNA.
Finding #2: We found the DNA conforms to the predictions.
Evolution is logical. Belief in God is not logical. Belief in God is a matter of faith. There is nothing it predicts that is subject to investigation to see if it is true or not.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery.
Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places.
They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is.
And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws.
You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that.
Seriously as most people recognize--many, many evolutionists are atheists and most all if not all atheists believe in evolution.
You are conflating atheists with evolution. Not the same. Not all evolutionists are atheists. Practice your Venn Diagrams.
I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory.
How's this for logic:
Hypothesis: Life forms evolve over time into different life forms.
Prediction: If the hypothesis is true, we should find different life forms at different times, and some intermediate between living and extinct ones.
Findings: We actually found the predicted results.
Prediction #2: Life forms which appear similar have similar DNA. The more similar the anatomy, the more similar would be the DNA.
Finding #2: We found the DNA conforms to the predictions.
Evolution is logical. Belief in God is not logical. Belief in God is a matter of faith. There is nothing it predicts that is subject to investigation to see if it is true or not.
But you can't start the hypothesis in mid stream. How do life forms come into being at the precise time with all the other universal anthropic principles already in place by purely materialistic processes and with no intelligent design? That is the question?
Answer: We don't know (yet). We may (or may not) find out. One thing certain, though, is that it did not happen 7,000 years ago and did not happen in the way described by Genesis.
nIghthawk gave some desperate feeble attempt by saying its beyond the time & space 3D world,.. yet Bible clearly talks in worldly 3D dimensions regarding the ascention of Jesus - disappearing through the clouds on the way to heaven.
What's so feeble about saying a supreme being is not limited by physical laws he created? Pretty much in the definition. Don't be so narrow minded.
It's feeble because it's just words. Nothing is known about a 'Supreme Being,' or what such a thing could even be. It's nothing more than speculation asserted as fact.
Answer: We don't know (yet). We may (or may not) find out. One thing certain, though, is that it did not happen 7,000 years ago and did not happen in the way described by Genesis.
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
Quote
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.
Is it moral to order the slaughter of women and children? Is it moral to have someone stoned to death for a minor infringement, gathering sticks on a Sabbath?
I think that your idea of morality may be a little skewed.
The bible tells us that God is responsible for pretty much everything:
''shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems.
So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
The question is: why do people assume that their own holy book, the Bible, Quran,Gita, etc, is a source of factual information about the world as it is? That the world was created by Brahman or Yahweh or Allah....?
Each assuming that they have the truth, that their own book is reliable, while the other are wrong.
This thread is not about which holy book ... but about the myth of evolution. We have discussed holy books on another thread. The issue being addressed is the approach to evidence and education and specifically as it pertains to evolution. I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory. However my starting point is to seek truth, facts, and evidence, and it is not to deny all that I can possibly deny--which is what I was pointing out. Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
Despite the protests of theists like yourself to the contrary, evolution is a proven reality. Only the means and mechanisms of evolution are subject to testing and revision.
I mentioned holy books because their claims of knowledge in relation to the supernatural are not proven. Worse they contradict each other on the nature of their God or gods and how the world was created.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
I could have said "earth" instead of "universe," though the earth is typically considered as part of the equation of dating the universe because it is a part of the universe, and is the vantage point from which any extrapolations are made. So I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method--which is heavily used as evidence to support the age of the earth--which is part of the dating equation--which assumes uniformitarianism as part of its dating methodology. Even in physics we extrapolate by what we know in the present.
The church once taught that the world was the centre of the universe...now, thanks to science, we know that the world is a speck of dust in an incomprehensibly vast universe.
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
Quote
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.
Is it moral to order the slaughter of women and children? Is it moral to have someone stoned to death for a minor infringement, gathering sticks on a Sabbath?
I think that your idea of morality may be a little skewed.
The bible tells us that God is responsible for pretty much everything:
''shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
This is outside the scope of this thread ... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.
There are plenty of verses which declare that God is perfectly holy and cannot sin.
Despite the protests of theists like yourself to the contrary, evolution is a proven reality. Only the means and mechanisms of evolution are subject to testing and revision.
I mentioned holy books because their claims of knowledge in relation to the supernatural are not proven. Worse they contradict each other on the nature of their God or gods and how the world was created.
We would expect other holy books to contradict the Bible the same as we would expect from evolutionary theory. And another poster says that atheism and evolution are not to be conflated lol.
I could have said "earth" instead of "universe," though the earth is typically considered as part of the equation of dating the universe because it is a part of the universe, and is the vantage point from which any extrapolations are made. So I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method--which is heavily used as evidence to support the age of the earth--which is part of the dating equation--which assumes uniformitarianism as part of its dating methodology. Even in physics we extrapolate by what we know in the present.
The church once taught that the world was the centre of the universe...now, thanks to science, we know that the world is a speck of dust in an incomprehensibly vast universe.
Dude seriously--that was the general understanding of many people of different beliefs before the discoveries of science. But yet today the church embraces this scientific concept because it is true science.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
That's so wrong that it's funny.
It's actually dead right. Look at how Darwinians defend their case: by employing fallacy after fallacy, including heavy appeals to authority. In fact "Origins" by Darwin begins with an obvious fallacy on its title page (the tautology that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who leave the most off-spring!) We've been told repeatedly in this thread that evolution must be true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is an elementary logical fallacy, but it's exactly the same fallacy employed time and again in defense of AGW. That is a fact, however much DBT wants to wish it away. Obama's quote on the science of AGW is something defenders of Neo-Darwinism do all the time. We've heard it time and again "the science is settled" and 97% of scientists believe in man-made, catastrophic global warming. Defenders of Neo-Darwinism constantly employ the exact same fallacy. Yet as every logician (or philosopher of science) with an IQ higher than an ant understands, truth is not determined by consensus. It has been said that you don't need to know much about neo-darwinism to know it probably isn't true---just look at how its defenders argue their case! When you are forced to resort to ad hominem marginalization, appeals to authority (which DBT and other defenders of Neo-Darwinism have done repeatedly in this thread---just as defenders of AGW constantly do) when these tools are employed by the proponent of an argument it's practically a confession that the argument the person is defending is not defensible.
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
Quote
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.
Is it moral to order the slaughter of women and children? Is it moral to have someone stoned to death for a minor infringement, gathering sticks on a Sabbath?
I think that your idea of morality may be a little skewed.
The bible tells us that God is responsible for pretty much everything:
''shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4
The very fact that defenders of Neo-Darwinism resort to attacking the Bible or religion generally is proof positive that the underlying and all important issue is metaphysics, not science. Neo-darwinists desperately need their theory to be true so they can be (in the words of Richard Dawkins) "intellectually fulfilled atheists" and when they can't defend their theory, their fall-back position is "well, look at the Bible and religion they can't possibly be true either". Pathetic and amusing!
Answer: We don't know (yet). We may (or may not) find out. One thing certain, though, is that it did not happen 7,000 years ago and did not happen in the way described by Genesis.
I appreciate the candor.
I'm going to mention something that often gets lost in the debate over the Genesis record...
Quote
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5 ESV)
God is before all things ... but notice that there was an unordered chaotic mass of darkness, earth and water that pre-existed before day 1 of creation which brought forth light. As Bible believers we have no idea how long this pre-existing era was before day 1 of creation began. There is no reason for us not to think that there would be geological evidence that pre-dates the literal 6 day creation event which in no case would contradict the subsequent event. Moving forward in the days of creation there is the separation of land and water to bring order from the pre-existing elements.
Again I am simply pointing this out because there is clear Genesis evidence that geology existed before the 6 day creation of order and the creation of biological life. I am not expecting you to accept the Genesis record as you have already made yourself clear on that point, but I am pointing out an often overlooked aspect of the Genesis record.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
That's so wrong that it's funny.
It's actually dead right. Look at how Darwinians defend their case: by employing fallacy after fallacy, including heavy appeals to authority. In fact "Origins" by Darwin begins with an obvious fallacy on its title page (the tautology that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who leave the most off-spring!) We've been told repeatedly in this thread that evolution must be true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is an elementary logical fallacy, but it's exactly the same fallacy employed time and again in defense of AGW. That is a fact, however much DBT wants to wish it away. Obama's quote on the science of AGW is something defenders of Neo-Darwinism do all the time. We've heard it time and again "the science is settled" and 97% of scientists believe in man-made, catastrophic global warming. Defenders of Neo-Darwinism constantly employ the exact same fallacy. Yet as every logician (or philosopher of science) with an IQ higher than an ant understands, truth is not determined by consensus. It has been said that you don't need to know much about neo-darwinism to know it probably isn't true---just look at how its defenders argue their case! When you are forced to resort to ad hominem marginalization, appeals to authority (which DBT and other defenders of Neo-Darwinism have done repeatedly in this thread---just as defenders of AGW constantly do) when these tools are employed by the proponent of an argument it's practically a confession that the argument the person is defending is not defensible.
This is actually funny. Look at what the anti-evolutionists have been doing this entire thread, and you have pretty much nailed it perfectly.
First, I believe evolution explains the changes in life forms on Earth over the last 350 million years, not because a bunch of scientists have told me to believe it. But because I can see the fossils for myself, and I can see the methodology used to date those fossils.
Unlike global warming science where it is impossible to prove man has had any impact on Earths climate. Absolutely, climate change is real. The Earth has been so warm at times that Antarctica was a tropical paradise. And it has been so cold at times that Utah and Colorado were buried under the polar ice cap. And not all that long ago.
Lots of folks claim that evolution is not possible, yet not a one has addressed the constant change in life forms through millennia of fossil records.
No one has addressed the origins of several species of archaic humans. The genus Homo has many members besides Sapiens. Some of which roamed the Earth as recently as 12,000 BC.
As to the issue of things which look similar always have similar DNA. That is not as true as one might guess. Parallel evolution does occur where species of different families can evolve very similar traits to take advantage of similar ecological niches in geographically separated regions.
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
That's so wrong that it's funny.
It's actually dead right. Look at how Darwinians defend their case: by employing fallacy after fallacy, including heavy appeals to authority. In fact "Origins" by Darwin begins with an obvious fallacy on its title page (the tautology that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who leave the most off-spring!) We've been told repeatedly in this thread that evolution must be true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is an elementary logical fallacy, but it's exactly the same fallacy employed time and again in defense of AGW. That is a fact, however much DBT wants to wish it away. Obama's quote on the science of AGW is something defenders of Neo-Darwinism do all the time. We've heard it time and again "the science is settled" and 97% of scientists believe in man-made, catastrophic global warming. Defenders of Neo-Darwinism constantly employ the exact same fallacy. Yet as every logician (or philosopher of science) with an IQ higher than an ant understands, truth is not determined by consensus. It has been said that you don't need to know much about neo-darwinism to know it probably isn't true---just look at how its defenders argue their case! When you are forced to resort to ad hominem marginalization, appeals to authority (which DBT and other defenders of Neo-Darwinism have done repeatedly in this thread---just as defenders of AGW constantly do) when these tools are employed by the proponent of an argument it's practically a confession that the argument the person is defending is not defensible.
This is actually funny. Look at what the anti-evolutionists have been doing this entire thread, and you have pretty much nailed it perfectly.
Obviously the fittest have the best odds to survive and therefore leave the fittest offspring.
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human ... humanorigins.si.edu/evidence “Evidence of Evolution-Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human , and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”
So we do believe in changes resulting in species from adaptation to the local and changing environment therefore we do believe in what could be termed as evolution within a species. We object to evolution as the genesis of the species and the macro evolution of one species into a completely different species. Because the whole package is typically billed as one unit, we object to that package of evolution. Can you provide us an example of a particular transitional life form that you would like to discuss which you believe has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt?
You mean speciation. It is not hard to follow. It is known. We see incipient species going through the process, species that have newly occurred, and species that are old and which evolved long ago (and are still evolving today, of course).
You mean speciation. It is not hard to follow. It is known. We see incipient species going through the process, species that have newly occurred, and species that are old and which evolved long ago (and are still evolving today, of course).
So, you cannot or will not provide an example.....?
You mean speciation. It is not hard to follow. It is known. We see incipient species going through the process, species that have newly occurred, and species that are old and which evolved long ago (and are still evolving today, of course).
I have heard it argued that “speciation” is clearly not “macro evolution” and is simply variations within an extensive genotype. That’s how you get lions and tigers that don’t normally interbreed .... but it has been argued that selective breeding could indeed result in different breeds of cats...ie, lions and tiger types that could interbreed.
If you are indeed referring to speciation, it does not seem to fit.
It is indeed arguable, to the point where more than one geneticist consider it not to be fact.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
Chmpnzees and Bonobos, separated about 3 million years ago.
Horses and donkeys (which can interbreed but the offspring, mules, are sterile)
Northern bears evolved into grizzlies and polar bears (which again can interbreed but almost never do. The offspring may not be sterile.)
The reason scientifically ignorant people talk about "microevolution" is that evolution takes many generations. Also, they cannot deny that Chihuahuas and St. Bernards evolved from a common ancestor.
Want an example of species that have evolved so much that interbreeding is totally impossible? Try therapod dinosaurs, some of which evolved into modern birds.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
some species evolve overnight due to the complexities of polyploidy and hybridization that generate instant (and viable) new species. Plants do some of this commonly, salamanders have a history of it and many other groups, which I do not track.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
What is a "genesis form"? You keep making up new vocabulary whenever you have no other options.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
What is a "genesis form"? You keep making up new vocabulary whenever you have no other options.
gen·e·sis /ˈjenəsəs/ Learn to pronounce noun the origin or mode of formation of something. "this tale had its genesis in fireside stories" synonyms: origin, source, root, beginning, commencement, start, outset
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
You can't do this because whatever you identify as a "genesis form," a non-science term which I suspect means the first ancestral species, would be preceded by a yet earlier one, etc. Further, change from one to another is not instantaneous but happens gradually over many generations. Homo habilis, incidentally, was preceded by Australopithicus afarensis.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
You can't do this because whatever you identify as a "genesis form," a non-science term which I suspect means the first ancestral species, would be preceded by a yet earlier one, etc. Further, change from one to another is not instantaneous but happens gradually over many generations. Homo habilis, incidentally, was preceded by Australopithicus afarensis.
Pick one. Rhagolitis flies, multiple species. Hawaiian drosopholids. Lots of them. Squirrels, mice, you name it. They are all around you.
Here is an interesting lift from an article on "genetic" issues can conflict with prevailing evolutionary theory:
"…..Change resulting from selective breeding is not the same as evolutionary change. Evolution, by means of new mutations and utilizing all the sub-processes can achieve much more comprehensive optimization of all of the organism’s characteristics. Because the comprehensive process is much longer, the apparent timing difference between group and individual selection is dramatically reduced increasing the feasibility of group selection. [u]This issue is probably the single most important issue in the continuing controversy between traditional and alternative evolutionary mechanics theories[/u
Yep, the rhagolits flies all remain flies.... all the same genotype.... squirrels, mice, monkeys.... all the same genotype.
One scientist went through 60,000 generations of bacteria.... all remained bacteria.... same with all the fruit fly experiments. ALL known efforts to force "macro-evolution" in the lab have failed.
The examples you provided are all examples of "genetic variation" within a genotype and ARE NOT examples of "macro-evolution."
The scientific community has changed the definition of "evolution" so as to include simple genetic variation. They have duped the unsuspecting crowds.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
H habilis came from a more archaic line of hominids which came from other more distant mammals which date back to 66 million years ago at the K-T boundary.
The question is not genesis of life. That question is unanswerable at this time. The question was, "Can we identify trans-species evolution?" Examples of which abound for anyone who looks with an open mind.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there.
Pakicetus …..listed as a transitional form and proof of macro evolution. Now, this Pakicetus was a small land mammal. Ok, but why is it considered a transitional form and proof of the macro evolution of whales? Inquiring minds want to know…. so here it is: “….although it primarily lived its life on land, it is linked as a whale relative through its unique inner ear shape. Only whales have such an enhanced region of the ear called an "auditory bulla"--and Pakicetus has this too.”
Ok, I get it… small land mammal to big honking whale and the link is…. the “unique inner ear shape…” Does this seem right to you?
Pezosiren portelli ….The ancestry of manatees and dugongs was a long standing mystery in paleontology. In 2001, the discovery of Pezosiren portelli provided a huge clue. The fossil was discovered in Jamaica, and at 50 million years old represents the oldest member of the group Sirenia (sea cows). It is clear Pezosiren had 4 legs it used to walk on land, but it also had heavy ribs that could indicate it lived part time in water, much like a hippopotamus. This species likely represents the transitional form of sea cows as it maintained the general body plan of a sea cow, but just without flippers.
So, this Pezosiren walked on land, had four legs…BUT it also had heavy ribs…. right, heavy ribs… and this could… repeat could… indicate it lived part time in water …. like a hippopotamus. Yep, clearly an ancestor of a manatee…. the heavy ribs give it away.
Tiktaalik roseae ….Looking all the way back 375 million years ago, there is an intermediate fossil that represents the transition of vertebrate life from water to land. Tiktaalik roseae, discovered in Nunavut in 2004, is an ancient fish called a sarcopteryigian, or lobe-finned fish. Although it bears many similarities to fish like gills, scales, and fins, other key characteristics link Tiktaalik to land animals. While it did have fins, the bones inside the fins are homologous to the bones of the human hand and wrist, indicating it may have been able to bear weight. The animal also had a mobile neck and a strong ribcage, two critical traits that allowed four-legged (tetrapod) creatures to move onto land.
OK, it was a fish, they say that…. gills, scales, fins etc…. BUT, it is a link to land animals…Why? It had a mobile neck, strong ribcage and fins like a wrist…. Really? Seems more like the mudskippers I saw in Australia.
I submit that the fossil record has few.... if any.... examples of the much predicted "transitional forms." The fossil record does not support evolutionary theory.
The much ballyhooed "micro-evolution" is nothing but simple genetic variation and IS NOT supportive of the theory of evolution. Although the "hooey" part may be correct.
This is outside the scope of this thread ... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.
These verses, and more, are not outside the scope of your claim: ''You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil'' - Thunderstruck.
These verses falsify your claim.
They clearly do not just refer to so called 'natural calamities' - which if brought about by God for the reason of causing death and suffering is an act of evil.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
There are plenty of verses which declare that God is perfectly holy and cannot sin.
Sure, there are.....and that is another contradiction in the bible.
The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, ... their land shall be soaked with blood, ... For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance. Isaiah 34:7-8
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; Nahum 1:2
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Isaiah 14:21
In contradiction to:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
Despite the protests of theists like yourself to the contrary, evolution is a proven reality. Only the means and mechanisms of evolution are subject to testing and revision.
I mentioned holy books because their claims of knowledge in relation to the supernatural are not proven. Worse they contradict each other on the nature of their God or gods and how the world was created.
We would expect other holy books to contradict the Bible the same as we would expect from evolutionary theory. And another poster says that atheism and evolution are not to be conflated lol.
Nothing of the sort. Evolution is only denied by those who prefer creation myths. Theories or hypothesis relating to the means and mechanisms of evolution may be reviewed or modified as new information is acquired.
Evolution says nothing about the existence of a God or gods because supernatural entities are not necessary to explain evolution, and there is no evidence for them.
So back to justification through evidence: if there is insufficient evidence to support a justified conviction in the existence of a God or gods, it is not justified to be convinced of their existence. A conviction in the existence of a God or gods is an unjustified belief....a matter of faith not reason.
''Tom Bethell is a senior editor at American Spectator, "media fellow" at the Hoover Institution, and purveyor of just about every brand of wingnut pseudoscience you can name.
His ultimate anti-science manifesto is the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (PIGS), a book-length exudation promoting intelligent design, AIDS denial, stem cell myths, anti-environmentalism (mostly concentrating on global warming denial, the classic DDT and Rachel Carson canards, the crank version of radiation hormesis, and claiming that endangered species aren't really endangered), and cancer quackery. The book is exceptional in that one could easily use the thing as a whole as well as each individual chapter to play some form of crank bingo or a skeptical drinking game (if you really hate your liver). Many classic rhetorical gambits make an appearance: Science was wrong before, the Galileo gambit, the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, "suppression" of crankery "innovative" and "politically incorrect" ideas, science as a secular religion, the Gish Gallop, etc. The unifying theme is Bethell's conspiratorial perspective in which the scientific establishment is constantly sidelining "politically incorrect" dissent in order for scientists to prop up liberal ideology and make off with mountains of grant money.
Each topic covered also includes all the relevant greatest hits. On evolution, for example, all the old chestnuts are there: No transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, microevolution not macroevolution, Karl Popper's declaration of the theory as unfalsifiable, etc. If ye shall know them by their citations, it's predictable fare; Bethell's "qualified experts" include the usual suspects at the Discovery Institute (Dembski, Behe, and Wells), Peter Duesberg, S. Fred Singer, Steve McIntyre, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Petr Beckmann. *catches breath*
... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.
An 'all loving' God planned the world as it is and he creates-employs such wicked mercenaries to serve his purpose.
yet Christians try and tell ya God is not responsible for such evils, even though God distinctly tells them he is responsible.
Originally Posted by DBT
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered , it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;
RE: ;' love does not delight in evil'
maybe not delight, but love does approve of and sanction evil....without the role of evil , how would Gods plan transpire?
When God dealt out the cards at the table, he knowingly gave the devil his hand to play.
the CF has those types. who think they are the chosen few with the Holy Spirit who are needed to understand Bible.
yet they make complete fools of themselves time and time again denying or contradicting what Bible clearly states.
apparently God made Bible so hard to comprehend for all the 'sheep brain' flock out there, that you need special interpreters to decipher chiidrens parables.
''Tom Bethell is a senior editor at American Spectator, "media fellow" at the Hoover Institution, and purveyor of just about every brand of wingnut pseudoscience you can name.
His ultimate anti-science manifesto is the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (PIGS), a book-length exudation promoting intelligent design, AIDS denial, stem cell myths, anti-environmentalism (mostly concentrating on global warming denial, the classic DDT and Rachel Carson canards, the crank version of radiation hormesis, and claiming that endangered species aren't really endangered), and cancer quackery. The book is exceptional in that one could easily use the thing as a whole as well as each individual chapter to play some form of crank bingo or a skeptical drinking game (if you really hate your liver). Many classic rhetorical gambits make an appearance: Science was wrong before, the Galileo gambit, the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, "suppression" of crankery "innovative" and "politically incorrect" ideas, science as a secular religion, the Gish Gallop, etc. The unifying theme is Bethell's conspiratorial perspective in which the scientific establishment is constantly sidelining "politically incorrect" dissent in order for scientists to prop up liberal ideology and make off with mountains of grant money.
Each topic covered also includes all the relevant greatest hits. On evolution, for example, all the old chestnuts are there: No transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, microevolution not macroevolution, Karl Popper's declaration of the theory as unfalsifiable, etc. If ye shall know them by their citations, it's predictable fare; Bethell's "qualified experts" include the usual suspects at the Discovery Institute (Dembski, Behe, and Wells), Peter Duesberg, S. Fred Singer, Steve McIntyre, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Petr Beckmann. *catches breath*
Another hit and run job that is heavy in ad hominem and completely lacking in refutation. If he's a crackpot, refutation should be easy, yet no attempt is even made. Cary Mullis, the discoverer of polymerase chain reaction (DNA) and a Nobel Laureate, is (or was) also skeptical of the claim that HIV causes AIDS. Of course, that skepticism is decades old and the science may have improved the arguments for the HIV-causes AIDs lobby, but it doesn't mean Bethell's earlier skepticism about HIV-AIDS causation was wrong nor is it any evidence whatsoever that he is wrong about evolution. Another example of a staunch defender of Neo-Darwinism responding with logical fallacies rather than arguments.
the CF has those types. who think they are the chosen few with the Holy Spirit who are needed to understand Bible.
yet they make complete fools of themselves time and time again denying or contradicting what Bible clearly states.
apparently God made Bible so hard to comprehend for all the 'sheep brain' flock out there, that you need special interpreters to decipher chiidrens parables.
i tell ya i'm against taxing red meat especially meat.
Well opinions vary...you are only part of Brahmas(the creators) lotus dream, when he wakes the illusion that you exist will dissolve ..and thus the truth revealed.
but don't let go of your faith.
For with faith you can believe[imagine] anything you want... virgin births, talking snakes ,donkeys and unicorns,
which are no more valid than todays folk who believe in Big-Foot, ..BF may even be more real cause we still have a plethora of living eye-witnesses.
Originally Posted by Gus
i tell ya i'm against taxing red meat especially meat.
how much tax on red meat??
red meat has had a good run over the millennia, be a good sport and try fish on Fridays for a change.
''Tom Bethell is a senior editor at American Spectator, "media fellow" at the Hoover Institution, and purveyor of just about every brand of wingnut pseudoscience you can name.
His ultimate anti-science manifesto is the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (PIGS), a book-length exudation promoting intelligent design, AIDS denial, stem cell myths, anti-environmentalism (mostly concentrating on global warming denial, the classic DDT and Rachel Carson canards, the crank version of radiation hormesis, and claiming that endangered species aren't really endangered), and cancer quackery. The book is exceptional in that one could easily use the thing as a whole as well as each individual chapter to play some form of crank bingo or a skeptical drinking game (if you really hate your liver). Many classic rhetorical gambits make an appearance: Science was wrong before, the Galileo gambit, the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, "suppression" of crankery "innovative" and "politically incorrect" ideas, science as a secular religion, the Gish Gallop, etc. The unifying theme is Bethell's conspiratorial perspective in which the scientific establishment is constantly sidelining "politically incorrect" dissent in order for scientists to prop up liberal ideology and make off with mountains of grant money.
Each topic covered also includes all the relevant greatest hits. On evolution, for example, all the old chestnuts are there: No transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, microevolution not macroevolution, Karl Popper's declaration of the theory as unfalsifiable, etc. If ye shall know them by their citations, it's predictable fare; Bethell's "qualified experts" include the usual suspects at the Discovery Institute (Dembski, Behe, and Wells), Peter Duesberg, S. Fred Singer, Steve McIntyre, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Petr Beckmann. *catches breath*
Another hit and run job that is heavy in ad hominem and completely lacking in refutation. If he's a crackpot, refutation should be easy, yet no attempt is even made. Cary Mullis, the discoverer of polymerase chain reaction (DNA) and a Nobel Laureate, is (or was) also skeptical of the claim that HIV causes AIDS. Of course, that skepticism is decades old and the science may have improved the arguments for the HIV-causes AIDs lobby, but it doesn't mean Bethell's earlier skepticism about HIV-AIDS causation was wrong nor is it any evidence whatsoever that he is wrong about evolution. Another example of a staunch defender of Neo-Darwinism responding with logical fallacies rather than arguments.
Hit and run? No, the article merely refers to the work of Bethell, what his position is and what he argues.
His argument against evolution uses all the old chestnuts, laughable and refuted long ago. It has no merit. It may give creationists comfort, but it's not science.
“…..Closer to home, we have Mormons. I know good, smart people who are Mormons, people as capable of rational thought in most matters as anyone else, I would say. These people believe things that I find baffling. I read their stuff and it seems totally bizarre to me. If one of them were to say "you have to want to believe it for it to make sense", I don't think I could actually make myself want to believe it. It's just too far out there for my brain to say "yeah this might be legit, let's look into it". Those Mormons could now say I've chosen not to believe, but I maintain I had no choice, I simply found it unbelievable….”
Yes, I agree. When in Army basic training, I had a Mormon bunkmate. Great guy, friendly, competent and we got along just fine. Even though he was young, he was already some sort of big wig in the Mormon hierarchy. At the time, I was in the midst of my spiritual search and we had many long discussions regarding Mormon doctrine and such. Our interactions went on for pretty much all of Basic Training. Anyway, in the end, I decided… made a choice…. to believe it not. Not accept it as truth. It simply did not ring true and after “examining” what evidence I had, I rejected it.
Let me expand on this. I had posted the following:
“Warning: there are bible verses that clearly indicate that a man does indeed choose ...God or not....see Joshua’s statement about choosing God. But, it also teaches that God has a hand in it as well.... see Acts and the conversion of Lydia. These “side by side” teachings are somewhat of a mystery to me, but.... just because I do not fully understand simply means I do not fully understand....yet.”
Consider the honest seeker…the honest seeker is Nicodemus in John 3:1-16 …. Jesus responds quickly and clearly to Nicodemus, the honest seeker. I submit that Lydia was an “honest seeker.” Lydia is recorded as being in attendance at a “prayer meeting.” She was there because she wanted to be there and was interested. I presume she was seeker. The NIV calls her a “worshiper.” Seems this same word can be interpreted as “one who honors God” or simply as one who “holds God with significant regard.” Anyway, she was there and Paul shows up. It seems she was not “born again” as it is assumed she has not heard about Jesus at this point. So, we have an “honest seeker” who is trying to find truth and trying to find God. She has made a choice to hold God with regard and she is pursuing God.
BUT, we see that God has a hand in her conversion. Acts 16:14 it says “…. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”
So, we have an honest seeker and a God who responds with Holy Spirit enlightenment. One can see that Lydia did in fact “seek” and God did in fact “call.”
Lydia made a choice to seek and also benefited from God’s call.
Side note: There are many of these "side by side" teachings in the Bible. At times, God judges sin and then takes action. This demonstrates an attribute of God. God also loves and that is another attribute. So, this may be considered a "side by side" teaching..... God judges sin and takes action and shows us how serious sin is. He also shows His great love with Jesus sacrifice on the cross. God's love is an attribute here. No contradiction here at all. Just descriptions of different attributes of God. He is both a God of Love and He is also God that rejects sin and sinful actions.
the CF has those types. who think they are the chosen few with the Holy Spirit who are needed to understand Bible.
yet they make complete fools of themselves time and time again denying or contradicting what Bible clearly states.
apparently God made Bible so hard to comprehend for all the 'sheep brain' flock out there, that you need special interpreters to decipher chiidrens parables.
i tell ya i'm against taxing red meat especially meat.
i'm down here on urth, and that's all i know.
others might very well know more.
how much tax on red meat??
I don't know, but it is a hell of a lot with all the .gov subsidies that are thrown into it. In the meantime, I am certain that you should pay twice as much as everyone else.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Each of which is a separate proposition with it's own burden of proof.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Each of which is a separate proposition with it's own burden of proof.
Ok, I’ll bite. How will you prove that archaeopteryx is not a bird.... or for that matter prove that it descended from dinosaurs.....or that whales descended from that small land mammal?
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Each of which is a separate proposition with it's own burden of proof.
Ok, I’ll bite. How will you prove that archaeopteryx is not a bird.... or for that matter prove that it descended from dinosaurs.....or that whales descended from that small land mammal?
Actually, I was referring to your conflated red herrings regarding global warming, flat earth, and Epstein.
But since you ask, lets see what a real Evolutionary Biologist has to say about whales. OH, we have the fossils AND the DNA:
Religion would be a lot more credible if it eliminated myths after they are proven as myths.
I would propose that we eliminate the Book of Genesis from the Bible and start with Exodus. After all, just who said which books were "Scripture?" A group of pre-renaissance so-called Catholic bishops, who never knew Jesus or even Peter or Paul, 300 years after the Acts of the Apostles. They kept some books and threw away others. Why shouldn't we do the same? What reason is there to think that these medieval people were divinely inspired?
And if you think they were, how do you explain that the Catholic Bible contains different books than the Protestant Bible does?
The demonstrably incorrect myths in Genesis detract from the message of Christianity.
Um, um, um. I'm sure glad that first little amoeba knew I was going to need Kentucky fried chicken in Lard and hatch peppers split and filled with bacon and cream cheese.
Smart little bugger it was. Sitting there and decided it wanted company and started dividing. Then later on the protozoa decided to become more advanced to ensure their survival and stated becoming something that couldnt divide and multiply but wanted to have sex so it became 2 sexes requiring two consenting individuals making life actually more complex, but then they had to, didnt they?
Science being self correcting through peer review can and does weed out bad science. That it the very purpose of the method. Evolution has stood the test of peer review for one hundred and fifty years without being toppled.
Religion has no such checks and balances. People accept dogma on faith, with any serious questioning it's teachings being discouraged, faith being seen as a virtue.
[Religion has no such checks and balances. People accept dogma on faith, with any serious questioning it's teachings being discouraged, faith being seen as a virtue.
Oh man, is that ever wrong. There's something like 33,000 Christian denominations because nobody questions.
But then based on deprecated translation of an ancient Hebrew text we conclude the absurdity that God is the root of all evil.
[Religion has no such checks and balances. People accept dogma on faith, with any serious questioning it's teachings being discouraged, faith being seen as a virtue.
Oh man, is that ever wrong. There's something like 33,000 Christian denominations because nobody questions.
That's not an example of questioning the central beliefs of Christianity or any religion, of course, each religion does reject the teachings of other faiths without too much effort. It is an example of the absurdity of faith. Countless denominations squabble over things like the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus, salvation through grace or works, etc....yet they do not question faith itself, or their own faith, or the existence of God, they tinker with the details, fretting over things that are taken on faith.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
But then based on deprecated translation of an ancient Hebrew text we conclude the absurdity that God is the root of all evil.
The writers of the Torah/OT describe what they believed their God to be like. Christian writers added their own beliefs, which Judaism rejects. Each clinging to their own interpretations and their own faith.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Quote
Are you concerned with arguments on the role and attributes of Shiva or Ganesh, Shakti or Hanuman?
Yes, and I studied it long ago and concluded Western thought (I-thou relationship) was correct.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Quote
Are you concerned with arguments on the role and attributes of Shiva or Ganesh, Shakti or Hanuman?
Yes, and I studied it long ago and concluded Western thought (I-thou relationship) was correct.
How did you conclude that? What was it that convinced you?
That was 40-some years ago and I wouldn't try to explain it if I could remember. Requires understanding four semesters of Philosophy before you get there.
Did you always want other people to do your homework for you?
It's a discussion forum. I asked you to explain your reasoning. Do you assume that your position is true beyond question? You reject the beliefs of Hinduism, others reject your beliefs. Who is right, and why....that is the issue.
You asked me to explain my reasoning and I declined - because it would take several years and you'd throw up straw men like a poorly translated bible quote anyway.
You asked me to explain my reasoning and I declined - because it would take several years and you'd throw up straw men like a poorly translated bible quote anyway.
You are free to decline. No need to justify your claims when you can just assert them.
You are wrong about translation error when it comes to violence in the bible. That is well recognized. Nor does it rest on any single verse.
''The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, recording, encouraging, commanding, condemning, rewarding, punishing and regulating violent actions by God, individuals, groups, governments, and nation-states. Among the violent acts included are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, and criminal punishment.[1]:Introduction The texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification and opposition to acts of violence.[2]
Sociologists Frank Robert Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn question "the applicability of the term [genocide] to earlier periods of history, and the judgmental and moral loadings that have become associated with it."[149] Since most societies of the past endured and practiced genocide, it was accepted as "being in the nature of life" because of the "coarseness and brutality" of life.[149]:27 Chalk and Jonassohn say the Old Testament contains cases they would consider genocide (if they were factual) because of women and children being killed even though it was war and casualties in war are excluded from the definition of genocide. They also say: "The evidence for genocide in antiquity is circumstantial, inferential, and ambiguous, and it comes to us exclusively from the perpetrators."[149]:64''
People accept dogma on faith, with any serious questioning it's teachings being discouraged, faith being seen as a virtue.
Oh man, is that ever wrong. There's something like 33,000 Christian denominations because nobody questions.
DBT said serious questioning is discouraged , not that there is no questioning...its no wonder you are blind or oblivious to the clear and concise words in scripture.
anyway,..why would all those folks with the holy sprit have any need to doubt or question?
Originally Posted by DBT
The writers of the Torah/OT describe what they believed their God to be like. Christian writers added their own beliefs, which Judaism rejects. Each clinging to their own interpretations and their own faith.
Faith is nothing more than mans belief in his own kaleidoscope imagination.
Originally Posted by DBT
.... each religion does reject the teachings of other faiths without too much effort. It is an example of the absurdity of faith. Countless denominations squabble ....
christians were at each other throats in the time of Constantine, squabbling and on the verge of civil war over their differences regarding christianity, such is the loving peaceful comforting power of the Holy Spirit Jesus organized for them.
squabble over things like the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus, salvation through grace or works, etc.
Those are trivial matters??
I gather those who believed in Thor would squabble over a trivial matter like what his hammer weighed.
or over how much of a warrior ones needs to be to attain an afterlife in Odins great hall of Valhalla in Asgard.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
But then based on deprecated translation of an ancient Hebrew text we conclude the absurdity that God is the root of all evil.
root of all evil?
how about; God purposely planted the seed of evil?
I asked you earlier if its POSSIBLE that God has a purpose for evil and thus created evil for such purpose , thus being RESPONSIBLE for evil, ..but Not be evil himself,
Pick one. Rhagolitis flies, multiple species. Hawaiian drosopholids. Lots of them. Squirrels, mice, you name it. They are all around you.
Here is an interesting lift from an article on "genetic" issues can conflict with prevailing evolutionary theory:
"…..Change resulting from selective breeding is not the same as evolutionary change. Evolution, by means of new mutations and utilizing all the sub-processes can achieve much more comprehensive optimization of all of the organism’s characteristics. Because the comprehensive process is much longer, the apparent timing difference between group and individual selection is dramatically reduced increasing the feasibility of group selection. [u]This issue is probably the single most important issue in the continuing controversy between traditional and alternative evolutionary mechanics theories[/u
Yep, the rhagolits flies all remain flies.... all the same genotype.... squirrels, mice, monkeys.... all the same genotype.
One scientist went through 60,000 generations of bacteria.... all remained bacteria.... same with all the fruit fly experiments. ALL known efforts to force "macro-evolution" in the lab have failed.
The examples you provided are all examples of "genetic variation" within a genotype and ARE NOT examples of "macro-evolution."
The scientific community has changed the definition of "evolution" so as to include simple genetic variation. They have duped the unsuspecting crowds.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
H habilis came from a more archaic line of hominids which came from other more distant mammals which date back to 66 million years ago at the K-T boundary.
The question is not genesis of life. That question is unanswerable at this time. The question was, "Can we identify trans-species evolution?" Examples of which abound for anyone who looks with an open mind.
So let's be specific--did Lucy precede Homo habilis? Is she the trans-specie link?
This is outside the scope of this thread ... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.
These verses, and more, are not outside the scope of your claim: ''You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil'' - Thunderstruck.
These verses falsify your claim.
They clearly do not just refer to so called 'natural calamities' - which if brought about by God for the reason of causing death and suffering is an act of evil.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
There are plenty of verses which declare that God is perfectly holy and cannot sin.
Sure, there are.....and that is another contradiction in the bible.
The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, ... their land shall be soaked with blood, ... For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance. Isaiah 34:7-8
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; Nahum 1:2
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Isaiah 14:21
In contradiction to:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
We have discussed your attempts at contrived contradictions on another thread. I'm not going to play along and hijack this thread's topic with any further discussion on your alleged contradictions. You have yet to offer one that takes context, logic, and common sense into account.
This extract really illustrates that using the fossil record to try to establish transitional life forms is not even a scientific process--because we don't have the scientific data to make it so. As some honest paleontologists have reported its more speculative assumptions that lead to unproven conclusions.
In 1978, fossil expert Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”4
Henry Gee, a science writer for Nature, doesn’t doubt Darwinian evolution, but he likewise admits that we can’t infer descent with modification from fossils. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999. “That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” According to Gee, we call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”5
In short, fossils cannot demonstrate Darwinian evolution.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
H habilis came from a more archaic line of hominids which came from other more distant mammals which date back to 66 million years ago at the K-T boundary.
The question is not genesis of life. That question is unanswerable at this time. The question was, "Can we identify trans-species evolution?" Examples of which abound for anyone who looks with an open mind.
So let's be specific--did Lucy precede Homo habilis? Is she the trans-specie link?
Apparently you don't read much. There is no single "trans-specie link". "Lucy" preceded Homo habilis by about 1.5 million years and is one of several ancestral species. BTW: Homo habilis is not the same as Homo sapiens, our own species.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
Btw.... I:consider Dawkins to be primarily an entertainer, much like that pervert Larry Krause.
Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?
Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:
Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.
Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there
Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.
Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.
Each of which is a separate proposition with it's own burden of proof.
Yes, the red herring here is the diversion away from my post to the simple statement that “Actually birds are......”
Other than you....to your credit....Not one of the “evolutionists” offer up any real topic for discussion or opportunity for debate and discussion.
Homo habilis became Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and denisovans. The latter two of which crossed back with separate branches of Homo sapiens.
Many humans today carry genes originating in either neanderthals or denisovans. Some carry genes from both.
So can you identify what you consider to be the earliest genesis form of the species that evolved into what all consider to be human today i.e. homo sapiens? I assume this is homo habilis??
H habilis came from a more archaic line of hominids which came from other more distant mammals which date back to 66 million years ago at the K-T boundary.
The question is not genesis of life. That question is unanswerable at this time. The question was, "Can we identify trans-species evolution?" Examples of which abound for anyone who looks with an open mind.
So let's be specific--did Lucy precede Homo habilis? Is she the trans-specie link?
Apparently you don't read much. There is no single "trans-specie link". "Lucy" preceded Homo habilis by about 1.5 million years and is one of several ancestral species. BTW: Homo habilis is not the same as Homo sapiens, our own species.
Evolutionary thinking is fraught with logical gaps, so no I don't spend my my time chasing all the possibilities offered by various competing theories of evolution. Because there are competing theories I was asking which one the folks here are following. I have seen Lucy appear in evolutionary charts as the the predecessor to Homo Habilis. So I was asking if that is what you guys think? Since that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I will take a different approach since you are recognizing Lucy in the chain. Lucy has been heralded as finding evidence for a missing link. So let's examine some of the assumptions in this.
1. There is only 1 of Lucy--otherwise she wouldn't be so heralded. We have a tremendous fossil record for data, so why is there not an abundance of comparative and similar evidence for more similar transitional life forms that support macro-evolution? This one point alone is sufficient to establish the speculative nature of conclusions drawn from Lucy. 2. There two knee joints used--one from near and one from far away. "The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata. Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. He does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species." This is very speculative because when you are assembling the first data point of 1 you cannot make assumptions that there were more and that you can just borrow from them to assemble the whole and then conclude if they were or were not walking upright. 3.Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987). 4. Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313):
"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)
The paper by Stern and Sussman also mentions that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Notwithstanding, the St. Louis Zoo features a life-size statue of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet. 5. One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure." (Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1977, p. 77) 6.Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions." He further concludes, "Finally, the quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2 million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on a human pathway." In Oxnard's opinion, australopithecines were neither like humans or apes but more like Pongo, the orangutan...even more "distant" from man, than a gorilla... "to the extent that resemblances exist with living forms they tend to be with the orangutan" (U. of Chicago Magazine, Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12). 7.Over the years, various objections to Lucy’s bipedality have emerged among evolutionists. For example, anthropologist Russell Tuttle from the University of Chicago, as reported in Science News, believes that the Laetoli prints were made by a contemporary but much more human-like creature than Lucy.18 More recently, experts have decided that Lucy walked on flat feet but that others of her species had arched feet.1 Stern and Susman in 198320 as well as Tuttle21 believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. They, like many others, noted that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of [bleep], not humans. (The iliac blade is a wing-shaped part of the pelvis, or hip bone.)
Just too many logical holes and speculative assumptions in using Lucy as the proof that humans evolved from ape-like creatures.
[Religion has no such checks and balances. People accept dogma on faith, with any serious questioning it's teachings being discouraged, faith being seen as a virtue.
Oh man, is that ever wrong. There's something like 33,000 Christian denominations because nobody questions.
But then based on deprecated translation of an ancient Hebrew text we conclude the absurdity that God is the root of all evil.
33,000 denominations? Further evidence that god is created by man. So many versions!
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
.
The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.
This is outside the scope of this thread ... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.
These verses, and more, are not outside the scope of your claim: ''You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil'' - Thunderstruck.
These verses falsify your claim.
They clearly do not just refer to so called 'natural calamities' - which if brought about by God for the reason of causing death and suffering is an act of evil.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
There are plenty of verses which declare that God is perfectly holy and cannot sin.
Sure, there are.....and that is another contradiction in the bible.
The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, ... their land shall be soaked with blood, ... For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance. Isaiah 34:7-8
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)
He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; Nahum 1:2
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Isaiah 14:21
In contradiction to:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>
We have discussed your attempts at contrived contradictions on another thread. I'm not going to play along and hijack this thread's topic with any further discussion on your alleged contradictions. You have yet to offer one that takes context, logic, and common sense into account.
Nothing contrived about them. The contradictions are there for anyone to see. It seems that you are not willing to acknowledge their reality.
The statement that God punishes generations for the sins of their fathers contradicts the statement that God is good to all, referring to His love and tender mercy .
If one is true, the other is false. Or God is bipolar.
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
.
The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.
We are happy to be known as men of faith and confidence in the facts and evidence. I have no interest in presenting my position from the basis of doubt, uncertainty, and speculative theory.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing?
The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters.
These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
"Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?
Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!
Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.
Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.
Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about.
If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. As you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. Of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our scientific observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others) (Figure 22).
Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!
Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? The late Stephen Gould,1 famed evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, wrote that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. “But,” said Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. As Gould pointed out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, said Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.
In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton2 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind. If evolution were true, says Denton, classification of living things ought to reflect a sequential pattern, like the classification of wind speeds, with arbitrary divisions along a continuum (e.g., the classification of hurricanes into categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 along a wind speed gradient). In sharp contrast, living things fit into distinctly bounded hierarchical categories, with each member “equi-representative” of the group, and “equidistant” from members of other defined groups.
“Actually,” concluded Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era” (emphasis added). I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations."
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
.
The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.
Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs.
Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs.
How about some facts..... maybe some truth?
Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance (arguing from micro evolution and extrapolating to macro evolution) rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge (demonstrating the scientific viability of macro evolution).
Why can't any of you guys DEFINE "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution?"
If individuals of a species start to live in separate environments, keep the same types of bones but different shapes of them, and keep much of the same behavior--tool making, tribalism, war with other tribes, sexual dimorphism (males larger than females), but one type develops anatomy better suited to living in trees while the other type develops long hind legs and the ability to throw things accurately, is that micro or macro? Because that describes humans vs. chmpnzees. We think the separation happened 6,000,000 years ago. We think the two species cannot interbreed (at least I hope).
What about two species of hominids that any skilled anatomist can tell are different with the glance at a single bone, due to size of teeth, shape of skull, size of bones and muscle attachments, and brain size (the other one had larger brains than us)? That's us and Neanderthals, split about 300,000 years ago and (surpise!) lately proven capable of interbreding with us. That's us and Neanderthals. Is that micro or macro? Incidentally they had white skins and red hair. We had blck hair.
What about the split between Negroes and all other Homo sapiens races that occurred about 70,000 years ago? Differences include length of the (protruding) lower face, bone density, various bone structures and IQ. Obviously capable of interbreeding and without any firm line between races. Micro or macro?
What about the evolutionary changes we KNOW occurred in Europeans during the last 10,000 years? Micro or macro? Examples include (a) our brains are about 10% smaller, (b) our bones are less dense, (c) skin color--Europeans were originally black, (d) we evolved the ability for adults to digest dairy products, (e) certain groups adapted capillary structures to aid living at high altitudes, etc.
I don't think "micro" or "macro" even exist. Evolution obviously happens. The longer two groups are separate, the greater the differences become.
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes.
Oh, I believe in moral absolutes.
Never break a promise, absolutely. Marriage is sacrosanct, absolutely. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
Not because breaking such rules is a sin. But because breaking them is not conducive to harmonious relations.
It does not require devine inspiration for a group of intelligent humans to determine rules which allow society to function smoothly.
But I will admit, adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
.
The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.
Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs.
Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs.
How about some facts..... maybe some truth?
Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge.
You’re the one that is throwing in the ballyhoo comparing the birds-dinosaur link to a flat earth.
There is a scientific consensus that birds are part of the dinosaur family. There is no scientific consensus that the earth is flat.
Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.
But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”
Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”
Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.
Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.
.
The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.
Right back at you! The information is out there, but you ignore it as it goes against .... your.... religious?” beliefs.
Several issues with the much ballyhooed news about transitional forms has been brought up and made clear, but you can only respond with some worn out drivel about going against religious beliefs.
How about some facts..... maybe some truth?
Most of the evolutionists on this site seem to believe that “micro-evolution” is proof of macro evolution. Not so..... They have bought into the falsehood and..... like I said, prefer the shallow water of ignorance rather than the deeper waters of intellectual challenge.
You’re the one that is throwing in the ballyhoo comparing the birds-dinosaur link to a flat earth.
There is a scientific consensus that birds are part of the dinosaur family. There is no scientific consensus that the earth is flat.
Ok, this has got to be let go of.....there is no platform for further discussion here.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing?
The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters.
These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter.
Why? It would make no difference. Why not do whatever makes you happy and when life gets hard, poof, you cease to exist. In other words what's the point of living, particularly when things get unpleasant. This "philosophy" seems to be playig out in the news lately.
I believe in intelligent design. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. But unlike a lot of Christians and Jews I also believe in evolution. Some people have a very naive view of things. They read the Bible and they automatically assume everything they read happened just like they imagine. We have to remember that the books in the Bible have been interpreted several times into several languages. It's hard to read it literally. Some of the events have been scientifically proven to have happened. Maybe not quite how we interpret it as we read it in the Bible but proven, well as proven as you can 2-3 thousand years later.
I believe evolution is how much of the events in the Bible came to pass. I believe it was by God's design. I believe evolution is a tool God uses. If you believe in intelligent design you should have no problem believing in evolution. evolution is right up there with intelligent design. It goes hand in hand with intelligent design. Call it intelligent change if you will. People get hung up on details, details they don't understand.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing?
The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters.
These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter.
Why? It would make no difference. Why not do whatever makes you happy and when life gets hard, poof, you cease to exist. In other words what's the point of living, particularly when things get unpleasant. This "philosophy" seems to be playig out in the news lately.
Well I suppose, if one does not have the innate moral character to do what is right.
I have had just such conversations with several staunch "Christians" who stated: "If I did not think I would go to hell, I would be out there screwing anything with a skirt." And then guess what, one of the jackasses is in the middle of a nasty divorce because he was caught cheating on his wife.
Christians have no corner on the market when it comes to morality. Nor do non Christians have a corner on immorality. The only difference is that Christians often think they have a "get out of jail free card" tucked in their wallet. All they have to do is repent.
Me, I know that if I wrong someone, they are wronged forever. I expect no forgiveness.
We do what we need to do to minimize harm to our loved ones, and to our society in general.
I believe in intelligent design. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. But unlike a lot of Christians and Jews I also believe in evolution. Some people have a very naive view of things. They read the Bible and they automatically assume everything they read happened just like they imagine. We have to remember that the books in the Bible have been interpreted several times into several languages. It's hard to read it literally. Some of the events have been scientifically proven to have happened. Maybe not quite how we interpret it as we read it in the Bible but proven, well as proven as you can 2-3 thousand years later.
I believe evolution is how much of the events in the Bible came to pass. I believe it was by God's design. I believe evolution is a tool God uses. If you believe in intelligent design you should have no problem believing in evolution. evolution is right up there with intelligent design. It goes hand in hand with intelligent design. Call it intelligent change if you will. People get hung up on details, details they don't understand.
You are certainly displaying ignorance of the Bible's translation. You need to take a few minutes in the library, or just read the introducing pages of a New American standard Bible or any of the modern Bibles. You also need to consider the order mentioned in God's Word for events of creation and the events for evolution. They are not even close to compatible.
or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate
Something is being illustrated, but not what you think or believe.
Again, basic logic in the form of a contradiction....one of many.
If love keeps no record of wrongs and God is Love, God does not keep a record of wrongs.
God punishes generations for the transgressions of their forebears, God is not only keeping a record of wrongs but passing them onto the innocent.
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''- 1 Corinthians 13;5-7
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.'' Matthew 5:43
Then the contradiction;
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' - Exodus 20:55
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
We are happy to be known as men of faith and confidence in the facts and evidence. I have no interest in presenting my position from the basis of doubt, uncertainty, and speculative theory.
Faith needs neither facts or evidence. Faith is a belief held without the support of facts or evidence. The existence of a God or gods is not a fact, nor is there evidence to justify a conviction in their existence. What it says in the bible about God (or the Quran, Gita, etc), is not evidence for the existence of God.
...adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
folks should note how the concept of heaven and hell changed in the Jewish faith over time, Initially 'Sheol' ( land of forgetfulness) was not so much a place of tortuous punishment and there really was no concept of reward. In fact, Ecclesiastes and Job insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man.
With the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions came the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual, eternal soul.
of course christians are known to think or imagine that God can strike the wicked well before hells gates....
Norsemen raid on Lindisfarne 793 AD, Pagans wielding their battle axes and spilling the blood and brain matter of the Christian monasteries monks were perceived as the wrath of God raining down on them for their wicked errant ways. but sober fact of the matter was the nOrse were there to gather valuable material treasures. and in true Norse style swept the delusional cowering moron christians out of their way.
Well I suppose, if one does not have the innate moral character to do what is right.
Sorry to be harsh but that's how I see it. I'd be much better off as a crook if in the end it didn't matter. And probably offed myself a few years ago when things got really rough. If one simply ceases to exist, why not?
...adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
folks should note how the concept of heaven and hell changed in the Jewish faith over time, Initially 'Sheol' ( land of forgetfulness) was not so much a place of tortuous punishment and there really was no concept of reward. In fact, Ecclesiastes and Job insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man.
With the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions came the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual, eternal soul.
of course christians are known to think or imagine that God can strike the wicked well before hells gates....
Norsemen raid on Lindisfarne 793 AD, Pagans wielding their battle axes and spilling the blood and brain matter of the Christian monasteries monks were perceived as the wrath of God raining down on them for their wicked errant ways. but sober fact of the matter was the nOrse were there to gather valuable material treasures. and in true Norse style swept the delusional coweriing moron christians out of their way.
Not only changing ideas and beliefs on Hell over time, but Satan and God Himself, especially between the OT and the NT.
In the Hebrew Bible, YHWH’s greatest enemies are not fallen angels commanding armies of demons, nor even the gods of other nations, but, rather, human beings. It isn’t the devil that spreads evil across the face of creation—it is mankind. Other than human beings, YHWH has no nemesis, nor are there malevolent spiritual forces not under his authority. YHWH is ultimately a god of justice. He is behind the good and the bad, behind the blessings and the curses. It is within this divine court of justice and retribution that Satan has his origins.
The noun satan, Hebrew for “adversary” or “accuser,” occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible: five times to describe a human military, political or legal opponent, and four times with reference to a divine being. In Numbers 22, the prophet Balaam, hired to curse the Israelites, is stopped by a messenger from Israel’s God YHWH, described as “the satan” acting on God’s behalf.
but don't let all that get in the way of a great Christian story.
Well I suppose, if one does not have the innate moral character to do what is right.
Sorry to be harsh but that's how I see it. I'd be much better off as a crook if in the end it didn't matter. And probably offed myself a few years ago when things got really rough. If one simply ceases to exist, why not?
Absolutely, yes, there are many who NEED a crutch to guide them through a moral and civil life. And if a belief in a deity works for them, great. More power to them. I have never criticized any for Faith. Some of my most beloved family members are, or were before they passed, very devout.
Just recognize that some people do have enough resolve to know good from bad. Enough wisdom to know what is destructive to community relations and what is beneficial to community and family.
Or if nothing else they recognize the harm and pain it would do to their family if they were to take up a life of crime or drugs, the hurt they would leave behind with suicide.
Not everyone needs God to comfort them each day. Some have discovered Heaven right here on Earth with family or friends. I, for one, have no need to believe that anything happens after the electrons quit flowing through the grey matter.
And if there is no one left behind to mourn your early demise, if suicide will bring no harm to any other person, then absolutely, Why Not?
A fellow I worked with for thirty years took that choice as his age advanced. It was time for a nursing home. He was no longer able to care for himself at home. He had no family to even mourn his passing, certainly none who would have cared for him as an invalid.
He made a choice to not go to a nursing home. His neighbors heard the gunshot, and it was all over. I certainly respect the choice he made.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
Idaho Shooter, to me it gets down to questions that have been constant through the millennia. Why are we here? What's the point of living? And up pops Ethics, a rational person chooses to act in a way that (in his evaluation) brings about a preponderance of satisfying consequences. Without a higher purpose I'd be all over natural desires, lust, gluttony, and so forth. Where's the down side? Get caught and do an Epstein.
Please note I'm not being critical or judgemental here. That's so far above my pay grade you couldn't see it with the Hubble.
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
Yes, I suppose they are.....if the scientific community defines it that way. So, the next question to ask is this: Does change in “speciation” explain the evolution of that small four legged land mammal into a whale? I don’t think so.
I’m old, but when I was in college, there was no such thing as “micro-evolution.” What is called now called micro evolution was simply “genetics” and what in modern day parlance may be referred to as genetic variation.
I submit that the proponents of evolution had so little evidence and so little factual, modern data to,support,the general thesis of evolution that they simply “re-branded” genetic variation and called it micro evolution.
Same thing with the man caused global warming. The “scientific” community wanted more money and attention so they start a “chicken little” program and the hound out those that disagree. The fight against global warming is characterized by fear mongering, new taxes and population control schemes.
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
Beats me. I can tell you it makes a difference for me.
Here on a former rez the Native American community is having trouble with youth drug use, gang membership, suicide. It has been suggested that a cause may be a general lack of spirituality with the current generation, Native American spirituality or otherwise. Suffer a social setback, drugs make it feel better. Gangs substitute for family moral support. Suicide when one seems doomed to perpetual failure. Why not when there's nothing beyond how you feel today.
I think you see that in society at large, though not as acutely. Suicide rates have increased steadily since 2000 (NIH). I don't think I have to provide a source showing drug abuse and gang membership have grown markedly during the same period. Pew Research tracked a decline in religious affiliation.
Does the correlation mean anything? I don't know but it would be a good topic for investigation by those who enjoy Sociology.
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes.
Oh, I believe in moral absolutes.
Never break a promise, absolutely. Marriage is sacrosanct, absolutely. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
Not because breaking such rules is a sin. But because breaking them is not conducive to harmonious relations.
It does not require devine inspiration for a group of intelligent humans to determine rules which allow society to function smoothly.
But I will admit, adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
What you have said is all well and good....you describe an honorable and pretty much correct moral code but.... two issues here.
First, most societies will not, as a cultural group, buy in to nor live out the moral code you describe.
Second, some one else can have a “moral code” that is in great conflict with yours. Strife is a certain result. What if some one else,thinks it is ok to do harm to your family because of.... well, for the sake of argument, your skin color, religious belief or political affiliation?
Regarding the “get of jail free card” ..... take a look at Matthew 7:23.....”.... away from me you evil doers.... I never knew you...”
But you cannot say that it is a moral absolute for anything to matter unless you believe in moral absolutes.
Oh, I believe in moral absolutes.
Never break a promise, absolutely. Marriage is sacrosanct, absolutely. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
Not because breaking such rules is a sin. But because breaking them is not conducive to harmonious relations.
It does not require devine inspiration for a group of intelligent humans to determine rules which allow society to function smoothly.
But I will admit, adding the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell, does take some of the work out of enforcing those rules upon people not intelligent enough to figure out for themselves that rules should be followed.
The failure of your philosophy is illustrated when you have whole societies that embrace Fascism and Communism and they create their own morality and according to their morality, laws, and culture it is very proper to conduct themselves in the ways they did? The same moral breakdown is happening in our society today as people invent their own rules and create their own reality--like Obama and a whole host of liberals. Moral absolutes transcend cultures and people groups or they are not absolutes.
If we assume that God does not exist then nothing in this thread matters. In fact neither you nor I matter, neither does anything else in the universe. Might be wise to have an open mind.
Why in the world would you say such a thing?
The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters. My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters. My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters. The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters.
These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter.
Why? It would make no difference. Why not do whatever makes you happy and when life gets hard, poof, you cease to exist. In other words what's the point of living, particularly when things get unpleasant. This "philosophy" seems to be playig out in the news lately.
Well I suppose, if one does not have the innate moral character to do what is right.
I have had just such conversations with several staunch "Christians" who stated: "If I did not think I would go to hell, I would be out there screwing anything with a skirt." And then guess what, one of the jackasses is in the middle of a nasty divorce because he was caught cheating on his wife.
Christians have no corner on the market when it comes to morality. Nor do non Christians have a corner on immorality. The only difference is that Christians often think they have a "get out of jail free card" tucked in their wallet. All they have to do is repent.
Me, I know that if I wrong someone, they are wronged forever. I expect no forgiveness.
We do what we need to do to minimize harm to our loved ones, and to our society in general.
You are right that all of us are prone to failure and none of us should degrade another as though we are inherently better than them. Whether we are Christians or not we need moral boundaries and whether we are Christians or not we can respect and should observe moral boundaries. We shouldn't be living moral lives just for an eternal carrot--because they aren't given out anyway for morality. Faith and forgiveness are about what we all need as humans--the ability to make wrong things right and the confidence for a fresh start and a reset when we fall short.
or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate
Something is being illustrated, but not what you think or believe.
Again, basic logic in the form of a contradiction....one of many.
If love keeps no record of wrongs and God is Love, God does not keep a record of wrongs.
God punishes generations for the transgressions of their forebears, God is not only keeping a record of wrongs but passing them onto the innocent.
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''- 1 Corinthians 13;5-7
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.'' Matthew 5:43
Then the contradiction;
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' - Exodus 20:55
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
Undeniable contradictions, Thunderstruck.
and again I would point others to the other monumental thread where we responded to your alleged contradictions.
We are happy to be known as men of faith and confidence in the facts and evidence. I have no interest in presenting my position from the basis of doubt, uncertainty, and speculative theory.
Faith needs neither facts or evidence. Faith is a belief held without the support of facts or evidence. The existence of a God or gods is not a fact, nor is there evidence to justify a conviction in their existence. What it says in the bible about God (or the Quran, Gita, etc), is not evidence for the existence of God.
You either exercise blind faith or faith that rests on evidence. I choose the latter. Faith for me is the faith that is defined by the Bible--as believing in the evidence. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Faith has multiple definitions. Here is one from Noah Webster's original dictionary which follows one of the biblical definitions. 2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.
Faith is being redefined in our age to mean acceptance of anything that has no facts or evidence to support it. That is not the biblical definition of faith.
Here is a Greek Lexicon definition of faith pistis, 3982 peíthō(the root of 4102 /pístis, "faith") – to persuade; (passive) be persuaded of what is trustworthy.
The faith you describe is not true faith at all. The Bible talks about true and false faith. James tells us that false faith has no evidence of correlating acts.
The faith you describe is more akin to the belief in atheistic evolution than biblical faith.
["Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?
Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.
A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.
In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen."
"I often observe that in discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution.
The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as “changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.” An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution.
Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Gal�pagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation.
The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is to the effect that “evolution” is all rubbish, bunk, and false. They are often astonished to learn that variation (which they completely agree with) is defined as “evolution.” The solution is for evolution skeptics to be more precise on exactly what they have problems with. They can endorse microevolution (variation) but point out that a) it is misleading to call variation “evolution” and, b) their problems are with macroevolution.
The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a “grand scale,” or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.
Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. The reason that macroevolution has never been observed is that it requires statistically significant levels of novel genetic information. It is extremely difficult to achieve, but Darwinian theory predicts that genetic information can significantly increase over time. Falsifiable predictions can be made and these are worth examining.
So in order to clearly distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution in a rigorous scientific way, let me propose the following definitions:
Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
Both statistical significance and functional information are defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above."
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
No they are still a species in the flowers genus and family and not a species in something like the trees genus and family.
Terminology: Genus and Species
Let’s start by discussing what is meant by the terms genus and species. An easy way to remember these terms is to note that genus refers to the "generic" name, and species refers to the "specific" name. A genus is a group of related plants. The similarity among members of a genus may or may not be obvious. But taxonomists have determined that, due to certain features, these plants are related and thus classify them in the same genus. Genus names are often derived from Latin or Greek words, mythological figures, or plant characteristics.https://garden.org/courseweb/course1/week3/page3.htm
There are hierarchical levels of classification (ranks) above and below the genus and species, the most commonly referred to is the grouping of several genera (plural of genus) into a family. As with plants within the same genus, plants in the same family have many characteristics in common. Grevillea victoriae is in the family Proteaceae, along with Banksia, Hakea, Macadamia and many other genera. Family names start with a capital letter and generally end in “…ceae”.http://www.anbg.gov.au/chah/avh/help/names/index.html
So in this case it is micro evolution because it is all under this same umbrella Flowering plant. The flowering plants, also known as angiosperms, Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta, are the most diverse group of land plants, with 64 orders, 416 families, approximately 13,000 known genera and 300,000 known species. Like gymnosperms, angiosperms are seed-producing plants.
Your lengthy screed, from wherever you copied it doesn't mean anything. A coroner, whenever a decayed body is found, can tell its race with about 80% certainty. 80% is statistically significant. You are inferring that the difference between Caucasians and Negroes constitutes "macro evolution". Not so.
Read the verbiage you cut and pasted, if you even understand it. Humanity is irrelevant (according to you). It's "statistically significant." Of course it doesn't matter. Your ideas are laughable.
or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate
Something is being illustrated, but not what you think or believe.
Again, basic logic in the form of a contradiction....one of many.
If love keeps no record of wrongs and God is Love, God does not keep a record of wrongs.
God punishes generations for the transgressions of their forebears, God is not only keeping a record of wrongs but passing them onto the innocent.
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''- 1 Corinthians 13;5-7
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.'' Matthew 5:43
Then the contradiction;
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' - Exodus 20:55
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
Undeniable contradictions, Thunderstruck.
and again I would point others to the other monumental thread where we responded to your alleged contradictions.
I'm well aware of that thread and the response I got. You seem to assume that the response/rationalization that I got somehow addresses the contradictions. You are wrong.
Nothing that was said or explained or offered actually resolves the contradictions in the bible, my examples only being a small sample.
The bible is not some divinely inspired work, it is written by people who borrowed and adapted creation myths from surrounding cultures to build a social, religious and political identity of their own....our God is better than your God, false gods, a jealous God, etc, etc, morphed into a God of love in NT times....full of absurdities and contradictions.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
[quote=BOWSINGER] It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile.
They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
Beats me. I can tell you it makes a difference for me.
Here on a former rez the Native American community is having trouble with youth drug use, gang membership, suicide. It has been suggested that a cause may be a general lack of spirituality with the current generation, Native American spirituality or otherwise. Suffer a social setback, drugs make it feel better. Gangs substitute for family moral support. Suicide when one seems doomed to perpetual failure. Why not when there's nothing beyond how you feel today.
I think you see that in society at large, though not as acutely. Suicide rates have increased steadily since 2000 (NIH). I don't think I have to provide a source showing drug abuse and gang membership have grown markedly during the same period. Pew Research tracked a decline in religious affiliation.
Does the correlation mean anything? I don't know but it would be a good topic for investigation by those who enjoy Sociology.
Those who enjoy Sociology started predicting these results when I was in grammar school.
Yes, I know, what fifth grader reads Sociology papers? I did. Excerpts thereof, anyway.
Sociologists in the '60s predicted rising rates of crime, of homosexuality, of major mental illnesses, as human populations became more crowded.
There are simply too many people on the planet.
And even though America reached zero population growth in the late '60s or early '70s, the leftists are bound and determined to import enough people to ensure America receives her share of overcrowded misery.
Coincidentally, many of the leaders on the right need the population increases to prop up their ponzi schemes of deficit spending.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Idaho Shooter, to me it gets down to questions that have been constant through the millennia. Why are we here? What's the point of living? And up pops Ethics, a rational person chooses to act in a way that (in his evaluation) brings about a preponderance of satisfying consequences. Without a higher purpose I'd be all over natural desires, lust, gluttony, and so forth. Where's the down side? Get caught and do an Epstein.
I would define rational as the ability to forestall immediate gratification to accomplish long term gain and the ability to make the unselfish choice to benefit your family and community.
Why am I here? Don't care, does not matter. I think, there for I am. Make the best of it.
What's the point of living? To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
Read the verbiage you cut and pasted, if you even understand it. Humanity is irrelevant (according to you). It's "statistically significant." Of course it doesn't matter. Your ideas are laughable.
Yea.
On this subject, his thoughts are pretty malformed.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
No one can make it true or untrue. Truth is self-existent.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
No one can make it true or untrue. Truth is self-existent.
[quote=Thunderstick]I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created? [/quote
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
Beats me. I can tell you it makes a difference for me.
Here on a former rez the Native American community is having trouble with youth drug use, gang membership, suicide. It has been suggested that a cause may be a general lack of spirituality with the current generation, Native American spirituality or otherwise. Suffer a social setback, drugs make it feel better. Gangs substitute for family moral support. Suicide when one seems doomed to perpetual failure. Why not when there's nothing beyond how you feel today.
I think you see that in society at large, though not as acutely. Suicide rates have increased steadily since 2000 (NIH). I don't think I have to provide a source showing drug abuse and gang membership have grown markedly during the same period. Pew Research tracked a decline in religious affiliation.
Does the correlation mean anything? I don't know but it would be a good topic for investigation by those who enjoy Sociology.
Those who enjoy Sociology started predicting these results when I was in grammar school.
Yes, I know, what fifth grader reads Sociology papers? I did. Excerpts thereof, anyway.
Sociologists in the '60s predicted rising rates of crime, of homosexuality, of major mental illnesses, as human populations became more crowded.
There are simply too many people on the planet.
And even though America reached zero population growth in the late '60s or early '70s, the leftists are bound and determined to import enough people to ensure America receives her share of overcrowded misery.
Coincidentally, many of the leaders on the right need the population increases to prop up their ponzi schemes of deficit spending.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Idaho Shooter, to me it gets down to questions that have been constant through the millennia. Why are we here? What's the point of living? And up pops Ethics, a rational person chooses to act in a way that (in his evaluation) brings about a preponderance of satisfying consequences. Without a higher purpose I'd be all over natural desires, lust, gluttony, and so forth. Where's the down side? Get caught and do an Epstein.
I would define rational as the ability to forestall immediate gratification to accomplish long term gain and the ability to make the unselfish choice to benefit your family and community.
Why am I here? Don't care, does not matter. I think, there for I am. Make the best of it.
What's the point of living? To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood.
These few quoted posts might just be the most interesting ones in this thread..............for me at least.
I'll agree (I think Gus does too) that "There are simply too many people on the planet. "
And that is likely the cause of a good many of our problems. However, as Idaho_Shooter points out, ponzi schemes or not, our economic system runs on growth of new consumers. Investment in companies, which drives a big portion of our system, demands returns fueled by growth and consumption. So I, for one, don't see any way other than a complete change in the system to address the underlying issues. Unfortunately, I don't know of a better system to propose that would allow for this: "To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood." Unless one wants to see them blossom into poverty.
Why am I here? Maybe just to continue the cycle and feed the worms. Actually the fishes if I get my wish to be buried at sea in a shroud with a weight on my feet. My "God/Supreme Being/Great Father/Master of the Universe/He/She/It/Them/" would allow for that to be my one and only purpose if that's the choice. Could their be a higher purpose? I don't know, but I think if I do as good a job as I can and try to live a good job, the fishes might end up happy.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
I'm sure it is irrelevant to your theories but it is not to science as I quoted scientists using it. Are your credentials large enough to cite yourself?
Additionally DNA studies are showing evidence of the likelihood of a single source for humans. Here’s the Cliffs Notes version: According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
By that reasoning, God could be a "She" instead of a "He"?
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
By that reasoning, God could be a "She" instead of a "He"?
Geno
He represents both genders because the image of God is not merely a physical image, but mind, will, emotions, and most importantly a spiritual dimension that includes a conscience. Expanding further, the characteristics of the human race are best represented by acknowledging both genders.
You guys are all over the place with your logic. First you want scientific evidence--well that usually comes from scientists right? When we cite scientific sources then you don't want any copy and pastes. Do you want plagiarisms? Do you know what is that you want?
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
By that reasoning, God could be a "She" instead of a "He"?
Geno
He represents both genders because the image of God is not merely a physical image, but mind, will, emotions, and most importantly a spiritual dimension that includes a conscience.
In other words, historically in our collective "Western" languages we just use the male pronoun out of convenience?
You guys are all over the place with your logic. First you want scientific evidence--well that usually comes from scientists right? When we cite scientific sources then you don't want any copy and pastes. Do you want plagiarisms? Do you know what is that you want?
theological discussions and logic in the same sentence. Bet thats a first.
Oh my .. the guy from Harvard who wrote the standard legal textbook for the laws of evidence to be employed in a courtroom applied those same laws of evidence to investigate the evidence of the resurrection event. Not to mention the logic and faith of our founders... Unbelief of the heart has the potential to prejudice the mind against objectivity.
And Aristotle who did much to develop logic and its rules said: "God is a supreme and eternal living being, so that to God belong life and continuous and eternal duration. For that is what God is."
All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.
then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.
He represents both genders because the image of God is not merely a physical image, but mind, will, emotions, and most importantly a spiritual dimension that includes a conscience. [/quote]
In other words, historically in our collective "Western" languages we just use the male pronoun out of convenience?
Geno[/quote]
indeed. patriarchy has been the choice ever since the rabbi's took over the hebrew religion and related discussions.
that was about 10,000 years ago, the last time there was a massive climate change?
we moved from a land based god to a sky god, more or less.
All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.
then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.
You are changing your original premise because you can't sustain it. You inferred theology and logic do not correlate. I showed you where the Aristotle employed both logic and theism. Belief or unbelief can be logical or illogical. If you can't see that then yes you have no objectivity in your thinking.
All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.
then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.
You are changing your original premise because you can't sustain it. You inferred theology and logic do not correlate. I showed you where the Aristotle employed both logic and theism. Belief or unbelief can be logical or illogical. If you can't see that then yes you have no objectivity in your thinking.
not changing anything, Im just not playing (and have no need to) play on your ballfield
All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.
then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.
Maybe it is just semantics, but I would not agree that all religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. Many indeed do.... but.... In my own case, my “religious” conviction stems from the “recognition” of Jesus’ authority. From my viewpoint, there is no assumption.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Maybe you want to start your own thread on this different topic ...
It's not an entirely different topic. The argument essentially being natural evolution versus special creation, the nature of the source material should be established.
In this case, the bible and its claims on one side with science and its evidence on the other. I am pointing to the nature of the bible, its source material, how it came to be put together, its problems, contradictions, etc...
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
I'm sure it is irrelevant to your theories but it is not to science as I quoted scientists using it. Are your credentials large enough to cite yourself?
Additionally DNA studies are showing evidence of the likelihood of a single source for humans. Here’s the Cliffs Notes version: According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark.
''Immediately following a sharp population decline, rare alleles are lost faster than heterozygosity, creating a transient excess of heterozygosity relative to allele number, a feature that is used by Bottleneck to infer historical events. We find evidence of two primary events, one ‘out of Africa’ and one placed around the Bering Strait, where an ancient land bridge allowed passage into the Americas. These findings agree well with the regions of the world where the largest founder events might have been expected, but contrast with the apparently smooth gradient of variability that is revealed when current heterozygosity is plotted against distance from Africa.''
All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.
then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.
Maybe it is just semantics, but I would not agree that all religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. Many indeed do.... but.... In my own case, my “religious” conviction stems from the “recognition” of Jesus’ authority. From my viewpoint, there is no assumption.
Yet, YMMV
As it is the believer who bestows authority upon the bible, quran, etc, and endorses it as the word of god, their belief in the book and it authority is the first assumption, followed by acceptance of what the book tells them about god and the world.
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
sure they do...
don't you remember the Salem witch hunts ?
and just recently we had a CF christian post about "sugar is the devil"
how would they become so righteous and enlightened if they didn't believe....??
[oF course the other simple solution was to just stop stuffing their fat face with far in excess needless calories].
Originally Posted by DBT
... I am pointing to the nature of the bible, its source material, how it came to be put together, its problems, contradictions, etc...
When Hebrew Torah scripture was translated into Greek in Alexandria (Septuagint) 3rd century BC
they replaced Hebrew words like 'Sheol', with 'Hades' which comes from Greek pagan mythology which refers to the pagan mythological underworld....N.T. English translation scriptures commonly use the words HADES or HELL. as evidenced in Luke and Matthew.
can Bible as so many Christians read it , honestly be the true and accurate orig. word of their God?
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
sure they do...
don't you remember the Salem witch hunts ?
and just recently we had a CF christian post about "sugar is the devil "
How about the Christians on the Philly Cop thread posting how we should burn the prisoners with the shooters, and justifying it on the basis of the prisoners race?
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
It appears we have a bunch of parrots here. Of course I include myself here. We don't have personal lab or field experience so we read or attend lectures by those who have. Then we use that information to support our personal positions.
I come from a long line of Roman Catholics, when we opened an old family chest past from generation to generation in Europe,
we found a piece of wood wrapped in an old scribed note saying it was a genuine remnant relic of the cross at Golgotha,
is there anyway to verify its authenticity?... btw; Also inside was a old map with X marking the spot where buried treasure lay....., but that's for another time.
now on the subject of holy water, can you effectively use such to protect oneself from the effects of Black Plague that God afflicts the errant wicked with?
The local priest does not know, and my prayers go unanswered, the cF is last resort.
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both.
From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
I come from a long line of Roman Catholics, when we opened an old family chest past from generation to generation in Europe,
we found a piece of wood wrapped in an old scribed note saying it was a genuine remnant relic of the cross at Golgotha,
is there anyway to verify its authenticity?... btw; Also inside was a old map with X marking the spot where buried treasure lay....., but that's for another time.
now on the subject of holy water, can you effectively use such to protect oneself from the effects of Black Plague that God afflicts the errant wicked with?
The local priest does not know, and my prayers go unanswered, the cF is last resort.
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both.
From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Entropy, whether used in genetics,or its more correct place as the 2nd. law of Thermodynamics. simply suggests a progression towards a more disorganized state. Genetic systems are 3 order Hopf bifurcations, that exist in a basis of attraction. When acted on by some perturbation that knocks them out of that they will reorganize to another basis of attraction. In the bible world the iteration rate is much shorter than the iteration rate on quartz timepiece, thus the possibility of bifurcations in the system. Or proceed to catastrophic states as Thom describes, 5th and 7th order states. This is the system Sanford describes. The "black hole" here is assuming one state is "better" than another.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
This statement starts with a false assumption making the conclusion illogical, in and of its"closed set" Bertrand Russell stuff Denying God does not make Him less than infinite. You appeal to nothingness for everything including conscienceness. That is totally illogical.
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both.
From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Me personally, what I happen to be reading or have read is not the issue. The issue is the absurdity of the claim of special creation and Noahic flood in the face of abundent evidence for natural evolution and over 4 billion years of geological history...
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both.
From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Entropy, whether used in genetics,or its more correct place as the 3rd. law of Thermodynamics. simply suggests a progression towards a more disorganized state. Genetic systems are 3 order Hopf bifurcations, that exist in a basis of attraction. When acted on by some perturbation that knocks them out of that they will reorganize to another basis of attraction. In the bible world the iteration rate is much shorter than the iteration rate on quartz timepiece, thus the possibility of bifurcations in the system. Or proceed to catastrophic states as Thom describes, 5th and 7th order states. This is the system Sanford describes. The "black hole" here is assuming one state is "better" than another.
Entropy is an issue within a closed system. Complex chemistry on Earth is being powered by the Sun.
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup.
Leroy,
Perhaps you could help me here. At first glance, one of their articles includes a myriad of esoteric external references..... many of which are based in theory..... repeat.... theory....and then along the way, another conglomeration of mathematical formulas are introduced.
I could not follow it nor comprehend it..... apparently you can.
So, can you shed some light on this?
Here is my take on it, but I would like to hear yours...
From what I have read about this, it can be summarized as mathematical and theoretical demonstration that lower order systems can result in higher order systems. Ok, that is easy to understand.
Then, finally, one article gave an example....sperm to egg to embryo..... Wow!
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both.
From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Me personally, what I happen to be reading or have read is not the issue. The issue is the absurdity of the claim of special creation and Noahic flood in the face of abundent evidence for natural evolution and over 4 billion years of geological history...
Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating.
Entropy is an issue within a closed system. Complex chemistry on Earth is being powered by the Sun.
Entropy was discovered in an open system. In case you didn't know it the sun is running down also. That's because the entire universe is running down. The Bible mentioned that thousands of years ago.
[quote=Ringman][quote=DBT]There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
I
Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating.
Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers?
You don't seem to understand. Most creationists believe in The Creator and are convinced they will stand before Him in judgement. Therefore they tend to be a lot more careful in their bold proclamations. They have facts to back their claim whether the evolutionists accept them or not.
Like I asked in the past. Can you come up with any Ph.D creationists who became evolutionists after they earned their degree. I can come up with Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they earned their degree and started lab and or field research.
[quote=DBT][quote=Ringman][quote=DBT]There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later.
Your evidence for this.....being?
Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers?
You don't seem to understand. Most creationists believe in The Creator and are convinced they will stand before Him in judgement. Therefore they tend to be a lot more careful in their bold proclamations. They have facts to back their claim whether the evolutionists accept them or not.
Like I asked in the past. Can you come up with any Ph.D creationists who became evolutionists after they earned their degree. I can come up with Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they earned their degree and started lab and or field research.
Your question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
Your lack of concern for the truth is what is silly. The reason they switched is the overwhelming facts could no longer be ignored. Occasionally they get ridiculed by their former colleagues. Some times they loose their jobs.
Quote
how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption
I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
Your lack of concern for the truth is what is silly. The reason they switched is the overwhelming facts could no longer be ignored. Occasionally they get ridiculed by their former colleagues. Some times they loose their jobs.
Quote
how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption
I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
Truth?
Who switched? What percentage? Can you give an actual list and percentage of scientists who have rejected evolution in favour of creationism?
From an article read quite some time ago, quoted as best I can remember:
“The science is what the science is; dependent upon the data and the interpretation of the data. When the data changes and when interpretative techniques change, the “science” will change.”
Makes sense.... at one time the best scientific minds of the day concluded the earth was 40,000,000 years old. Today, it is generally accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earth did not change, the data and interpretive techniques changed. One would assume that 100 years from now, many ideas that are today held to be incontrovertible will be long since discarded.
Having said that, you are entirely correct to be suspicious of radiometric dating. But, the science is what it is and that is what is generally accepted.
But, there are many spectacularly wrong dates provided by both the data and data interpretation techniques in today’s world.
I once took a course in geophysics. Professor was very highly regarded. I was green as grass and completely enamored about the many new dating techniques he was talking about. Then one day he brought a rock into the class and asked us what we thought it was and how we would go about establishing a date of formation for rock. Great fun and the class was fully engaged in the discussion. As the discussion was winding down, he started to point out all the complexities involved in radiometric dating. He told us that it is virtually impossible to accurately date an individual rock like he had on his desk. He said that we surely could subject the rock to all kinds of dating techniques but all we would really have was “data points.” He said one must know where the rock came from, the related rock formations and then pick the best technique based on the rock chemistry....so on and so forth. His point was that you can’t subject the rock to a simple test and expect an accurate answer.
The problem, as he explained it, is that radiometric dating was as much an interpretive art as it was science. He noted the dates provided might vary immensely based on the input assumptions about rock chemistry. A good example are many of the volcanic flows coming out in the Hawaiian volcanoes. We have flows that we know are less than 200 years old but have been age dated as 200 million years. Same goes for assumptions in the potassium-argon method. One has to make an assumption of how much K-Ar deterioration happened .... before..... the rock solidified ... or whether or not it had gone through numerous cycles of partial melting. It seems often, simplifying assumptions are made..... maybe to obtain repeatable data results. Change the assumptions and you will “change the date.”.....perhaps significantly.
Long winded, but the science is what it is and it is a mistake to assume that radiometric dates are as accurate as the arithmetic associated with the dating technique indicates.
I think radiometric dating techniques have a long way to go. Same with the Big Bang theory. Wouldn’t surprise me if some new theory supplants it.
Science is what it is, but certainly has limitations and certainly does not provide all the answers.
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure.
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure.
From this are you expecting me to believe a result can be greater than its cause?
what seems complex on one scale is not on another. similarities of scale in non-linear dynamics are good examples, Mandelbrot and Julia sets. complexity on the planet is small compared to the universe.
Entropy has properties, information which is one of the them is a property of the observer, not the system.
numbers not being what you would expect, gets into the 4th, 5th law of thermo, but has come along ways (as mentioned above on advancement of scientific method).
as quantum physics gains more insight expect, expect changes in the outlook of absolute zero, especially from the entropy of information
yes the result can certainly be greater the parts
a good book in this area if interested is Information and Self- Organization by H. Haken an early laser physicist. and Coding and InformationTheory from Springers Grad. text in Math.
Entropy is an issue within a closed system. Complex chemistry on Earth is being powered by the Sun.
Entropy was discovered in an open system. In case you didn't know it the sun is running down also. That's because the entire universe is running down. The Bible mentioned that thousands of years ago.
Nobody has claimed that entropy doesn't occur within an open system.....
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure.
From this are you expecting me to believe a result can be greater than its cause?
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
''Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.
This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters.
Question: How does carbon-14 dating work?
Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon). Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C-14 into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C-14, and the old C-14 starts to decay back into N-14 by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C-14 decays with a half-life of 5,730 years.
Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?
Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.
Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate
as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?
Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.
There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,200-year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.
When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about 6200 BC by tree-ring counts date at only 5400 BC by regular C-14 dating and 3900 BC by Cook's creationist revision of C-14 dating (as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.''
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
Lol love the spelling "total maroon." Apparently that's the term used when you can't take an alternate viewpoint any more or recognize the inherent flaws in Darwinism.
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
Lol love the spelling "total maroon." Apparently that's the term used when you can't take an alternate viewpoint any more or recognize the inherent flaws in Darwinism.
thought it was a quote from "Who framed Roger Rabbit"
as an aside on Bristlecone pines, the pollen contains large amount of phyto and regular testosterone. why do plants use test. and progesterone? ----- genetic changes.
some of these trees show an unusual "spiraling" in the bark possibility of the plant experimenting.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
The computer example is an excellent example of the concept of entropy combined with the concept of information theory.
the order to disorder thingie your hung up is only reflective of some types complex non linear systems. thats why the current trend is a combination of thermo, quantum, and information theory.
other than physical size, the clod and the city share far more properties, than not. Your comparison is a hard set, of similar characteristics, classical Set Theory, and makes no allowances for similar membership functions.
Ironically all theological explanations are talking about forces from a far, attributes of that force, from the entropy of the observer.
God talk is no different than field theory talk, they are both human constructs.
From Carl Jung, science is the extrovert in man, and religion is the introvert.
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
Lol love the spelling "total maroon." Apparently that's the term used when you can't take an alternate viewpoint any more or recognize the inherent flaws in Darwinism.
thought it was a quote from "Who framed Roger Rabbit"
All of the current knowledge of science is the result of actual evidence. We observe something, make a theory of what caused it, figure out some other prediction that that theorry must predicts, and then see if that other thing happens. If so, the theory is correct, or largely so.
There are no prior beliefs in science. The term "settled science" is not a scientific term. It's a political term. Scientists are still doing experiments to see if Einstein's relativity, which dates from 1905, is totally correct or is only an approximation.
So we believe in evolution because there is evidence that evolution happens. Evolution explains the evidence. We do not look for new evidence to confirm evolution, but instead change our theories if new evidence is discovered.
All the books of the Bible were written by people who already believed in them. They were not based on evidence. Belief is not evidence.
Is there any evidence, outside of the Bible, that the events described in it actually occurred? Specifically with regard to Genesis, the answer is "No." Later books of the old Testament are partially confirmed by historical or archeological evidence.
As for Jesus, there is some circumstantial evidence outside of the Bible. The rapid spread of Christianity after his death was obviously due to his followers believing very strongly in the Resurrection. Whatever they saw, the followers of other "holy men"--and there were many others--did not carry on after their "holy man" died.
Until new evidence comes along, if it does, there is no reason to doubt evolution. There is no evidence whatsoever, however, for the creation story in Genesis, the flood, etc., or creationism, and also no need for them to explain what we see.
The purpose of religion is not to foolishly combat scientific discoveries. Catholicism tried that 500 years ago and the Pope has since aplologized for it. The purpose of religion is to give us a moral anchor of how to behave. Otherwise, there would be nothing but moral relativism, and the only bar to mayhem would be a fear of superior force. I don't believe you can have a civilization without believing in some higher power.
I think you could have a civilization without any god.
But, yes, you would still need the higher power of a strict government.
The majority of people can not choose a selfless life. For many, the only thing which keeps them from victimizing other people is fear of discipline, getting punched in the nose, going to jail, going to Hell. Heck, I am in favor of public caning for vandalism, or petit theft.
The problem remains, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power is a very dangerous thing whether it is held in the hands of a Judge, an administrator, a policeman, a Priest, or even the Pope.
So what is the answer? We know it is not pure democracy. That just equates to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We know it is not a theocracy. That inevitably leads to The Inquisition or Sharia Law.
I suppose mankind will have to continue as he has for the last 20 to 30 thousand years, balancing the oppressive hand of chosen governments against the oppressive hand of chosen religions.
Perhaps that is the genius of our founding fathers. Not that they embraced religion when they wrote our Constitution, but that they found a balance of power between oppressive government and oppressive religion.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
The computer example is an excellent example of the concept of entropy combined with the concept of information theory.
the order to disorder thingie your hung up is only reflective of some types complex non linear systems. thats why the current trend is a combination of thermo, quantum, and information theory.
other than physical size, the clod and the city share far more properties, than not. Your comparison is a hard set, of similar characteristics, classical Set Theory, and makes no allowances for similar membership functions.
Ironically all theological explanations are talking about forces from a far, attributes of that force, from the entropy of the observer.
God talk is no different than field theory talk, they are both human constructs.
From Carl Jung, science is the extrovert in man, and religion is the introvert.
You are confusing the idea of God talk with field theory. Without God there no humans to consider anything including "field theory". The Bible informs us man worships the creation instead of the Creator. Believing in something from nothing should fall in the category of insanity. An Infinite Intelligent Energy has no beginning or bounds. Otherwise Infinite has no meaning.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
The computer example is an excellent example of the concept of entropy combined with the concept of information theory.
the order to disorder thingie your hung up is only reflective of some types complex non linear systems. thats why the current trend is a combination of thermo, quantum, and information theory.
other than physical size, the clod and the city share far more properties, than not. Your comparison is a hard set, of similar characteristics, classical Set Theory, and makes no allowances for similar membership functions.
Ironically all theological explanations are talking about forces from a far, attributes of that force, from the entropy of the observer.
God talk is no different than field theory talk, they are both human constructs.
From Carl Jung, science is the extrovert in man, and religion is the introvert.
You are confusing the idea of God talk with field theory. Without God there no humans to consider anything including "field theory". The Bible informs us man worships the creation instead of the Creator. Believing in something from nothing should fall in the category of insanity. An Infinite Intelligent Energy has no beginning or bounds. Otherwise Infinite has no meaning.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
The computer example is an excellent example of the concept of entropy combined with the concept of information theory.
the order to disorder thingie your hung up is only reflective of some types complex non linear systems. thats why the current trend is a combination of thermo, quantum, and information theory.
other than physical size, the clod and the city share far more properties, than not. Your comparison is a hard set, of similar characteristics, classical Set Theory, and makes no allowances for similar membership functions.
Ironically all theological explanations are talking about forces from a far, attributes of that force, from the entropy of the observer.
God talk is no different than field theory talk, they are both human constructs.
From Carl Jung, science is the extrovert in man, and religion is the introvert.
You are confusing the idea of God talk with field theory. Without God there no humans to consider anything including "field theory". The Bible informs us man worships the creation instead of the Creator. Believing in something from nothing should fall in the category of insanity. An Infinite Intelligent Energy has no beginning or bounds. Otherwise Infinite has no meaning.
your Argument from Authority is not accepted
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
The computer example is an excellent example of the concept of entropy combined with the concept of information theory.
the order to disorder thingie your hung up is only reflective of some types complex non linear systems. thats why the current trend is a combination of thermo, quantum, and information theory.
other than physical size, the clod and the city share far more properties, than not. Your comparison is a hard set, of similar characteristics, classical Set Theory, and makes no allowances for similar membership functions.
Ironically all theological explanations are talking about forces from a far, attributes of that force, from the entropy of the observer.
God talk is no different than field theory talk, they are both human constructs.
From Carl Jung, science is the extrovert in man, and religion is the introvert.
You are confusing the idea of God talk with field theory. Without God there no humans to consider anything including "field theory". The Bible informs us man worships the creation instead of the Creator. Believing in something from nothing should fall in the category of insanity. An Infinite Intelligent Energy has no beginning or bounds. Otherwise Infinite has no meaning.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish.
That is according to your estimate. An estimate that means absolutely nothing. Offering it shows desperation, an inability to comprehend what is being explained to you, or ague rationally.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle
Multicellullar organisms are capable of completing functions that unicellular organisms could not undertake – this is due to the collective actions of individual cells combining to create new synergistic effects
In multicellular organisms:
Cells may be grouped together to form tissues Organs are then formed from the functional grouping of multiple tissues Organs that interact may form organ systems capable of carrying out specific body functions Organ systems collectively carry out the life functions of the complete organism''
Originally Posted by Ringman
This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
Sorry to be blunt but it's quite clear that you don't have a clue.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish.
That is according to your estimate. An estimate that means absolutely nothing. Offering it shows desperation, an inability to comprehend what is being explained to you, or ague rationally.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle
Multicellullar organisms are capable of completing functions that unicellular organisms could not undertake – this is due to the collective actions of individual cells combining to create new synergistic effects
In multicellular organisms:
Cells may be grouped together to form tissues Organs are then formed from the functional grouping of multiple tissues Organs that interact may form organ systems capable of carrying out specific body functions Organ systems collectively carry out the life functions of the complete organism''
Originally Posted by Ringman
This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
Sorry to be blunt but it's quite clear that you don't have a clue.
And of course your post assumes the very thing that must be proven and that evolutionists have so far been unable to prove, namely that non-organic matter can generate life or that once life is instantiated, that natural selection can create new life forms from existing ones. There is literally no evidence for either proposition and given the information problem, its easy to see why the theory has failed. The fact that the cognoscenti (guys like Francis Crick) have been reduced to positing space aliens as the source of the necessary information is a stark illustration of the failure of Neo-Darwinism.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish. This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
Ringman,
Actually you do have a clue. Odd that comment.
Computers, machines, automobiles.... they all wear out and die. At the end of the day, what they mean to us at the end of our lives is very little.
Animals, sometimes entire species go extinct. They are no more than memories or maybe parts of dead rocks.
People die .... then what?
Either it is nothing that awaits us or it is The Designer that awaits us..... and keeps life going.
It is The Designer that first had the clue. He has passed that on. Eternity....
Eternity.....with The Designer.... that is important.
You are certainly displaying ignorance of the Bible's translation...
Originally Posted by Ringman
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes...
Can I bring your attention to this:
Originally Posted by Ringman
There's NO destroyed like a little piece of firewood.
Malachi 4: (KJV)
1 "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up , saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts."
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish.
That is according to your estimate. An estimate that means absolutely nothing. Offering it shows desperation, an inability to comprehend what is being explained to you, or ague rationally.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle
Multicellullar organisms are capable of completing functions that unicellular organisms could not undertake – this is due to the collective actions of individual cells combining to create new synergistic effects
In multicellular organisms:
Cells may be grouped together to form tissues Organs are then formed from the functional grouping of multiple tissues Organs that interact may form organ systems capable of carrying out specific body functions Organ systems collectively carry out the life functions of the complete organism''
Originally Posted by Ringman
This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
Sorry to be blunt but it's quite clear that you don't have a clue.
And of course your post assumes the very thing that must be proven and that evolutionists have so far been unable to prove, namely that non-organic matter can generate life or that once life is instantiated, that natural selection can create new life forms from existing ones. There is literally no evidence for either proposition and given the information problem, its easy to see why the theory has failed. The fact that the cognoscenti (guys like Francis Crick) have been reduced to positing space aliens as the source of the necessary information is a stark illustration of the failure of Neo-Darwinism.
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You don't have to believe it. The functioning of your computer - for just one example - is greater than the sum of its parts. The collection of parts in the right order, apply energy and you get marvelous information processing activity that has never existed before computers....and before you invoke a designer, there is a difference between natural systems and obviously constructed systems.
Some of you posts are foolish and some are even more foolish.
That is according to your estimate. An estimate that means absolutely nothing. Offering it shows desperation, an inability to comprehend what is being explained to you, or ague rationally.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle
Multicellullar organisms are capable of completing functions that unicellular organisms could not undertake – this is due to the collective actions of individual cells combining to create new synergistic effects
In multicellular organisms:
Cells may be grouped together to form tissues Organs are then formed from the functional grouping of multiple tissues Organs that interact may form organ systems capable of carrying out specific body functions Organ systems collectively carry out the life functions of the complete organism''
Originally Posted by Ringman
This one is right at the top of more foolish. You are obfuscating when changing the conversation to the sum of its parts from the effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause. The idea that natural systems and constructed systems, if you are speaking of living things, is the difference in New York city and a dirt clod. And yet natural systems run down and eventually die. Even go extinct. As much as folks try to get around entropy real life and lab experiments show things go from order to disorder. So yes, even natural systems need The Designer.
Sorry to be blunt but it's quite clear that you don't have a clue.
Ad hominem doesn't add a thing to your argument. You are going back to the "whole is greater than the sum.." I am saying the effect can not be equal to or greater than the cause. For you to get to multicellular you have to get unicellular life. For about seventy years in labs all over the world both professionals and armatures have proven intelligent humans can not even make proteins or sugars in the correct configuration needed in a living cell. How in the name of logic do you think random chemicals reacting naturally with each other could possibly accomplish something they can't?
This thing still going on! Good golly molly, it's very simple. The word "evolution" in it's self acknowledges that every thing has evolved from something and that something was created by God.
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
Evidence is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
The evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself. It is the bias the scientists bring to the lab or field that determines their interpretation of the evidence.
Originally Posted by DBT
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You still have not answered the question of Abiogenesis. The scientists have more or less proven life comes from life. (See above.) The simplest cell is considerably more complex than anything man has made; including entire cities. They don't spontaneously come into existence. Time is not the hero of this story. The more time, the more entropy.
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
Evidence is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
The evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself. It is the bias the scientists bring to the lab or field that determines their interpretation of the evidence.
Originally Posted by DBT
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You still have not answered the question of Abiogenesis. The scientists have more or less proven life comes from life. (See above.) The simplest cell is considerably more complex than anything man has made; including entire cities. They don't spontaneously come into existence. Time is not the hero of this story. The more time, the more entropy.
It has been shown that entropy can, and is reversed within a system given energy input, loss in one, gain in the other....the system losing energy feeding the system which gains energy and evolves complexity.
Plus you are invoking the fallacy of irreducible complexity again. Whole cells did not pop into existence fully formed...organic molocules, RNA, etc.
158 pages of the same old "if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull siht. I gotta admit, some of you guys got that down real good. Any of you making any money on that? Bet not. BS is still pretty cheap.
158 pages of the same old "if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull siht. I gotta admit, some of you guys got that down real good. Any of you making any money on that? Bet not. BS is still pretty cheap.
yes I do make money off this "bullshit" middle six figures, not counting patents, and Im retired. although it has more to do with drug transport systems, and the use of genetics to predict disease states as a medical diagnostic tool. I just check into 24 to see if anything going on in guns, which is really, really slow on this site.
don't know how bullshit pages have been printed thru history on religion.
course we could just watch football and pay them money, I certainly wouldn't mind making what some of those guys are, you making any money watching them?..... jeez
anyway Myriad Genetics is working on biogenesis currently, but there are quite a few laws that stop real research. Either in or on the stem cell side. any type of research that announced "life" would be immediately stonewalled by the various religious lobbying groups.
If you want to bring yourself up to speed on some of the areas,
Computational Molecular Biology, by Pevzner is a good start. you could read it thru commercials.
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
Evidence is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
The evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself. It is the bias the scientists bring to the lab or field that determines their interpretation of the evidence.
Originally Posted by DBT
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You still have not answered the question of Abiogenesis. The scientists have more or less proven life comes from life. (See above.) The simplest cell is considerably more complex than anything man has made; including entire cities. They don't spontaneously come into existence. Time is not the hero of this story. The more time, the more entropy.
Since the cities are made of many units containing the simple cells you outline, your statement is completely ridiculous
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
The purpose of religion is not to foolishly combat scientific discoveries. Catholicism tried that 500 years ago and the Pope has since aplologized for it.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Then the definitive answer to the universal existence is ...........?
Hold the gobbledygook to an absolute minimum.
I knew a few people that claimed to be atheist, but when they got real close to the river they all started to cover their bases. Every one of them. Why? They not trust all the theologians?
Speaking of trippy. And TV too I suppose. I recently caught an episode of NOVA looking at our lowly solar system. What a trip. Just wow. While Uranus is pretty boring Neptune is getting it on. Bammmmm Powwwww! The Creator really came up with some interesting stuff!
Then the definitive answer to the universal existence is ...........?
Hold the gobbledygook to an absolute minimum.
I knew a few people that claimed to be atheist, but when they got real close to the river they all started to cover their bases. Every one of them. Why? They not trust all the theologians?
You miss the point. As there is no definitive answer to ''the universal existence'' making up stories about a Cosmic Magician who 'did it' does not help. But if it keeps you happy, knock yourself out.....
"The psyche, as a reflection of the world and man, is a thing of such infinite complexity that it can be observed and studied from a great many sides. It faces us with the same problem that the world does: because a systematic study of the world is beyond our powers, we have to content ourselves with mere rules of thumb and with aspects that particularly interest us. Everyone makes for himself his own segment of world and constructs his own private system, often with air-tight compartments, so that after a time it seems to him that he has grasped the meaning and structure of the whole. But the finite will never be able to grasp the infinite"
- Carl Jung.
The infinite Jung references is the numinous quality of the mysterious and powerful [or what some call holy], which provides the underlying allure of mythological tales and themes because it gives a final meaning to human existence. The concept of something greater and more powerful than one’s self gives one the hope of direction and protection in an uncertain world.
scholar Joseph Campbell stated,.. Mythology explains, empowers, stabilizes,and elevates the life of a believer from a mundane existence to one imbued with eternal meaning. On the most basic level, a myth explains a phenomenon, tradition, place-name, or geological formation but can also elevate or emnbelish a relatively normal past event to epic and even supernatural status.
With the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions, came the new mythological division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual, eternal soul...Mankind in his inventive mind, has repeatedly added and altered mythology to suite himself.
Interesting thesis. The human psyche is so complex that any thought of a deity must be myth. Can that complexity be indicia that a deity is at work? Of course not, for we presuppose that there is no deity. That at least is Campbell's starting point.
Truth is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
Evidence is often rejected in favor of what the majority likes.
The evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself. It is the bias the scientists bring to the lab or field that determines their interpretation of the evidence.
Originally Posted by DBT
Biogenesis is a work in progress. That's how science works. It is the creationist who adopts and endorses a set of beliefs and waves them around as if it was profound knowledge.
You still have not answered the question of Abiogenesis. The scientists have more or less proven life comes from life. (See above.) The simplest cell is considerably more complex than anything man has made; including entire cities. They don't spontaneously come into existence. Time is not the hero of this story. The more time, the more entropy.
It has been shown that entropy can, and is reversed within a system given energy input, loss in one, gain in the other....the system losing energy feeding the system which gains energy and evolves complexity.
Plus you are invoking the fallacy of irreducible complexity again. Whole cells did not pop into existence fully formed...organic molocules, RNA, etc.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
Well....nah, I don't think so. Try again. History tells us that some of the stories, A&E, the Flood, etc, in the OT/Torah were borrowed from older religions and cultures, Sumer, Babylon and modified to build a culture and identity for the tribe of Israel.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Simply not true. Science is the study of the natural world....which says nothing about supernatural entities. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Your question assumes that everything has a purpose in itself. What's the purpose of the mathematical organization of large flocks of starlings? Organization is just something that happens, given the right circumstances.
It's like asking, what's the purpose in these patterns: Link
God created a universe within which organization and increasing complexity is natural.
According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark[/i].
I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.
You are a total maroon!
The "evolutionary site" you quoted is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, a group of wackdoodle creationists who seek to discredit science. It has no scientific pedigree.
Now...most modern humans ARE descnded from a small group of humans but ALSO from a lot of other humans alive at the time.) It's just like 10% of all modern Asians being descendents of Genghis Kahn. But they too have a lot of other ancestors.) There were only a small group alive 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That's irrelevant for the Adam and Eve myth. And as far as Noah's Ark is concerned, that myth supposedly took place long after 100,000 years ago.
I would appreciate it if you didn't waste my time by posting things you don't understand. Go back to high school and get some education. Post something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, bye.
OK, first of all let me note, that I missed that this site has writers who come from the Intelligent Design perspective (that is my bad and I apologize for that). I specifically chose an article that provided more analysis than the typical news agency. The article I was citing was not advocating for Intelligent Design it was only reporting on a study and offering pros and cons and even pointing out other possibilities for interpreting the evidence. Other news agencies reported on the same study. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
Therefore the study by Stoeckle and Thaler on the DNA evidence for origins is still a DNA study requiring careful attention. The authors were conducting an objective study and were not expecting the evidence to point where it did. The known evolutionary bottlenecks do not explain away the findings of the DNA research. The desire to dismiss the findings rather than engage with it illustrates that hard core Darwinists are not really looking for facts or evidence unless it supports their pre-suppositional theories. Their extreme prejudice at times leads them to promoting hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man and then Lucy as one of the missing links. Emotional outbursts over objective findings are usually good evidence of the willingness to dismiss good evidence if it does not agree with the Darwinian faith which gave birth from too long marooned on the Galapagos Islands.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Simply not true. Science is the study of the natural world....which says nothing about supernatural entities. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods.
You cannot logically study design and design intent without considering a Designer--otherwise it is not science at all. We would not operate so obtusely in any other field of study.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
What on earth makes you think the fossil record doesn't show transitional speciation?? It's chock full of such examples. Have you never studied the biological sciences?
Quote
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Micro evolution refers to adaptational changes within a species (as in different strains of a species that have only recently in time become isolated from one another). Accumulations of such changes, through long term genetic isolation, sufficient to prevent reproduction (i.e., speciation), is macro evolution.
It's not complicated. We have all sorts of living examples that make this easy to understand. Donkeys, zebras, and horses are a great example of macro evolution, because they've been sufficiently isolated over a long enough period of time such as to no longer be able to produce fertile offspring cross species, yet it's quite evident that they are all three closely related species. Some species have been so long isolated from one another that they can't even produce infertile offspring, such as the panda bear and the grizzly (still evidently closely related, just not as closely as the horse, donkey, and zebra), although the grizzly can still reproduce with the polar bear, indicating that their isolation occurred more recently in time, and that they are very closely related indeed.
The latter example, in fact, bridges the gap between micro and macro evolution, since while they can produce fertile offspring, cross species, those offspring have adaptational problems and tend not to thrive in nature.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
Well....nah, I don't think so. Try again. History tells us that some of the stories, A&E, the Flood, etc, in the OT/Torah were borrowed from older religions and cultures, Sumer, Babylon and modified to build a culture and identity for the tribe of Israel.
You keep saying this but if you actually studied flood accounts you would find some similarities in other flood accounts far away from the Mesopotamian area. How do you account for those? Do you really think it was all a borrow? If you still illogically do, then you are not taking into account the stark differences between the Genesis account and all other accounts. The Egyptian and Babylonian accounts establish creation on the basis of wars and jealousy between the gods. No one today would even debate the credibility of those accounts. Tell me where on the internet I can go to find 80 pages of debate between pagans supporting the ancient pagan views of creation vs modern science? The Genesis account shows the unity of the Godhead in starting creation in the context of creating good. This assertion is not logical and ahistorical.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
And worse logic by an educated man is to assume that no one did it when it was clearly done.
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
Joseph Campbell thought the greatest invention was the brick. It allowed mankind to make "shrines" for ancestors, enshrine certain values that were valuable to the tribe, classification friend or foe, creationist, evolutionists etc. This allowed for handing down "models" behavior as the Hero Epics generation to generation.
Carl Jung expanded this to archetypes. Behavior types that exists at the subconscious level.
Current Neurological Research on short term memory, brings new questions to old concepts. Such as "does free agency even exist". given the physiological nature of the nervous system. Some researchers suggest that our "selves" are rebuilt each day before awakening, somewhat on the Jung models.
If your interested. Christof Koch institute is deep into this. "Methods in Neuronal Modeling" and "Biophysics of Computation"
The snow flake and starling are examples of different orders of complexity.
The snowflake is an example of a second order planar system, that has symmetry of scales, and while beautiful is simple compared to higher orders. It consists of only 2 differential eqs. x and y and the vector field when graphed is swirling, meaning it is stable. Melting vectors go out and growing vector swirl in.
The bird clip is a 2 dimensional planar view of the flight path, that looks very different in 3 dimensions. This system has many differential equations representing the flight paths. This 2 dimensional planar view is called a "Fractal"
and is plotted against time on the x axis, position on the y. Technically its called the "phase plane". Thats, why it changes thru time.
before the advent of increased entropic devices (computers) almost all analysis was done against time. the math was just to complex.
now it is possible to plot each of the differential equations. different phase planes, leaving time out to see what the fractal looks like, or including it in a 3 dimensional "cube". to watch the fractal change. (additional such things as Fourier analysis, Wavelet analysis, Cosine transforms, Laplace transforms can be performed to see what "information" is at each fractal stage. )
Memory systems, (nervous systems) work in much this way and it has been proposed that the fractals they create are metaphorically similar to Jungs Archetypes.
While helping my daughter with a science fair project on quarks, I asked her, " how do cells communicate?" without hesitation she replied "Cell phones"
I was speechless,, but fundamentally they do communicate with waves, cell phones electromagnetic, and cells conc. gradients, and even electrical impulses.
if your interested. "Mathematical Physiology" J. Keener. (invented the vectors used in pacemakers)
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils. All extant species are in the genus Equus.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Memory systems, (nervous systems) work in much this way and it has been proposed that the fractals they create are metaphorically similar to Jungs Archetypes.
Or metaphorically similar to fractals found in trees. We all know our share of knotheads.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?
I would be happy to take a look at this perisodsctyla question, but ..... first....perhaps you could elaborate on your take on that Brooks Wiley Entropy etc issue from a couple of days ago. You kinda implied that if we didn’t understand it, our comments were... what ...meaningless? We wouldn’t have a clue unless we understood it..... I don’t want to waste your time with an ignorant comment and since you seem to know something, perhaps you could share?
Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils. All extant species are in the genus Equus.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Okay, so now the distinction between micro and macro has moved from differences within species to differences within members of the same family. Fine. So, did God specially create the three of them by three separate acts of creation, or were they once the same species, and then only later became three distinct species that cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species?
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?
How about you sustain your premise as to why you propose that the donkey, the horse, and the zebra are an example of macro evolution rather than relying on the mere emotional assertion?
Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences helps confirm the creationist view. Scientists recovered DNA from several fossil specimens that belong in taxonomic family Equidae, which includes both modern and extinct horses, zebras, and donkeys. Previously, most scientists believed these extinct equids were evolutionarily distinct from modern species. Instead, the new study shows that the extinct specimens were merely variations of the creatures that exist today. Examples include:
The Cape zebra, a large, extinct species of zebra from South Africa, was simply a larger variant of the modern Plains zebra, which is now thought to be “highly variable in both coat colour and size.” A species of donkey thought to have lived in Russia recently appears to be related to fossils of a donkey species thought to be extinct for more than a million years. A new species of fossil horse from South America was thought to be “part of an ancient lineage from North America,” but genetic testing reveals they are actually in “the modern radiation of equid species.” Thus, across the three major groups of equids, fossil species thought to be considerably different from modern forms are actually quite similar—variations within the kind rather than less and more highly evolved forms. One of the researchers, Alan Cooper of the University of Adelaide’s Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, explained, “Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have under-estimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna.”
Cooper added, “[A]ncient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe”—which also confirms the creationist position on kinds losing genetic information over time. He also stated that the research “has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, where a large number of species are currently recognised from a relatively fragmentary fossil record.”
According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000. He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem. But this faith did not help him in the end, and will not help any other evolutionist either, as this calculation is based on the origin of positive mutations, even before natural selection would start to work. If all electrons in the universe (about 1080) would have participated in 1012 reactions every second, during the 30 billion years which evolutionists have put as the upper age limit of the universe, there would still not have been more than c. 10110 possibly interactions—still a long way from the Huxley calculation.
Okay, so now the distinction between micro and macro has moved from differences within species to differences within members of the same family. Fine. So, did God specially create the three of them by three separate acts of creation, or were they once the same species, and then only later became three distinct species that cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species?
Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils. All extant species are in the genus Equus.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Okay, so now the distinction between micro and macro has moved from differences within species to differences within members of the same family. Fine. So, did God specially create the three of them by three separate acts of creation, or were they once the same species, and then only later became three distinct species that cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species?
You are pointing out an important clarification. Creation scientists more precisely use the word "kind" as a dividing line between micro and macro evolution but sometimes that has been confused with species (which has happened on this thread by using species very generically). The idea of "kind" is a family group of related species. As you well know the whole species groupings undergoes reconstruction from time as more information is obtained. The "kinds" are viewed as the original boundaries or groupings set from creation from which the multiplication of species would take place. How scientists group the extinct animals known only by the study of the fossil record is something that has fluctuated based on the data available and how it is interpreted. This difficulty is there for all scientists--whether atheistic or theistic. I cannot answer your question for sure, but as noted above, DNA studies are showing there are more extinct species that should be grouped into one family than previously thought. In fact the growing trend of DNA studies is bringing more species into one family rather than creating more divergence. Based on this it is far more likely that there was variation within the kind which led to species within the same family not being able to interbreed due to genetic changes over time. At any rate I do not think there is any conclusive evidence that suggests macro evolution. The fossils of allegedly different lines of evolution in vastly different time frames are sometimes found within the same sedimentary layer of time. This to me would point to more parallel developments and less linear developments.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?
Seems to me that Leroy and TRH are not keeping up with what is going on in the evolution news. This horse business was discredited long ago. Here is one example.... from a noted and well respected evolutionist:
[u]Lifted:
Many museums and school textbooks today depict horse evolution as orthogenetic. That is, variations in the fossil record of the horse follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic. In other words, evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. This is **not** what evolutionists teach today.Orthogenesis has been proved wrong and is no longer accepted by evolutionary scientists.
Notice this comment by the late Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, world renowned evolutionist and palenthologist:
“Orthogenetic evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. Discussion of this point has been so lengthy and extensive that it has, frankly, become boring. There is at present a clear consensus of paleontologists that orthogenesis, in this sense, is not real. There is no known sequence in the fossil record that requires or substantiates such a process. Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth “tigers,” can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic. All supposed examples are more simply and fully interpreted as due to some other cause, such as natural selection.” [/u]
A falsehood remains a falsehood, no matter how many claim it to be true.... no matter how often it is portrayed on the evening news as incontrovertible fact.
interesting stuff, never realized there was so much controversy in a reference frame.
Just a question, so humor me if you would anybody.
There was mention about calculations and probabilities of mutations etc.
Question Are these regular probabilities type calculations, or are they using stochastic differential equations (Markov chains)? the later to create a "tempo" or phase relation sort of speak?
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
Well....nah, I don't think so. Try again. History tells us that some of the stories, A&E, the Flood, etc, in the OT/Torah were borrowed from older religions and cultures, Sumer, Babylon and modified to build a culture and identity for the tribe of Israel.
You keep saying this but if you actually studied flood accounts you would find some similarities in other flood accounts far away from the Mesopotamian area. How do you account for those? Do you really think it was all a borrow? If you still illogically do, then you are not taking into account the stark differences between the Genesis account and all other accounts. The Egyptian and Babylonian accounts establish creation on the basis of wars and jealousy between the gods. No one today would even debate the credibility of those accounts. Tell me where on the internet I can go to find 80 pages of debate between pagans supporting the ancient pagan views of creation vs modern science? The Genesis account shows the unity of the Godhead in starting creation in the context of creating good. This assertion is not logical and ahistorical.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
And worse logic by an educated man is to assume that no one did it when it was clearly done.
Education entails a reasonable understanding of logic. Logic tells us that all the contradictory beliefs that are held on faith cannot be true.
Logic tells us that a conviction of truth should be justified with evidence, and that evidence is a body of information that anyone can access and come to a similar conclusion. ...and that what it says in this or that holy book is not evidence for the truth of their claims, Allah, Brahma, Shiva or whatever else supernatural.
Lets see, is the brilliance part of the b s part? I think the point you make is that you still can't explain what went bang and who lit the fuse. I ain't watched no tv so give it a shot there Buckwheat.
So if something cannot be explained, God did it. That is a kindergarten level of logic. Straight out of the stone age.
Making up stories is what evolutionists do. They do it about science and creationists.
Well....nah, I don't think so. Try again. History tells us that some of the stories, A&E, the Flood, etc, in the OT/Torah were borrowed from older religions and cultures, Sumer, Babylon and modified to build a culture and identity for the tribe of Israel.
Just because you think something does not make it true. As far as "History tells us", you wish it were that way. Which story sounds more like the original? Noah's ark used a naval ratio of 6:1 length to width. The supposed one most try to use was a cube. As far as Israel borrowing from other cultures, that would not be unheard. No culture is an island.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
There are scientists who believe in God, and some of them even express their personal beliefs, but that is not science.
Theism is based on science as much as Atheism is based on science. The interpretation of the data will always lead to the question of theism vs materialistic atheism.
Simply not true. Science is the study of the natural world....which says nothing about supernatural entities. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods.
Science does not speak. Science is a discipline. Where did you get the idea God is not part of the natural world? He created it and maintains it. Science is the study of His world and cosmos.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Let me help you. It won't happen at all. If you get enough changes the species becomes extinct.
Your question assumes that everything has a purpose in itself. What's the purpose of the mathematical organization of large flocks of starlings? Organization is just something that happens, given the right circumstances.
It's like asking, what's the purpose in these patterns: Link
God created a universe within which organization and increasing complexity is natural.
You are grasping at straws. A flock of starlings are complete beings. RNA is nothing but a molecule; albeit a very complex molecule.
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapirs from that? What was the process?
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
The Flood did happen. The story is possible because it did happen. Because you don't believe it and maybe even read others don't believe it makes no never mind to the facts.
Logic tells us that a conviction of truth should be justified with evidence, and that evidence is a body of information that anyone can access and come to a similar conclusion. ...
You wish this is true. Every evolutionist I read about was refuted by another evolutionist. Evolutionists refute creationist even when they have the facts. Therefore your logic is flawed. People will not come to a similar conclusion. They are people, after all.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapers from that? What was the process?
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapers from that? What was the process?
You answered this earlier. Adaptation.
Also called evolution by natural selection. Welcome to the evolution accepting club. You've arrived. You now accept that the two extant species of rhinoceros, the tapir, and the three surviving species of equine are all related by means of stemming from a common ancestor species, and that the mechanism was evolution by natural selection (also called adaptation).
TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown.
Very difficult to convince a seagull to stop squawking.
Said with a straight face?
Yep, take a look at your last three posts. Bafflegab.
It's not my posts that are a problem, it's not science that is a problem...It is claim of special creation in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary that's a problem. Faith is the problem.
Logic tells us that a conviction of truth should be justified with evidence, and that evidence is a body of information that anyone can access and come to a similar conclusion. ...
You wish this is true. Every evolutionist I read about was refuted by another evolutionist. Evolutionists refute creationist even when they have the facts. Therefore your logic is flawed. People will not come to a similar conclusion. They are people, after all.
Any 'refutation' by evolutionists only happens in relation to the mechanisms, the theory, minor details, the significance of this or that bone particle... not the fact of evolution.
But perhaps you'd like to back your claim? No? Thought not.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
The Flood did happen. The story is possible because it did happen. Because you don't believe it and maybe even read others don't believe it makes no never mind to the facts.
The issue is not whether I believe in a world wide deluge, or not, the issue is not that you do, you can believe whatever floats your boat, this is just about the evidence for such an event. The problem being, there is no evidence for a world inundating flood. There is evidence for localized flooding.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Let me help you. It won't happen at all. If you get enough changes the species becomes extinct.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?
I would be happy to take a look at this perisodsctyla question, but ..... first....perhaps you could elaborate on your take on that Brooks Wiley Entropy etc issue from a couple of days ago. You kinda implied that if we didn’t understand it, our comments were... what ...meaningless? We wouldn’t have a clue unless we understood it..... I don’t want to waste your time with an ignorant comment and since you seem to know something, perhaps you could share?
I gave you my view. What is yours?
Having read the book I can say that even with a good bit of mathematics and a lot of evolutionary biology, it is VERY hard to understand. So, anyone that truly wants to throw entropy into either side of the evolution/creation debate better be crackerjack at both, and I mean crackerjack.
As for my take on it. Entropy being the increase in disorder, evolution acts to increase disorder by forming the same (roughly) amount of matter into a generally increasing diversity of species. Hence, evolution in and entropic process.
I'm not going to defend that statement, but simply leave it as a simple attempt to generalize the relationship between the two. Any more than that, and I may mispeak. And it's been a few decades since I last read it.
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Let me help you. It won't happen at all. If you get enough changes the species becomes extinct.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
I've suggested that, but that doesn't go over well. And that shows in their constant repetitions of wrong-headedness.
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
And Noah was, what, some 4000 years ago?
And all these separate kinds, got split up into different orders, and those orders into separate families, and those families into separate genera, and those Genera into separate species, and those species divided into subspecies.............all in about 4000 yrs?
Yet some claim that speciation occurs at a rate too slowly to explain the diversity upon the Earth today?
well then ,Where God is present evil is there also.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
The natural world (the entire universe) is God's creation. He is no more part of it than a potter is part of the pot he makes.
When a christian says they radiate the Spirit, where is God? ..Does the spirit emit from within? or do christians just bounce the inbound sprit off like a mirror?
Hinduism and Buhdism does not distinguish between nature and the creator, Sanskrit Upanishad states; "I indeed am this creation for I have poured it forth from myself, in that way he became this creation"
Entropy isn't an argument against increasing order, as it only applies to a closed system without an energy input. With an energy input like geothermic and solar energy, it fails as an argument against evolution. While both the sun and the earth are gradually losing energy, from the perspective of life, they are constantly adding energy to the system.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
You are missing the whole point. Have you read these flood accounts? You claim Genesis is a borrow account and then you say the other accounts were simply local disasters. Well if Genesis was recorded as a worldwide flood that wiped out the whole race it certainly did not borrow from a local washout account. The other accounts are not recording local washouts either. Where did all these accounts come from all over the world? They could not have been borrowing all from each other unless they started with a single source about a singular worldwide event. Your contention is lacking the most basic logic.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is pretty humorous because the theories keep changing. A lot of schools are using textbooks with material that has been discounted by leading evolutionists, because by the time it prints and distributes an assumption of the theory has changed, but they will keep teaching it because that is in their textbook, and until new ones are obtained you need to keep teaching the outdated version because there is no other version available to the students. The evolution of the horse being a good example. Yup just go pick up a textbook and learn about Piltdown man and Lucy and the horses they rode.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
The Flood did happen. The story is possible because it did happen. Because you don't believe it and maybe even read others don't believe it makes no never mind to the facts.
The issue is not whether I believe in a world wide deluge, or not, the issue is not that you do, you can believe whatever floats your boat, this is just about the evidence for such an event. The problem being, there is no evidence for a world inundating flood. There is evidence for localized flooding.
The massive fossil record requires more than a neighborhood ride-about in your favorite pottery tub.
1. The burial of great quantities of animals together. 2. The evidence for the rapid burial of species with excellent preservation (little decay) of the fossils. 3. The presence of “non-native” species in burial grounds – meaning those same species are now found only on other continents. 4. The position of mammals suggest death by drowning.
Geological processes as currently seen in the modern world do not produce such conditions. A world-wide catastrophic flood is the most logical explanation to these fossils buried in sedimentary rock.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is pretty humorous because the theories keep changing. A lot of schools are using textbooks with material that has been discounted by leading evolutionists, because by the time it prints and distributes an assumption of the theory has changed, but they will keep teaching it because that is in their textbook, and until new ones are obtained you need to keep teaching the outdated version because there is no other version available to the students. The evolution of the horse being a good example. Yup just go pick up a textbook and learn about Piltdown man and Lucy and the horses they rode.
Not changing, but developing, growing, yes. Like any science does as new things are discovered and added to the body of knowledge. But the core theory does not change. Now we know much more about how evolution happens.
Sadly, many (most) schools do not teach evolution because of plain cowardice. Hence, the American public is pretty ignorant, relative to the rest of the world. But that's a problem in so many ways.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
But DNA studies are showing a lot of evidence for the human race coming from a single couple and then a wipeout and then re-population. Maybe you don't believe the evidence gathered from DNA.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is pretty humorous because the theories keep changing. A lot of schools are using textbooks with material that has been discounted by leading evolutionists, because by the time it prints and distributes an assumption of the theory has changed, but they will keep teaching it because that is in their textbook, and until new ones are obtained you need to keep teaching the outdated version because there is no other version available to the students. The evolution of the horse being a good example. Yup just go pick up a textbook and learn about Piltdown man and Lucy and the horses they rode.
Not changing, but developing, growing, yes. Like any science does as new things are discovered and added to the body of knowledge. But the core theory does not change. Now we know much more about how evolution happens.
Sadly, many (most) schools do not teach evolution because of plain cowardice. Hence, the American public is pretty ignorant, relative to the rest of the world. But that's a problem in so many ways.
Alleged discovery of missing links from credible science--national news--then silently disappearing as a hoax--that is not a change! Come on piltdown man and Lucy. Lucy is still on display at some museums.
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapers from that? What was the process?
You answered this earlier. Adaptation.
Also called evolution by natural selection. Welcome to the evolution accepting club. You've arrived. You now accept that the two extant species of rhinoceros, the tapir, and the three surviving species of equine are all related by means of stemming from a common ancestor species, and that the mechanism was evolution by natural selection (also called adaptation).
Creationists believe in natural selection and adaptation.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is pretty humorous because the theories keep changing. A lot of schools are using textbooks with material that has been discounted by leading evolutionists, because by the time it prints and distributes an assumption of the theory has changed, but they will keep teaching it because that is in their textbook, and until new ones are obtained you need to keep teaching the outdated version because there is no other version available to the students. The evolution of the horse being a good example. Yup just go pick up a textbook and learn about Piltdown man and Lucy and the horses they rode.
Not changing, but developing, growing, yes. Like any science does as new things are discovered and added to the body of knowledge. But the core theory does not change. Now we know much more about how evolution happens.
Sadly, many (most) schools do not teach evolution because of plain cowardice. Hence, the American public is pretty ignorant, relative to the rest of the world. But that's a problem in so many ways.
Alleged discovery of missing links from credible science--national news--then silently disappearing as a hoax--that is not a change! Come on piltdown man and Lucy. Lucy is still on display at some museums.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
But DNA studies are showing a lot of evidence for the human race coming from a single couple and then a wipeout and then re-population. Maybe you don't believe the evidence gathered from DNA.
The DNA evidence suggests that a bottleneck in the human population occurred about 70,000 years ago wherein we may have been reduced to as few as 10,000 individuals on the planet.
Alleged discovery of missing links from credible science--national news--then silently disappearing as a hoax--that is not a change! Come on piltdown man and Lucy. Lucy is still on display at some museums.
Pildown man was received by science with skepticism from the start, and science eventually proved it was a hoax. That's how the scientific method weeds out falsity. As for Lucy, why wouldn't her bones still be on display??
Creationists believe in natural selection and adaptation.
And since he also believes that the Rhinoceros, the Tapir, the Horse, Donkey, and Zebra are all related species (all being members of the order Perissodactyla), stemming from a common ancestor, he also believes in speciation by natural selection. That's called Darwinian Evolution.
I have a fair amount of first hand knowledge with people who lived through 70 years of Communism where it was a state crime to teach anything other than atheism and evolution in the public forum. Registered churches who were willing to follow state guidelines could conduct services within their walls only, but unregistered churches who would not accept the compromises of state guidelines were considered illegal. I talked with one man who said the last time he saw his father was when the KGB took him from their home at night and presumably sent him to Siberia because he had committed "crimes against the state" as a pastor. That was a common occurrence. What the underground church under Communism endured for contradicting mandatory education in atheism and evolution was often kept from the national news by our liberal media. All of this was fueled by the Marxist agenda which relied heavily on convincing the populace of atheism and evolution. But in the end the godless system of Communism imploded, and the Church is still teaching theism and creation and will continue to do so till the end of time.
I had the privilege to live there for a period of time and use a public auditorium where the walls were lined with famous atheists/evolutionists/communists who spoke there ... they are gone ... but in the very podium where they promoted their agenda in the name of (false) science the enduring Word of God went forth and another church was founded.
I have a fair amount of first hand knowledge with people who lived through 70 years of Communism where it was a state crime to teach anything other than atheism and evolution in the public forum.
Actually, the teaching of Darwinian Evolution was outlawed in the Soviet Union. They declared it a product of bourgeois capitalism, since it emphasized competition for survival. Instead, they required that Lamarckianism be taught as the means by which speciation occurred. Lamarckianims proposes that, for example, the ancestors of giraffes struggling to reach higher and higher edibles in the trees, stretched their necks ever so slightly throughout their lives by this process, and then passed that slight morphological change on to their descendants, till eventually we had modern day giraffes. Anyone caught teaching Darwinian Evolution was arrested for promoting competition rather than cooperation.
As a result of this, the Soviet Union suffered year after year of crop failure, eventually leading to their giving up of Lamarckianism and conceding that Darwinian Evolution was correct.
They can call it what they like. It isn't Darwinian Evolution, and is just plain wrong. No legitimate scientist has been an adherent for a century or more. It was only favored by the Soviets because they disliked the idea that progress could have anything to do with competition.
They can call it what they like. It isn't Darwinian Evolution, and is just plain wrong. No legitimate scientist has been an adherent for a century or more. It was only favored by the Soviets because they disliked the idea that progress could have anything to do with competition.
That makes sense, but though they disliked an aspect of classic Darwinism they certainly embraced the main theory.
“a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that inbetween links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as ‘underdeveloped’
Darwin, however, opened the door to Marxism by providing what Marx believed was a ‘scientific’ rationale to deny Creation and, by extension, to deny God.4 His denial of God, and his knowledge of Darwin, inspired Marx to develop his new godless worldview now known as communism. And like other Darwinists, Marx stressed that his communistic worldview was ‘scientific’ and, as such, employed a ‘scientific methodology and scientific outlook’.5 Bethell notes that Marx admired Darwin’s book,
“not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or ‘beyond’ it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades … ”6
Lenin greatly admired his father, who was a hard-working, religious and intelligent man. Koster adds:
“The only piece of art work in Lenin’s office was a kitsch statue of an ape sitting on a heap of books—including Origin of Species—and contemplating a human skull. This … comment in clay on Darwin’s view of man, remained in Lenin’s view as he worked at his desk, approving plans or signing death warrants … . The ape and the skull were a symbol of his faith, the Darwinian faith that man is a brute, the world is a jungle, and individual lives are irrelevant. Lenin was probably not an instinctively vicious man, though he certainly ordered a great many vicious measures. Perhaps the ape and the skull were invoked to remind him that, in the world according to Darwin, man’s brutality to man is inevitable. In his struggle to bring about the ‘worker’s paradise’ though ‘scientific’ means, he ordered a great many deaths. The ape and the skull may have helped him stifle whatever kindly or humane impulses were left over from a wholesome childhood.”38
The importance of Darwin’s ideas is stressed by Parkadze, a childhood friend of Stalin’s:
“We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings. We were aided in this by … Lyell’s Antiquity of Man and Darwin’s Descent of Man, the latter in a translation edited by Sechenov. Comrade Stalin read Sechenov’s scientific works with great interest. We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of class society, which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. In those days the reading of Marxist literature was punishable as revolutionary propaganda. The effect of this was particularly felt in the seminary, where even the name of Darwin was always mentioned with scurrilous abuse. … Comrade Stalin brought these books to our notice. The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists. Many of us began to acquire a materialist outlook and to ignore theological subjects. Our reading in the most diverse branches of science not only helped our young people to escape from the bigoted and narrow-minded spirit of the seminary, but also prepared their minds for the reception of Marxist ideas. Every book we read, whether on archaeology, geology, astronomy, or primitive civilization, helped to confirm us the truth of Marxism.”47
As a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48
So there was one species of equine, and it became at least the three that remain today, yes? Ok, so how? By what process? Families aren't species. They are one category up from species, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species. So lets go one more category up from there, to Perissodactyla, the order to which equine belongs. Are all members of Perissodactyla also a mere diversification of the original created species? How'd we get all the horses, the two or three types of rhinoceros, and tapers from that? What was the process?
You answered this earlier. Adaptation.
Also called evolution by natural selection. Welcome to the evolution accepting club. You've arrived. You now accept that the two extant species of rhinoceros, the tapir, and the three surviving species of equine are all related by means of stemming from a common ancestor species, and that the mechanism was evolution by natural selection (also called adaptation).
Nice try. You are trying you switch meaning and are failing. Adaptation is not evolving to a higher order of animal.
TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown.
Very difficult to convince a seagull to stop squawking.
Said with a straight face?
Yep, take a look at your last three posts. Bafflegab.
It's not my posts that are a problem, it's not science that is a problem...It is claim of special creation in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary that's a problem. Faith is the problem.
Your blind faith is what is the problem. You are rejecting reality.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
But DNA studies are showing a lot of evidence for the human race coming from a single couple and then a wipeout and then re-population. Maybe you don't believe the evidence gathered from DNA.
The DNA evidence suggests that a bottleneck in the human population occurred about 70,000 years ago wherein we may have been reduced to as few as 10,000 individuals on the planet.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?
The evolutionist would propose that complex life just erupted.... well no, we don’t know how but we have these ideas.... no, we can’t demonstrate nor provide evidence for those theories, but it must have happened kinda like we say because it did happen and since God is not “scientific” that cannot be the cause..... maybe aliens....we would rather believe in aliens than God.
Oh, and yes the fossil record does not really show any transitional forms but that is because,the fossil record in incomplete.
Yes, micro evolution is not macro evolution.... but we have an “ace.” There are genetic mutations and our ace is “time.” Over “time” all these things happened.
Oh, and all of you that don’t believe this are idiots.... more so, idiots that believe in “God.” How foolish of you, you should believe us as we are “scientists”. After all, you believe us about man causing global warming..... and the “universe from nothing” ..... don’t you?
Accrue enough 'micro changes' and you have a different animal. It won't happen overnight.
Let me help you. It won't happen at all. If you get enough changes the species becomes extinct.
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
Should I read a textbook that includes Nebraska man and Piltdown man? Or should I read one that taught neanthradal was not human?
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
And Noah was, what, some 4000 years ago?
And all these separate kinds, got split up into different orders, and those orders into separate families, and those families into separate genera, and those Genera into separate species, and those species divided into subspecies.............all in about 4000 yrs?
Yet some claim that speciation occurs at a rate too slowly to explain the diversity upon the Earth today?
I think the Flood was about 5,000 years ago. And the answer is YES.
Sorry, but if there was a world wide flood, no way it happened only 5000 years ago. Genesis literalism is completely and thoroughly repudiated by science.
Nice try. You are trying you switch meaning and are failing. Adaptation is not evolving to a higher order of animal.
Who said higher? You did in fact accept that the two extant species of rhinoceros, the tapir, and the three extant equine species had a common ancestor. It's recorded here in this thread. That's not mere change by adaptation of two strains of the same species to different environments. That's speciation. I asked how, and you said by the process of adaptation. So you admit that adaptation can take us further than mere adaptation of the same species to differing environments. Not only that, but even beyond the same family. We are now at the order level of variation, yet still accepting a common ancestor of them all.
I'm sorry, buddy, but you are now a proponent of Darwinian evolution (congrats). You're way past intra-species variation by adaptation (all that any Creationist is willing to accept). You're even past inter-species variation by adaptation. You've entered into intra-order variation by adaptation. You are solidly within the evolution camp now, whether you're aware of it or not.
If species of different families within the same order can be related (something you've admitted to here), why not species only sharing a class? After all, if it's possible to walk ten yards it's possible to walk ten miles.
...s a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48
As often the case in your posts, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.
...s a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48
As often the case in your posts, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.
Yes, but they have to attack it in any fashion possible. This talk of evolution threatens their entire belief system.
I have a fair amount of first hand knowledge with people who lived through 70 years of Communism where it was a state crime to teach anything other than atheism and evolution in the public forum.
Actually, the teaching of Darwinian Evolution was outlawed in the Soviet Union. They declared it a product of bourgeois capitalism, since it emphasized competition for survival. Instead, they required that Lamarckianism be taught as the means by which speciation occurred. Lamarckianims proposes that, for example, the ancestors of giraffes struggling to reach higher and higher edibles in the trees, stretched their necks ever so slightly throughout their lives by this process, and then passed that slight morphological change on to their descendants, till eventually we had modern day giraffes. Anyone caught teaching Darwinian Evolution was arrested for promoting competition rather than cooperation.
As a result of this, the Soviet Union suffered year after year of crop failure, eventually leading to their giving up of Lamarckianism and conceding that Darwinian Evolution was correct.
This, The teaching and study of Mendelavian genetics was outlawed in the USSR. Tough to teach evolution without basic genetics.
If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?
If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?
If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.
Ten years prior to Darwin's book a creationist wrote about adaptation. Coming off the ark was the horse kind, the deer kind, the elephant kind, cat kind and all the kinds that originated the animals we now see.
And Noah was, what, some 4000 years ago?
And all these separate kinds, got split up into different orders, and those orders into separate families, and those families into separate genera, and those Genera into separate species, and those species divided into subspecies.............all in about 4000 yrs?
Yet some claim that speciation occurs at a rate too slowly to explain the diversity upon the Earth today?
I think the Flood was about 5,000 years ago. And the answer is YES.
Alleged discovery of missing links from credible science--national news--then silently disappearing as a hoax--that is not a change! Come on piltdown man and Lucy. Lucy is still on display at some museums.
Pildown man was received by science with skepticism from the start, and science eventually proved it was a hoax. That's how the scientific method weeds out falsity. As for Lucy, why wouldn't her bones still be on display??
You are truly smoking dope here. It was touted as fact for fifty years. Doctorate dissertations were written using it. Quit reading lies.
Sorry, but if there was a world wide flood, no way it happened only 5000 years ago. Genesis literalism is completely and thoroughly repudiated by science.
Sorry. There was a world wide flood. It happened about 5,000 years ago. Genesis is literal history and rejected by those who reject science.
You are truly smoking dope here. It was touted as fact for fifty years. Doctorate dissertations were written using it. Quit reading lies.
Bwahahahaha! It was presented to the scientific community in 1912.
"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from the American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded that Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth."
- Wikipedia
In fact, no respectable museum of natural history would put it on display, based on the fact that the scientific community smelled a rat from the start.
Sorry, but if there was a world wide flood, no way it happened only 5000 years ago. Genesis literalism is completely and thoroughly repudiated by science.
Sorry. There was a world wide flood. It happened about 5,000 years ago. Genesis is literal history and rejected by those who reject science.
Rich, I commend your faith.
But heartily disagree with your conclusions. grinning
I recently watched a Nova presentation on the floods over the Scablands of Wa State. It seems Lake Missoula in Montana filled and broke the ice dam and drained multiple times during previous ice ages. The waters raced across N Id and Wa State leaving a miles wide path of destruction behind.
Core samples from just off shore show the various sediment layers deposited by various floods.
We know the Salt Lake Basin was once filled with water. My understanding is that it drained down the Snake River cutting the Snake River Canyon in just a matter of days.
Hell's Canyon was once dammed at the top near Farewell Bend Or. There are stories of a volcanic eruption which blocked the canyon, and of course periodic ice dams must have occurred. Thus Lake Bonneville was formed which at different times covered SW Idaho, SE Oregon, most of Utah, and a big hunk of Nevada.
Lots and lots of regional floods. But no, nothing which inundated the entire Earth.
It is interesting to me that the Chinese have written histories which go back 6000 years. Ancient oriental art depicts orientals as always having oriental eyes. Interesting to know how they had those eyes before the flood, and how descendants of Noah who later resettled in the orient also came to have oriental eyes.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
You are missing the whole point. Have you read these flood accounts? You claim Genesis is a borrow account and then you say the other accounts were simply local disasters. Well if Genesis was recorded as a worldwide flood that wiped out the whole race it certainly did not borrow from a local washout account. The other accounts are not recording local washouts either. Where did all these accounts come from all over the world? They could not have been borrowing all from each other unless they started with a single source about a singular worldwide event. Your contention is lacking the most basic logic.
Genesis is not an account of an actual world wide flood, it is a work of fiction....the ancients loved their stories, they loved a good yarn over the campfire. Stories got told and retold and embellished over time and retelling.
''Various archaeologists suggest there was a historical deluge between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago that hit lands ranging from the Black Sea to what many call the cradle of civilization, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The translation of ancient cuneiform tablets in the 19th century confirmed the Mesopotamian flood myth as an antecedent of the Noah story in the Bible. In an interview with the London Telegraph, Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum and author of the recent book The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, described one way the tradition may have emerged:
There must have been a heritage memory of the destructive power of flood water, based on various terrible floods. And the people who survived would have been people in boats. You can imagine someone sunbathing in a canoe, half asleep, and waking up however long later and they’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and that’s the beginning of the flood story.
Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.''
Maybe reading a textbook on biology and evolution could help, just a suggestion.
This is pretty humorous because the theories keep changing. A lot of schools are using textbooks with material that has been discounted by leading evolutionists, because by the time it prints and distributes an assumption of the theory has changed, but they will keep teaching it because that is in their textbook, and until new ones are obtained you need to keep teaching the outdated version because there is no other version available to the students. The evolution of the horse being a good example. Yup just go pick up a textbook and learn about Piltdown man and Lucy and the horses they rode.
Evolution has stood for one hundred and fifty years of challenges. You may be confused between the fact of evolution and the theory related to its mechanisms and means....some of which may be modified or dropped as new information emerges from research.
Something provides evidence for evolution when it demonstrates a change in characteristics from an ancestral form
Fossil Record
A fossil is the preserved remains or traces of any organism from the remote past
Fossil evidence may be either:
Direct (body fossils): Bones, teeth, shells, leaves, etc. Indirect (trace fossils): Footprints, tooth marks, tracks, burrows, etc.
Types of Fossils
The totality of fossils (both discovered and undiscovered) is known as the fossil record
The fossil record reveals that, over time, changes have occurred in features of organisms living on the planet (evolution) Moreover, different kinds of organisms do not occur randomly but are found in rocks of particular ages in a consistent order (law of fossil succession) This suggests that changes to an ancestral species was likely responsible for the appearance of subsequent species (speciation via evolution) Furthermore, the occurrence of transitional fossils demonstrate the intermediary forms that occurred over the evolutionary pathway taken within a single genus
Biogeography
Biogeography describes the distribution of lifeforms over geographical areas, both in past and present times
Biogeographical distribution supports the theory of evolution as it is found that closely related species are usually found in close physical proximity to one another, and that fossils from these regions resemble modern organisms
This suggests that these species share a common lineage (if speciation was random, distribution would be expected to be scattered)
Comparative Anatomy
A comparison of the anatomic features of different species provides further evidence of evolution
The presence of homologous structures and shared embryonic development between species indicates descent from common ancestors The presence of analogous structures and vestigial organs highlight the role of environmental influences in the process of natural selection
Homologous Structures
Homologous structures possess a similar underlying anatomy as a result of a shared evolutionary origin, but have evolved into a variety of distinct forms due to the presence of different selective pressures
Analogous Structures
Analogous structures are adaptations that possess similar features and functionality as a result of exposure to a common selective pressure, but have different underlying anatomies due to having unrelated evolutionary origins
Vestigial Organs
Some organisms show the presence of functionless and reduced remnants of organs that were once present and functional in their ancestors
Changes to the environment have rendered these organs redundant and so over time they have lost their functionality
Molecular Evidence
Molecular evidence involves identifying conservation in DNA and protein sequences as a basis for determining evolutionary relationships
Genesis is not an account of an actual world wide flood, it is a work of fiction....the ancients loved their stories, they loved a good yarn over the campfire. Stories got told and retold and embellished over time and retelling.
Folks have long woken up to the fact that the weird and wacky seamonsters that appear on medieval maps do not exist, in fact there were very rational sober mind wordly people at the time who didn't buy the BS.
yet today we still have people deeply entrenched in millennia old mythologies, like virgin births and world floods.
such mythologies are accepted as mythology in other cultures and religions, but christians take their versions of the same as the literal indisputable truth.
grown men captivated by children's stories designed for village idiots and simpletons.
One has to ask where all the water to flood all of Urth went. Or where it came from for that matter. Might take a wee bit more than we find locked up in ice on Greenland and Antarctica. 29,000 ft of sea level rise. It's a teaspoon or three, ain't it?
You are truly smoking dope here. It was touted as fact for fifty years. Doctorate dissertations were written using it. Quit reading lies.
Bwahahahaha! It was presented to the scientific community in 1912.
"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from the American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded that Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth."
- Wikipedia
In fact, no respectable museum of natural history would put it on display, based on the fact that the scientific community smelled a rat from the start.
Where in hell are you getting your information??
You are still smoking dope. It was not rejected until the 1950's when they did a (I think) chlorine test. It was then someone started taking a closer look. At that time they discovered there was about 1/2 a million years difference in age of skull and jaw bone.
I recently watched a Nova presentation on the floods over the Scablands of Wa State. It seems Lake Missoula in Montana filled and broke the ice dam and drained multiple times during previous ice ages. The waters raced across N Id and Wa State leaving a miles wide path of destruction behind.
Core samples from just off shore show the various sediment layers deposited by various floods.
We know the Salt Lake Basin was once filled with water. My understanding is that it drained down the Snake River cutting the Snake River Canyon in just a matter of days.
Hell's Canyon was once dammed at the top near Farewell Bend Or. There are stories of a volcanic eruption which blocked the canyon, and of course periodic ice dams must have occurred. Thus Lake Bonneville was formed which at different times covered SW Idaho, SE Oregon, most of Utah, and a big hunk of Nevada.
Lots and lots of regional floods. But no, nothing which inundated the entire Earth.
It is interesting to me that the Chinese have written histories which go back 6000 years. Ancient oriental art depicts orientals as always having oriental eyes. Interesting to know how they had those eyes before the flood, and how descendants of Noah who later resettled in the orient also came to have oriental eyes.
You missed the correct interpretation of the sediments from many floods. They are sediments from One Flood produced as the tides caused currants in the flooded world. The Chinese came into being after the Flood. They are descendants of one of Noah's kids.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
You are missing the whole point. Have you read these flood accounts? You claim Genesis is a borrow account and then you say the other accounts were simply local disasters. Well if Genesis was recorded as a worldwide flood that wiped out the whole race it certainly did not borrow from a local washout account. The other accounts are not recording local washouts either. Where did all these accounts come from all over the world? They could not have been borrowing all from each other unless they started with a single source about a singular worldwide event. Your contention is lacking the most basic logic.
Genesis is not an account of an actual world wide flood, it is a work of fiction....the ancients loved their stories, they loved a good yarn over the campfire. Stories got told and retold and embellished over time and retelling.
''Various archaeologists suggest there was a historical deluge between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago that hit lands ranging from the Black Sea to what many call the cradle of civilization, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The translation of ancient cuneiform tablets in the 19th century confirmed the Mesopotamian flood myth as an antecedent of the Noah story in the Bible. In an interview with the London Telegraph, Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum and author of the recent book The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, described one way the tradition may have emerged:
There must have been a heritage memory of the destructive power of flood water, based on various terrible floods. And the people who survived would have been people in boats. You can imagine someone sunbathing in a canoe, half asleep, and waking up however long later and they’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and that’s the beginning of the flood story.
Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.''
You can continue in your chosen ignorance if you like. I read there are over 200 Flood legends from all over the world with a similar number of people and all the animals being saved by them. The stories generally have eight people.
Your blind faith is what is the problem. You are rejecting reality.
Brush up on the nature and meaning of the word ''Irony'' haha, while you are at it, do some reading on evolution that doesn't come from creation sites
Up until the age of twenty-five I was an atheistic evolutionist. That was the only kind of material I read. One day a friend showed me something from a different scientist which refuted my guy. The difference was the different scientist had the facts. It was so devastating to me I consulted a psychiatrist. Eventually I got back to reading and read some creationist material. I couldn't fault their material.
Just the other day I watch a video by a guy with a Ph.D. He went to a creationist lecture to show him the error of his ways. The problem was the creationist had the scientific facts on his side. Something similar happens every time an evolutionist challenges a creationist. I have a friend who debates evolutionists. The last debate I know of his opponent, a biologist with a Ph.D,, said, "There's nothing I can say to refute Dr. Kindell."
You are still smoking dope. It was not rejected until the 1950's when they did a (I think) chlorine test. It was then someone started taking a closer look. At that time they discovered there was about 1/2 a million years difference in age of skull and jaw bone.
Nope. They couldn't 100% prove it was fake till then, but they had concluded that it was almost certainly a fake within a year of its being proffered. Only the British Museum was slow to reject it, and that mainly due to national pride since it was "found" in England.
I recently watched a Nova presentation on the floods over the Scablands of Wa State. It seems Lake Missoula in Montana filled and broke the ice dam and drained multiple times during previous ice ages. The waters raced across N Id and Wa State leaving a miles wide path of destruction behind.
Core samples from just off shore show the various sediment layers deposited by various floods.
We know the Salt Lake Basin was once filled with water. My understanding is that it drained down the Snake River cutting the Snake River Canyon in just a matter of days.
Hell's Canyon was once dammed at the top near Farewell Bend Or. There are stories of a volcanic eruption which blocked the canyon, and of course periodic ice dams must have occurred. Thus Lake Bonneville was formed which at different times covered SW Idaho, SE Oregon, most of Utah, and a big hunk of Nevada.
Lots and lots of regional floods. But no, nothing which inundated the entire Earth.
It is interesting to me that the Chinese have written histories which go back 6000 years. Ancient oriental art depicts orientals as always having oriental eyes. Interesting to know how they had those eyes before the flood, and how descendants of Noah who later resettled in the orient also came to have oriental eyes.
You missed the correct interpretation of the sediments from many floods. They are sediments from One Flood produced as the tides caused currants in the flooded world. The Chinese came into being after the Flood. They are descendants of one of Noah's kids.
Ringman, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're spouting nonsense. 6-day genesis literalism (the idea the earth is only 6000 years old) is so thoroughly discredited that to continue to believe it the equivalent of believing the earth is flat.
Flood accounts do not equate to a worldwide deluge where even the mountains are submerged and an ark is needed to save a selection of people and animals in order to repopulate the earth......It did not happen, the story is impossible.
The story was probably embellished from a localized flood event/hero legend what a family saved their themselves and their livestock under difficult conditions, to the amazement of the surrounding tribes.
You are missing the whole point. Have you read these flood accounts? You claim Genesis is a borrow account and then you say the other accounts were simply local disasters. Well if Genesis was recorded as a worldwide flood that wiped out the whole race it certainly did not borrow from a local washout account. The other accounts are not recording local washouts either. Where did all these accounts come from all over the world? They could not have been borrowing all from each other unless they started with a single source about a singular worldwide event. Your contention is lacking the most basic logic.
Genesis is not an account of an actual world wide flood, it is a work of fiction....the ancients loved their stories, they loved a good yarn over the campfire. Stories got told and retold and embellished over time and retelling.
''Various archaeologists suggest there was a historical deluge between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago that hit lands ranging from the Black Sea to what many call the cradle of civilization, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The translation of ancient cuneiform tablets in the 19th century confirmed the Mesopotamian flood myth as an antecedent of the Noah story in the Bible. In an interview with the London Telegraph, Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum and author of the recent book The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, described one way the tradition may have emerged:
There must have been a heritage memory of the destructive power of flood water, based on various terrible floods. And the people who survived would have been people in boats. You can imagine someone sunbathing in a canoe, half asleep, and waking up however long later and they’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and that’s the beginning of the flood story.
Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.''
You can continue in your chosen ignorance if you like. I read there are over 200 Flood legends from all over the world with a similar number of people and all the animals being saved by them. The stories generally have eight people.
Floods happen world wide, which does not mean that there was a single world drowning deluge. There is plenty of evidence for the former, nothing for the latter. Plus after the ice age, the most probable source of flood stories, people were living in small family units or tribes, hence if a group of people saved themselves from a local flood event, it was a family unit.
Ancient times the world was largely unexplored/unknown to the masses and what made up most peoples 'known world' was not on a scale of understanding or perspective of the discovered world we know today.
When the Romans went to what we know as Great Britain, there were animal skin tribal folk there that didn't venture beyond a few villages or hamlets beyond their own...the Roman system of trade, currency, roads and secure travel opened up to them the Great Britain land mass and also the far greater [already long discovered and developed] parts of the world/globe.
Those who were not afraid to take advantage, discovered there was a much vaster world beyond the little one they knew.
but no doubt there were those content to stay in their narrow perspective comfort zone, 'village world' environment and mindset and ignorant obsolete myths, folklores and superstitions of old.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Up until the age of twenty-five I was an atheistic evolutionist. That was the only kind of material I read. One day a friend showed me something from a different scientist which refuted my guy. The difference was the different scientist had the facts. It was so devastating to me I consulted a psychiatrist. Eventually I got back to reading and read some creationist material. I couldn't fault their material.
what do psychiatrists say to people who believe in a whole bunch of ancient world myths?
I really don't understand why christians try to use scientific evidence to support their biblical beliefs,
considering the basis of religious FAITH rests in the idea that the content of faith is what cannot be proven.
What need is there for christians to have faith, or what value is there in faith,... if they already have proof?
You missed the correct interpretation of the sediments from many floods. They are sediments from One Flood produced as the tides caused currants in the flooded world. The Chinese came into being after the Flood. They are descendants of one of Noah's kids.
Just ONE???????????? grin
Lake Missoula is estimated to have held about half the water volume of Lake Michigan. During glacial periods an ice dam formed preventing outflow of the Clark Fork River near the Idaho/Montana border. Periodically (on an average of every 55 years) the ice dam would rupture and allow outflow of the entire lake. Most recently over a period of 2000 years, 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.
The oldest evidence of such a flood indicates it happened 1.5 million years ago.
Evidence strongly suggest there were at least 25 massive floods across Montana, Idaho, Washington, and down the Columbia River Gorge. Flow rates are estimated by various authorities as ten times to ninety times the flow of today's Amazon River, with maximum water velocities around 80 MPH.
The core samples previously mentioned show sedimentary layers deposited on the ocean floor from these various flood events with specific dating from each layer.
The "One Flood" would have destroyed all evidence of such paltry events, no?
Once Noah got the Ark built how long did it take him to go to N.America,S,America,Australia,etc,etc and collect 2 of every animal. Then he had to have food for all of them and once the flood was over he had to get the animals back to their proper place. Did he have help from Santa ?
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution. Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years. Get God out of society, and society can be controlled by the State. When they were first going to the moon, NASA scientists were afraid the lunar module would sink in 6' of dust since the moon was supposed to be about 3 billion year old. Didn't happen. Mutations happen, but not complete DNA changes. Life itself is so complicated in molecular structure that it is only present on earth. We haven't found any intelligent life on other planets, not radio or TV signals, etc. They are constantly looking for signs, nothing yet. Then like someone said, look at the Grand Canyon. If it was as old as they say, rain and wind would have rounded all the land around it into hills and sand. Every civilization, from ancient times mentions a great flood, China, India, Egypt, Sumaria, Greek.
Certain discoveries of science, throughout history, have posed challenges to the way Christianity has understood the world. That doesn't mean the science is satanic. Christian theologians, for example, used to believe that heliocentrism was a satanic plot, and the Church tried punishing scientists for spreading the idea. Finally, they had to relent, and then found that it wasn't nearly the obstacle to Christian faith that they had feared.
Same with evolution. It's not. It's only an obstacle to a sort of faith that's based solely on a childish reading of the Bible, one where God literally took some mud and molded it (presumably with his "hands") into the shape of a man, then blew on it to make Adam. That's what's called metaphor. It's not necessary to understand it literally in order to be a believing Christian. The Bible is full of metaphor. "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" doesn't mean you have to reenter your mother's womb and come out again, for example. They are throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Certain discoveries of science, throughout history, have posed challenges to the way Christianity has understood the world. That doesn't mean the science is satanic. Christian theologians, for example, used to believe that heliocentrism was a satanic plot, and the Church tried punishing scientists for spreading the idea. Finally, they had to relent, and then found that it wasn't nearly the obstacle to Christian faith that they had feared.
Same with evolution. It's not. It's only an obstacle to a sort of faith that's based solely on a childish reading of the Bible, one where God literally took some mud and molded it (presumably with his "hands") into the shape of a man, then blew on it to make Adam. That's what's called metaphor. It's not necessary to understand it literally in order to be a believing Christian. The Bible is full of metaphor. "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" doesn't mean you have to reenter your mother's womb and come out again, for example. They are throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Except that one was clearly intended to be a metaphor and the other wasn’t. Why believe anything if you don’t take what the Bible says on face value?
See Jesus wasn’t literally resurrected, it’s just a metaphor.
No, the sun didn’t stop while there was a battle, that’s just a metaphor.
No, Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, that’s just a metaphor.
God, didn’t talk to Abraham, that is just a metaphor.
Even if you take Genesis metaphorically, that isn’t what you are doing. It is quite clear that God was involved at every step of creation. If that is a metaphor, it is a metaphor for a very hands on God who intelligently designed and directed creation as opposed to the one you espouse who stood back and watched it all happen without any intervention whatsoever.
I have no trouble distinguishing. Your mileage may vary.
Here is what you need to understand, if human beings are an evolutionary accident, then the entire Bible is a lie. The Bible says that God created us in his image. It says that he has a specific plan for us. It makes no allowances for any scenario where we were mere accidents. If you want to believe in evolution, then your only choice as a Christian is to believe in an evolution designed and directed by God himself. There is no room for what you seem to espouse.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution. Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years. Get God out of society, and society can be controlled by the State. When they were first going to the moon, NASA scientists were afraid the lunar module would sink in 6' of dust since the moon was supposed to be about 3 billion year old. Didn't happen. Mutations happen, but not complete DNA changes. Life itself is so complicated in molecular structure that it is only present on earth. We haven't found any intelligent life on other planets, not radio or TV signals, etc. They are constantly looking for signs, nothing yet. Then like someone said, look at the Grand Canyon. If it was as old as they say, rain and wind would have rounded all the land around it into hills and sand. Every civilization, from ancient times mentions a great flood, China, India, Egypt, Sumaria, Greek.
Life was created.
Where have you read that? On christian sites? with christian biases? Where is this evidence? How does it dispute the vast fossil record?
I have no trouble distinguishing. Your mileage may vary.
Here is what you need to understand, if human beings are an evolutionary accident, then the entire Bible is a lie.
Correct. It would be. That's not what I believe. As a pro bowler is capable of releasing the ball in such a way as to intend a strike, and, once released, be sure that he threw a strike. How much more so can God set the universe in motion in such a way as to be sure of all the outcomes that result, in accordance with his will.
Quote
The Bible says that God created us in his image.
This doesn't necessarily refer to our physicality, and almost certainly doesn't, since God, in his essence, is spirit. So it's reasonable that this verse refers to our resembling him in the sense that we are, in our essence, spirits, in a certain way, like God.
Quote
It says that he has a specific plan for us.
Yes.
Quote
It makes no allowances for any scenario where we were mere accidents.
Agreed, as explained above.
Quote
If you want to believe in evolution, then your only choice as a Christian is to believe in an evolution designed and directed by God himself.
I strongly disagree. The Bible says that God delegated the bringing forth of all the living creatures to the earth and the waters, i.e., the natural world that he created.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution. Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years. Get God out of society, and society can be controlled by the State. When they were first going to the moon, NASA scientists were afraid the lunar module would sink in 6' of dust since the moon was supposed to be about 3 billion year old. Didn't happen. Mutations happen, but not complete DNA changes. Life itself is so complicated in molecular structure that it is only present on earth. We haven't found any intelligent life on other planets, not radio or TV signals, etc. They are constantly looking for signs, nothing yet. Then like someone said, look at the Grand Canyon. If it was as old as they say, rain and wind would have rounded all the land around it into hills and sand. Every civilization, from ancient times mentions a great flood, China, India, Egypt, Sumaria, Greek.
Life was created.
Where have you read that? On christian sites? with christian biases? Where is this evidence? How does it dispute the vast fossil record?
All the evidence supports evolution. The Bible creationists have nothing but faith. That is why it is called Faith. Nothing wrong with that, but do not call it evidence when it is all Bible based faith.
Nobody knew how deep the moon dust would be until we stepped into it. No reason for it to be anything but what we found. DNA changes have always evolved and are still evolving. Claiming that life only exists on earth is stupid as the evidence for life in the universe mounts up. You are claiming a negative. The age of the Grand Canyon is in the rocks for all to read who have honest eyes. All those ancient flood accounts happened at different times and none them match with Noah's flood.
As I have said several times...it is too bad that the Bible authors did not have Hubble.
I want to note a few things concerning the flood: 2 Pet. 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
The world that was destroyed by the flood was the world that then existed--meaning the Mesopotamian population center of that time and the original pre-flood topography. This is also an indication that the world was different pre-flood versus post flood.The flood affected the whole world as it then was. This verse also indicates that water from the earth and heavens were involved in the deluge--that by "these" (is a plural word).
There are indications in the scriptures that the flood was the starting catalyst for moving the earth into continents from the fountains of the deep opening up. In the original creation all the water was gathered into "one place" in distinction from one land mass.
And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” Here is the Pangaea.
During the flood it is said ... "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." This is inferring there were topographical changes from the water pouring forth from below the earth. Not all the water came from above--in fact it suggests that the water already on the earth acted like a Tsunami and initiated the flood. This agrees with what Peter was explaining. This would have made massive topographical changes which we believe led to the subsequent ice age.
This also likely initiated the Pangaea breaking up so that after the re-population of the fracturing pangaeac earth, the peoples and animals were scattered across continents and then separated.
The division of the earth is also noted: the name of the one was Peleg (means division), for in his days the earth was divided,
It was common to name children according to notable signs of the time.
In summary the ark was populated and then repopulated in a world that was a Pangaea which then later divided as the frozen channels melted from the ice age and new and vastly changed topography emerged which included large masses of water now separating land. This breakup does not infer all tectonic plate shift thought that could have been part of it, but also the melting of the water and its gatherings would have created separations. This process would have produced a series of local floods and more topographical changes very rapidly. There is evidence of major flooding all over the world some of which were local and yet of epic proportions--but we believe these were precipitated by the one world wide flood of the world that then existed. The massive fossil record shows evidence of tremendous flooding and rapid fossilization and current non-native species scattered all over the world.
Obviously many folks won't believe this ... because this is what the Bible says or because they have a different view of science, but on the other hand I'm reading a lot of objections that indicate a lack of knowledge as to what all the Bible does say about the flood.
Correct. It would be. That's not what I believe. As a pro bowler is capable of releasing the ball in such a way as to intend a strike, and, once released, be sure that he threw a strike. How much more so can God set the universe in motion in such a way as to be sure of all the outcomes that result, in accordance with his will.
Then creation isn’t random, it’s designed. So why do you argue against intelligent design? If everything is set in motion by the intent of the creator, then it follows that nothing is random throughout. Unless you wish to argue that the position of the bowling ball halfway down the lane towards the pins is coincidence and not dependent upon the intent of the bowler.
I recently watched a Nova presentation on the floods over the Scablands of Wa State. It seems Lake Missoula in Montana filled and broke the ice dam and drained multiple times during previous ice ages. The waters raced across N Id and Wa State leaving a miles wide path of destruction behind.
Core samples from just off shore show the various sediment layers deposited by various floods.
We know the Salt Lake Basin was once filled with water. My understanding is that it drained down the Snake River cutting the Snake River Canyon in just a matter of days.
Hell's Canyon was once dammed at the top near Farewell Bend Or. There are stories of a volcanic eruption which blocked the canyon, and of course periodic ice dams must have occurred. Thus Lake Bonneville was formed which at different times covered SW Idaho, SE Oregon, most of Utah, and a big hunk of Nevada.
Lots and lots of regional floods. But no, nothing which inundated the entire Earth.
It is interesting to me that the Chinese have written histories which go back 6000 years. Ancient oriental art depicts orientals as always having oriental eyes. Interesting to know how they had those eyes before the flood, and how descendants of Noah who later resettled in the orient also came to have oriental eyes.
You missed the correct interpretation of the sediments from many floods. They are sediments from One Flood produced as the tides caused currants in the flooded world. The Chinese came into being after the Flood. They are descendants of one of Noah's kids.
Ringman, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're spouting nonsense. 6-day genesis literalism (the idea the earth is only 6000 years old) is so thoroughly discredited that to continue to believe it the equivalent of believing the earth is flat.
Because you believe the opposite of what I believe doesn't make me wrong or you correct. By the way, I think the earth is about 7,000 years old. I changed my position after watching the youtube video "How long were the Israelites in Egypt?"
Floods happen world wide, which does not mean that there was a single world drowning deluge. There is plenty of evidence for the former, nothing for the latter. Plus after the ice age, the most probable source of flood stories, people were living in small family units or tribes, hence if a group of people saved themselves from a local flood event, it was a family unit.
When's the last time you heard of a continent wide flood? That is what is necessary to form some of the mountains. The world wide flood solves that problem.
You missed the correct interpretation of the sediments from many floods. They are sediments from One Flood produced as the tides caused currants in the flooded world. The Chinese came into being after the Flood. They are descendants of one of Noah's kids.
Just ONE???????????? grin
Lake Missoula is estimated to have held about half the water volume of Lake Michigan. During glacial periods an ice dam formed preventing outflow of the Clark Fork River near the Idaho/Montana border. Periodically (on an average of every 55 years) the ice dam would rupture and allow outflow of the entire lake. Most recently over a period of 2000 years, 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.
The oldest evidence of such a flood indicates it happened 1.5 million years ago.
Evidence strongly suggest there were at least 25 massive floods across Montana, Idaho, Washington, and down the Columbia River Gorge. Flow rates are estimated by various authorities as ten times to ninety times the flow of today's Amazon River, with maximum water velocities around 80 MPH.
The core samples previously mentioned show sedimentary layers deposited on the ocean floor from these various flood events with specific dating from each layer.
The "One Flood" would have destroyed all evidence of such paltry events, no?
No. It would have generated them. That's some of what you are reading about. I do believe there was one ice age after the Flood. Most certainly some of what you are reading about happened then.
Once Noah got the Ark built how long did it take him to go to N.America,S,America,Australia,etc,etc and collect 2 of every animal. Then he had to have food for all of them and once the flood was over he had to get the animals back to their proper place. Did he have help from Santa ?
Ever here of Pangea? Prior to the Flood there was one land mass. The super continent broke during the Flood. Some computer models showed they moved a several meters per second.
Once Noah got the Ark built how long did it take him to go to N.America,S,America,Australia,etc,etc and collect 2 of every animal. Then he had to have food for all of them and once the flood was over he had to get the animals back to their proper place. Did he have help from Santa ?
Ever here of Pangea? Prior to the Flood there was one land mass. The super continent broke during the Flood. Some computer models showed they moved a several meters per second.
Once Noah got the Ark built how long did it take him to go to N.America,S,America,Australia,etc,etc and collect 2 of every animal. Then he had to have food for all of them and once the flood was over he had to get the animals back to their proper place. Did he have help from Santa ?
Ever here of Pangea? Prior to the Flood there was one land mass. The super continent broke during the Flood. Some computer models showed they moved a several meters per second.
Dinosaurs were roaming the earth then,no humans
dinosaurs were used as the basic template or preliminary design for the mammals.
getting the details worked out, prior to the advance of the next level of sophistication.
it's all connected, even interconnected. our old reptilian brains are at the base of the new brain.
what we've got here is a steady advance. we can call it order from chaos, pure chance, pure god, or combinations.
monkey brains leaving the forest, heading out on the savannahs, enduring saber tooth tigers, and settling in great cities.
now, great cities aren't enough for us. oh no. it's mars or bust. but first we must have settlements on the moon, and then on mars.
your average squirrel can't even conceive of such. once he gets a hollow tree full of nuts for the winter he's satisfied. not us Naked Apes.
And the obvious question; how did the Kangaroos make their way from the Ark in the middle east to Australia where they settled?
During the ice age the ocean was much lower than now. They migrated there.
Noah lived during the last ice age? kangaroos lived in the Middle East without leaving a single clue, then decided to move to Australia after the flood? What about Koalas? Did they migrate to Australia?
Floods happen world wide, which does not mean that there was a single world drowning deluge. There is plenty of evidence for the former, nothing for the latter. Plus after the ice age, the most probable source of flood stories, people were living in small family units or tribes, hence if a group of people saved themselves from a local flood event, it was a family unit.
When's the last time you heard of a continent wide flood? That is what is necessary to form some of the mountains. The world wide flood solves that problem.
You may need to attend a Geology class, just a friendly suggestion.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution. Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years. Get God out of society, and society can be controlled by the State. When they were first going to the moon, NASA scientists were afraid the lunar module would sink in 6' of dust since the moon was supposed to be about 3 billion year old. Didn't happen. Mutations happen, but not complete DNA changes. Life itself is so complicated in molecular structure that it is only present on earth. We haven't found any intelligent life on other planets, not radio or TV signals, etc. They are constantly looking for signs, nothing yet. Then like someone said, look at the Grand Canyon. If it was as old as they say, rain and wind would have rounded all the land around it into hills and sand. Every civilization, from ancient times mentions a great flood, China, India, Egypt, Sumaria, Greek.
Life was created.
They do it on the Fire, also, and with a vengeance.
...s a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48
As often the case in your posts, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.
Yes, but they have to attack it in any fashion possible. This talk of evolution threatens their entire belief system.
I haven't seen Christian's attack anyone. I have seen them attacked, most especially by our Trump loving and great nationalists and 2A loving MSM, antifa and courts led by socialist, NWO sympathizers.
...s a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48
As often the case in your posts, this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.
Yes, but they have to attack it in any fashion possible. This talk of evolution threatens their entire belief system.
I haven't seen Christian's attack anyone. I have seen them attacked, most especially by our Trump loving and great nationalists and 2A loving MSM, antifa and courts led by socialist, NWO sympathizers.
Within this thread, there have been instances of both sides attacking each other, both sides doing a little name calling. But then I never said christians were attacking anyone, but that they were attacking the theory of evolution. Don't let your bias blind you.
Correct. It would be. That's not what I believe. As a pro bowler is capable of releasing the ball in such a way as to intend a strike, and, once released, be sure that he threw a strike. How much more so can God set the universe in motion in such a way as to be sure of all the outcomes that result, in accordance with his will.
Then creation isn’t random, it’s designed. So why do you argue against intelligent design?
Because God had nothing whatever to do with the design of living creatures. He delegated that job to nature, as it says in Genesis. And this makes sense when you look at how living creatures are put together. Not only is there no evidence of an intelligent designer, but there's lots of evidence of stupid design, where things are just good enough to work, but no better.
God did no micromanaging of the process, but created a process by which his desired outcome (with respect to living creatures) would eventually come about. He knew how it would unfold, but didn't make it do so by the process that it did. That he left to nature, for whatever reason he chose to do so.
Correct. It would be. That's not what I believe. As a pro bowler is capable of releasing the ball in such a way as to intend a strike, and, once released, be sure that he threw a strike. How much more so can God set the universe in motion in such a way as to be sure of all the outcomes that result, in accordance with his will.
Then creation isn’t random, it’s designed. So why do you argue against intelligent design?
Because God had nothing whatever to do with the design of living creatures. He delegated that job to nature, as it says in Genesis. And this makes sense when you look at how living creatures are put together. Not only is there no evidence of an intelligent designer, but there's lots of evidence of stupid design, where things are just good enough to work, but no better.
God did no micromanaging of the process, but created a process by which his desired outcome (with respect to living creatures) would eventually come about. He knew how it would unfold, but didn't make it do so by the process that it did. That he left to nature, for whatever reason he chose to do so.
Then if he left it to nature, we were an accident and the Bible is a lie. You can’t have it both ways.
Then if he left it to nature, we were an accident and the Bible is a lie. You can’t have it both ways.
Are you saying that the Bible is mistaken when it informs us that God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures?
Our being the outcome isn't an accident, anymore than the strike of the pro bowler is an accident, yet the pro bowler doesn't follow the ball down the lane guiding it this way and that with a long stick, then pushing this pin against that one, and then that one against the next, till they're all down.
The most important thing about us to God isn't the perfection of our bodies (for that, nature was good enough to bring it about in the clumsy way that it did), but rather our souls, which he created ex nihilo in his own likeness.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But that isn’t random and that isn’t letting nature do it. That is designed from the start by an intelligent being.
Not really design. Just being God. He's able to bring about his will without himself designing anything. Nature handles the design element. It's a mystery.
Portraying God as a designer of living creatures is actually a diminishment of his divinity, as I see it. He doesn't need to design to bring about his will.
But that isn’t random and that isn’t letting nature do it. That is designed from the start by an intelligent being.
Not really design. Just being God. He's able to bring about his will without himself designing anything. Nature handles the design element. It's a mystery.
Portraying God as a designer of living creatures is actually a diminishment of his divinity, as I see it. He doesn't need to design to bring about his will.
I haven't seen Christian's attack anyone. I have seen them attacked,...:
I never said christians were attacking anyone, but that they were attacking the theory of evolution. Don't let your bias blind you.
Christians are quick to conveniently adopt victim status, if they don't feel persecuted they don't feel like a Christian.
btw: who exactly are the 'real' christians here is up for serious debate.
so far, a couple delusional clowns who think they have a Holy Spirit - seeing themselves as being here to guide people, a few more who contradict their own Bible, and/or desperately jumping to science to 'prove' their faith.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
...the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Bad design by God, or designed to fail.
but why would a God do that ..you know, produce so many lemons?
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Portraying God as a designer of living creatures is actually a diminishment of his divinity, as I see it. He doesn't need to design to bring about his will.
....Nature handles the design element....
but God designed the divinely designated designer/developer called nature, yes/no?
and he did so to have nature produce things precisely the way he wanted them...yes/no?
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course its a matter of chance and said chance is random. The fact that what allegedly works survives and what doesn't fails is of course a tautology. It explains nothing. But even this tautology does not deny random chance. It is central to Neo-Darwinism.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course its a matter of chance and said chance is random. The fact that what allegedly works survives and what doesn't fails is of course a tautology. It explains nothing. But even this tautology does not deny random chance. It is central to Neo-Darwinism.
That some species have gone extinct and some still do go extinct is not a teutology.
IF a huge asteroid hadn’t struck the Earth 60 million years ago, dinosaurs might still rule the Earth,
was it by chance that happened.. or was it part of Gods plan all along?
faith.. or just chance odds of such happening?
did God steer the Ark to its resting place,.. or did it drift and come to rest purely by chance?
**** when are christians going to 'pick and stick' with their faith? I notice with christians that faith can comprise of conflicting beliefs from one person to another, so the 'truth' varies...
safe to say their God picked a really dumb flock lot to glorify Him.
but it is easier for a King to rule over his subjects when they are that way.
According to Young Earth creationists, there was no 60 million years ago. Apparently dinosaurs were created in the Garden of Eden as gentle herbivores.
if you banked on the wide and varied forms of faith you get from the broad church of competing self-interest christians,
you'd soon be bankrupt.
its a personal relationship with God they say , yet they have no problem deriding and condemning those [who they deem] as not understanding God in the 'superior' way they do. if christians are not busy arguing with atheists or agnostics, they are busy arguing and being divisive among themselves, like they have been doing for the past 2000 years and unlikely to change anytime soon.
Find me the true christian that puts his ego aside and humbles himself in the service and glory of God.
According to Young Earth creationists, there was no 60 million years ago. Apparently dinosaurs were created in the Garden of Eden as gentle herbivores.
Creationists have built a scale model of the Ark in Kentucky, ..but this one has a concrete floor and has suffered flood damage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQxmQZqVxwA iTs got animals including some dinosaurs, they claim up to 85 types of Dinos were aboard, so I don't think they will ever get around to modelling up ALL of the many more currently known dinosaurs and the ones that continue to be discovered ...and then try and fit two of each aboard.
And the obvious question; how did the Kangaroos make their way from the Ark in the middle east to Australia where they settled?
During the ice age the ocean was much lower than now. They migrated there.
Noah lived during the last ice age? kangaroos lived in the Middle East without leaving a single clue, then decided to move to Australia after the flood? What about Koalas? Did they migrate to Australia?
I posted about what the Bible says about the Pangaea earth. When you make statements like this about the Bible, along with all your other alleged discrepancies, its obvious that you have a very limited knowledge of it, and don't understand the most basic rules of Bible interpretation--such as context--comparing scriptures to get a complete picture rather than isolating aspects that were never intended to stand in isolation or be considered the whole--or maybe just a good does of common sense.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
The inherent capabilities in the natural processes were specifically designed to be that way--they could not randomly assume that intelligence for themselves nor provide the conducive environment. There simply is no other logical option option to intelligent design and never will be.
God never indicated that nature in the fallen world would be perfect, in fact quite the opposite is stated. However the processes of nature which bring forth both life and death still follow the laws of nature. When natural laws are contravened we have a phenomena or a miracle if you will, but both miracles and laws of nature are by design and operate within a finely tuned and maintained universe. We know this by fact and by faith-- as those two walk hand in hand with the evidence and with the inscrutability of divinity on some points.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course, it’s random chance. The fact that some random chances result in organisms more suited to survival than others is, indeed the entire theory.
Once Noah got the Ark built how long did it take him to go to N.America,S,America,Australia,etc,etc and collect 2 of every animal. Then he had to have food for all of them and once the flood was over he had to get the animals back to their proper place. Did he have help from Santa ?
Ever here of Pangea? Prior to the Flood there was one land mass. The super continent broke during the Flood. Some computer models showed they moved a several meters per second.
Dinosaurs were roaming the earth then,no humans
They were created on day six along with humans. So, yes, humans were there.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution.
You read it in Creationist literature. It's not science.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
I Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years.
It's not pushed by anyone. It has stood both scrutiny and attack for 150 years.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
Life was created.
Not according to the evidence.
Creationist literature is most likely more scientific than secular literature. At least they don't have change their discoveries. You challenge Jason Lisle's in the sun? You don't believe Henry Morris use of hydraulics is used by evolutionists?
The evidence for creation is at least the DNA and RNA molecules. Because your blind faith is so strong you can not see facts.
And the obvious question; how did the Kangaroos make their way from the Ark in the middle east to Australia where they settled?
During the ice age the ocean was much lower than now. They migrated there.
Noah lived during the last ice age? kangaroos lived in the Middle East without leaving a single clue, then decided to move to Australia after the flood? What about Koalas? Did they migrate to Australia?
You certainly need to read more. Noah lived 600 years prior to the Flood. He lived another 350 years after the Flood. The ice age may have started by the time he died.
The animals migrated away from the Middle East and populated the world. Some of huge mats of vegetation, some walked on the land that is now underwater.
Correct. It would be. That's not what I believe. As a pro bowler is capable of releasing the ball in such a way as to intend a strike, and, once released, be sure that he threw a strike. How much more so can God set the universe in motion in such a way as to be sure of all the outcomes that result, in accordance with his will.
Then creation isn’t random, it’s designed. So why do you argue against intelligent design?
Because God had nothing whatever to do with the design of living creatures. He delegated that job to nature, as it says in Genesis. And this makes sense when you look at how living creatures are put together. Not only is there no evidence of an intelligent designer, but there's lots of evidence of stupid design, where things are just good enough to work, but no better.
God did no micromanaging of the process, but created a process by which his desired outcome (with respect to living creatures) would eventually come about. He knew how it would unfold, but didn't make it do so by the process that it did. That he left to nature, for whatever reason he chose to do so.
You are letting you bias influence you. Read God's Word in the First chapter and you will not find anything like what you posted. At the end of everything He declared everything "Very good." Everything we see today is a mutated degeneration of the original creation.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
You didn't read the same books I read. Evolution is based on randomness, beginning with random environmental happenings.
Random -- ness is in all systems. Thats why its called random, don't know when its going to pop up. anything is possible, somethings are more probable. To image some "force from a far" is manipulating it behind the scenes, puts it into the comic book group.
Humans are not the "crown of creation". What is? The game hasn't played out yet.
Neanderthals aren’t even really a different species. They could breed with us and if you cleaned one up and put him in modern clothes, you wouldn’t think anything about seeing him walk down the street.
You are letting you bias influence you. Read God's Word in the First chapter and you will not find anything like what you posted. At the end of everything He declared everything "Very good." Everything we see today is a mutated degeneration of the original creation.
When you’re prescient, declaring as good the outcome of what you set into motion isn’t difficult. Just like the pro bowler knows when he releases the ball in such a way as to make a strike.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
You didn't read the same books I read. Evolution is based on randomness, beginning with random environmental happenings.
When Creationists suggest that evolution proposes a random process by which species come into existence, what they typically mean is that it’s like exploding a factory and having a 747 Jetliner assemble itself among the wreckage. Evolution isn’t random, though, because it’s a process of adaptation to specific pressures applied by the environment. Adaptation is possible due to a certain degree of heritable variability in reproduction. To suggest that this makes it random is absurd.
What you’re proposing is that the absence of intelligent design is de facto random.
Don't know what Trump has to do with evolution, maybe it's that the thing on top of his head seems to have evolved quite a bit in the last few years.
When I learned evolution it had nothing to do with randomness. That would be a cause of mutation. Evolution as I learned it had to do with what happens when a mutation arrives, not what caused it, be it a random cosmic ray or a deity.
You are letting you bias influence you. Read God's Word in the First chapter and you will not find anything like what you posted. At the end of everything He declared everything "Very good." Everything we see today is a mutated degeneration of the original creation.
When you’re prescient, declaring as good the outcome of what you set into motion isn’t difficult. Just like the pro bowler knows when he releases the ball in such a way as to make a strike.
You were brain washed somewhere along the way with some really screwy ideas. You try to use an Omnipotent God Who, according to His Word, spoke and it was finished, would use the haphazard random system of evolution over billions of years doesn't comport with His Word Where He tells us at the consummation of all things He is going to restore everything to its original condition. Does that mean more death and random extinction? Give up on your foolishness. Endorse atheistic evolution or Special Creation. Like Joshua said, "Choose today whom you will serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord."
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
You didn't read the same books I read. Evolution is based on randomness, beginning with random environmental happenings.
When Creationists suggest that evolution proposes a random process by which species come into existence, what they typically mean is that it’s like exploding a factory and having a 747 Jetliner assemble itself among the wreckage. Evolution isn’t random, though, because it’s a process of adaptation to specific pressures applied by the environment. Adaptation is possible due to a certain degree of heritable variability in reproduction. To suggest that this makes it random is absurd.
What you’re proposing is that the absence of intelligent design is de facto random.
When Creationists suggest that evolution proposes a random process by which species come into existence, what they typically mean is that it’s like exploding a factory and having a 747 Jetliner assemble itself among the wreckage. Evolution isn’t random, though, because it’s a process of adaptation to specific pressures applied by the environment. Adaptation is possible due to a certain degree of heritable variability in reproduction. To suggest that this makes it random is absurd.
What you’re proposing is that the absence of intelligent design is de facto random.
Give it up!
Said Ezzard Charles to Rocky Marciano at the start of round eight, LMAO!
Although Charles was actually a fine fighter, so I shouldn't sully his name by the comparison.
Ringman, are you for real, or do you just like playing make-up on the internet?
No, he really is that stupid.
He makes for a rather amazing spectacle. Never seen anything like him.
No, Rich is anything but stupid.
My Grandparents, Aunts, and Uncles (all but one of which are gone now) all shared beliefs very similar. I dearly loved every one of them, and heartily respect their faith.
My Dad once (several times actually) explained to me the mechanism by which "the flood" occurred.
It seems that God did not include the moon in His original specifications for this Earth. The moon came along later, at just the right angle and velocity to be captured by Earth's gravitational force.
This sudden disruption tilted the Earth's axis, and was the origination of our four seasons. Also it seems that the Earth was fully enveloped in a layer of water, suspended above the stratosphere. And all this commotion upset the equilibrium of this water layer and caused it to crash down upon the surface of the Earth.
This also explains the extraordinary long lives recorded for early Bible characters. Everyone from Adam through Noah was protected from cosmic radiation by this suspended layer of water.
Dad put all the pieces together for himself. He had the puzzle solved, and to try any attempt to explain the Physics which would make such events impossible, was a complete waste of breath.
But then Dad also told us to avoid the 270 or 25-06 for deer hunting. The excessive velocity of those cartridges caused the bullet to pass through game so rapidly that the bullet would not have time to expand.
I don't think the old Testament is meant to be an accurate history of real events. I don't see how you can read many of the stories and accounts therein and think that they actually happened just exactly as stated. Probably many were based on actual events, or the authors understanding of certain events, but if you take the whole thing literally you end up having to explain and defend some really bizarre stuff. Even so, it doesn't mean there is no God. It seems that a lot of people feel it's all or nothing, the Bible is a 100% accurate account or else it's all worthless. I just can't see it that way.
I don't think the old Testament is meant to be an accurate history of real events. I don't see how you can read many of the stories and accounts therein and think that they actually happened just exactly as stated. Probably many were based on actual events, or the authors understanding of certain events, but if you take the whole thing literally you end up having to explain and defend some really bizarre stuff. Even so, it doesn't mean there is no God. It seems that a lot of people feel it's all or nothing, the Bible is a 100% accurate account or else it's all worthless. I just can't see it that way.
I think most intelligent people would agree with that.
Insisting that everyone believe in stuff for which there is no evidence, and other stuff for which there is contrary evidence, does nothing but drive intelligent people away from religion.
And the obvious question; how did the Kangaroos make their way from the Ark in the middle east to Australia where they settled?
During the ice age the ocean was much lower than now. They migrated there.
Noah lived during the last ice age? kangaroos lived in the Middle East without leaving a single clue, then decided to move to Australia after the flood? What about Koalas? Did they migrate to Australia?
I posted about what the Bible says about the Pangaea earth. When you make statements like this about the Bible, along with all your other alleged discrepancies, its obvious that you have a very limited knowledge of it, and don't understand the most basic rules of Bible interpretation--such as context--comparing scriptures to get a complete picture rather than isolating aspects that were never intended to stand in isolation or be considered the whole--or maybe just a good does of common sense.
The explanation is absurd, a world wide deluge a few thousand years ago is absurd, the breakup of continents in that timeframe is absurd. You adopt and endorse bronze age creation myths and morality tales, the consequences of disobedience, how the world came to be, etc, and use ridiculous explanations in an attempt to defend these stories as being an explanation of the actual world, actual reality.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course, it’s random chance. The fact that some random chances result in organisms more suited to survival than others is, indeed the entire theory.
The world isn't random, chemistry and physics is not random, evolution is not random, organisms evolve in response to their environment, not randomly. What doesn't work falls by the wayside, which is not random, it is deterministic....the macro world being deterministic.
I don't think you guys have a very good grasp of how "random" fits into all of this. Randomness is everywhere, but that does mean everything is equally likely. Nor to most understand the iterative nature of natural selection.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution.
You read it in Creationist literature. It's not science.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
I Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years.
It's not pushed by anyone. It has stood both scrutiny and attack for 150 years.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
Life was created.
Not according to the evidence.
Creationist literature is most likely more scientific than secular literature. At least they don't have change their discoveries. You challenge Jason Lisle's in the sun? You don't believe Henry Morris use of hydraulics is used by evolutionists?
The evidence for creation is at least the DNA and RNA molecules. Because your blind faith is so strong you can not see facts.
Good luck with proving that RNA and DNA is evidence for creation. That science is reviewed is its strength, not weakness.
It is the dogma of faith asserted as truth that is a weakness when it comes to sorting fact from fiction.
Each religion asserting their own faith, yet contradicting each other on the nature of 'truth.'
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course, it’s random chance. The fact that some random chances result in organisms more suited to survival than others is, indeed the entire theory.
The world isn't random, chemistry and physics is not random, evolution is not random, organisms evolve in response to their environment, not randomly. What doesn't work falls by the wayside, which is not random, it is deterministic....the macro world being deterministic.
It’s only deterministic in hindsight. Explain to me the mechanism by which the environment influences an organism to make a specific beneficial change or mutation.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
I've read that there is far more evidence to prove creation than evolution.
You read it in Creationist literature. It's not science.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
I Evolution was pushed by athiests, Marxists, and Communists for over 100 years.
It's not pushed by anyone. It has stood both scrutiny and attack for 150 years.
Originally Posted by Dixie_Dude
Life was created.
Not according to the evidence.
Creationist literature is most likely more scientific than secular literature. At least they don't have change their discoveries. You challenge Jason Lisle's in the sun? You don't believe Henry Morris use of hydraulics is used by evolutionists?
The evidence for creation is at least the DNA and RNA molecules. Because your blind faith is so strong you can not see facts.
Good luck with proving that RNA and DNA is evidence for creation. That science is reviewed is its strength, not weakness.
It is the dogma of faith asserted as truth that is a weakness when it comes to sorting fact from fiction.
Each religion asserting their own faith, yet contradicting each other on the nature of 'truth.'
I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation of how these molecules evolved, please. Please don't appeal to Dr. Crick's explanation that spacemen brought them. That only sparks the question, from where did the spacemen come.
Biologist Ken Miller, the star witness for Neo-Darwinism in the Kitzmiller trial, says evolution is indeed "random and undirected" (says it numerous times) but then says that its not! You Darwinians can't even get the basics of your story straight.
Yet the pro bowler doesn’t rely on random chance. He throws the ball exactly as he intends so that at every inch of the way down it is doing exactly as he intends.
Natural evolution is not a matter of 'random chance' - what works survives, what doesn't falls by the waste-side....the world is littered with the remains of species that failed to adapt.
Of course, it’s random chance. The fact that some random chances result in organisms more suited to survival than others is, indeed the entire theory.
The world isn't random, chemistry and physics is not random, evolution is not random, organisms evolve in response to their environment, not randomly. What doesn't work falls by the wayside, which is not random, it is deterministic....the macro world being deterministic.
It’s only deterministic in hindsight. Explain to me the mechanism by which the environment influences an organism to make a specific beneficial change or mutation.
The environment forces the organism/species to adapt or perish. The mechanisms of adaption are described in the theory of evolution, and already outlined in this thread numerous times.
Your alternative being magical creation, for which there is no physical mechanism or evidence.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
Just an example of faith overwhellming reason. Being human, it can happen.
Yes. The theory is held essentially on the basis of faith.
Wrong. That is the creationist claim.
A very small percentage of qualified people who hold to the idea of intelligent design do on the basis of incredulity, not evidence.
Matt Leisola is a poster boy of intelligent design, a belief that was put to trial with both side presenting their evidence and arguments, but Intelligent design failed to make the grade.
''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.[2] The petition expresses denial about the ability of genetic drift and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. It also demands that there should be a more careful examination of Darwinism. The petition was signed by about 700 individuals, with a wide variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds when first published. It now contains 984 signatures.[3]
The Dissent is reminiscent of the 1931 anti-relativity book, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein),[4] which only included one physicist, and can be seen now as "a dying cry from the old guard of science" based primarily on philosophical objections.[1]
The petition states that:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. So long as they don't know the Discovery Institute's true motivations (which is to undermine evolution using deceit and trickery, not to show any kind of genuine fallibility with it), anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. If only the writers of the statement (i.e. creationists) were skeptical of their own ideas, which they clearly aren't.
The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The roughly 700 dissenters who originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[5][6] (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[7] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.
Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the prevailing consensus.''
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
Just an example of faith overwhellming reason. Being human, it can happen.
Yes. The theory is held essentially on the basis of faith.
Wrong. That is the creationist claim.
A very small percentage of qualified people who hold to the idea of intelligent design do on the basis of incredulity, not evidence.
Matt Leisola is a poster boy of intelligent design, a belief that was put to trial with both side presenting their evidence and arguments, but Intelligent design failed to make the grade.
''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.[2] The petition expresses denial about the ability of genetic drift and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. It also demands that there should be a more careful examination of Darwinism. The petition was signed by about 700 individuals, with a wide variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds when first published. It now contains 984 signatures.[3]
The Dissent is reminiscent of the 1931 anti-relativity book, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein),[4] which only included one physicist, and can be seen now as "a dying cry from the old guard of science" based primarily on philosophical objections.[1]
The petition states that:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. So long as they don't know the Discovery Institute's true motivations (which is to undermine evolution using deceit and trickery, not to show any kind of genuine fallibility with it), anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. If only the writers of the statement (i.e. creationists) were skeptical of their own ideas, which they clearly aren't.
The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The roughly 700 dissenters who originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[5][6] (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[7] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.
Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the prevailing consensus.''
Once again you resort to logical fallacies to defend your position, thus revealing it's inherent indefensibility. Whether "it" (the claim that Darwinism is held primarily on the basis of faith) is held by someone who you can caricature as a "creationist" or an actual Genesis, 6-day literalist is wholly and utterly irrelevant to whether the claim is true. Atheist intellectual skeptics are among those who think neo-Darwinism is held primarily on the basis of faith. Calling someone a "creationist" because they think organic life (the information necessary to instantiate it) can only be explained as the result of the intervention of an intelligence (intentionally conflating them with 6-day Genesis literalists) is another example of fallacious reasoning, again evidencing the intellectual bankruptcy of the defense of Darwinism. As far as peer review is concerned, it is wholly unnecessary to the advancement of science and roundly condemned by many intellectuals who argue convincingly that what peer review actually tends to do is undermine the advancement of scientific knowledge because reviewers often times simply impose their own biases to either ratify or refuse acceptance of otherwise worthy scientific information. Below are links to a great example of how the religion of Neo-Darwinism uses peer review to keep out dissent, while then claiming that because the dissent they wrongly squelch is not peer reviewed, its not real science. In other words, "heads I win. Tails you lose". Does that sound like real science to you?
Once again you resort to logical fallacies to defend your position, thus revealing it's inherent indefensibility.
No I am not. Your accusation is unfounded. It not my personal position that needs defending because evolution is proven to happen, a proven reality. Your Intelligent design proponents had their day and failed to prove their claims of irreducible complexity.
The game being played by ID/creationists; ''We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (www.dissentfromdarwin.com)''
''The statement, of course, is widely and misleadingly cited by creationists as evidence for the claim that there is a genuine scientific controversy over evolution Three members of the editorial board — Behe, Dembski, and Minnich — were slated to testify in Kitzmiller v Dover, although only Behe and Minnich did so (Elsberry 2006). Five members of the editorial board — Behe, Carlson, Edward Peltzer, Ralph Seelke, and Wells — testified in Kansas in May 2005 to express their support for the so-called minority report version of the state’s science education standards, rewritten with the aid of a local “intelligent design” organization to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial. (The standards were adopted in November 2005, only to be rescinded in February 2007, after the balance of power on the state board of education shifted.)
There are also connections with creationism in its traditional forms, starting with the editor-in-chief, Matti Leisola. He is identified by BIO-Complexity as “a professor of Bioprocess Engineering at Aalto University (previously Helsinki University of Technology).” Unmentioned, however, is the fact that he is evidently a dyed-in-thewool creationist, having spoken on his “30 years as a non-evolutionist” at the 8th European Creationist Conference (Anonymous 2003), being described by Creation Ministries International as a biblical creationist (Wieland 2009), and having told a Finnish Christian youth magazine that evolution “is basically a heresy” (Anonymous 2006).''
Discovery.org is a creation site, of course they repeat their discredited claims for the benefit of theists, but nothing of interest to the vast majority of those who work in the field or those who take the trouble to study evolution with an open mind.
And your link to possible problems with peer review is an example of science at work uncovering weaknesses in its practice, but in no way discredits the fact of evolution.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But the spontaneous start of evolution is either random or by design--there is no middle ground here. This is the point which evolutionists try to avoid. They want to discuss a theory already in motion within the boundaries of micro evolution rather than the probability of the theory in all aspects.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
Just an example of faith overwhellming reason. Being human, it can happen.
This is evidence that there is a better statistical chance of converting an evolutionist to the truth then there is for spontaneous evolutionary processes to bring forth life.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But the spontaneous start of evolution is either random or by design--there is no middle ground here. This is the point which evolutionists try to avoid. They want to discuss a theory already in motion within the boundaries of micro evolution rather than the probability of the theory in all aspects.
Again, you are simply wrong. The start of evolution is a certainty the instant that there is a self-replicating molecule with variability. At that point it MUST happen. It cannot be stopped.
The self-replicating molecule with variability - THAT is where randomness comes in but that it will happen is also a certainty, given enough time. And time, we have a had a lot of.
Thunderstruck, maybe you should try to explain what you think random means - 'cuz I don't believe you have a clue.
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But the spontaneous start of evolution is either random or by design--there is no middle ground here. This is the point which evolutionists try to avoid. They want to discuss a theory already in motion within the boundaries of micro evolution rather than the probability of the theory in all aspects.
Again, you are simply wrong. The start of evolution is a certainty the instant that there is a self-replicating molecule with variability. At that point it MUST happen. It cannot be stopped.
The self-replicating molecule with variability - THAT is where randomness comes in but that it will happen is also a certainty, given enough time. And time, we have a had a lot of.
Thunderstruck, maybe you should try to explain what you think random means - 'cuz I don't believe you have a clue.
and where does the self-replicating molecule with variability come from?
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But the spontaneous start of evolution is either random or by design--there is no middle ground here. This is the point which evolutionists try to avoid. They want to discuss a theory already in motion within the boundaries of micro evolution rather than the probability of the theory in all aspects.
Again, you are simply wrong. The start of evolution is a certainty the instant that there is a self-replicating molecule with variability. At that point it MUST happen. It cannot be stopped.
The self-replicating molecule with variability - THAT is where randomness comes in but that it will happen is also a certainty, given enough time. And time, we have a had a lot of.
Thunderstruck, maybe you should try to explain what you think random means - 'cuz I don't believe you have a clue.
and where does the self-replicating molecule with variability come from?
That wasn't the question. What do you think random means? And do you understand why evolution cannot be prevented, including the diversity of species it produces?
PS Evolution doesn't even propose randomness as the cause of speciation. Variability (along a multiplicity of dimension) is built into reproduction, and environmental pressures then act on that variability in very definite directions.
But the spontaneous start of evolution is either random or by design--there is no middle ground here. This is the point which evolutionists try to avoid. They want to discuss a theory already in motion within the boundaries of micro evolution rather than the probability of the theory in all aspects.
Again, you are simply wrong. The start of evolution is a certainty the instant that there is a self-replicating molecule with variability. At that point it MUST happen. It cannot be stopped.
The self-replicating molecule with variability - THAT is where randomness comes in but that it will happen is also a certainty, given enough time. And time, we have a had a lot of.
Thunderstruck, maybe you should try to explain what you think random means - 'cuz I don't believe you have a clue.
and where does the self-replicating molecule with variability come from?
That wasn't the question. What do you think random means? And do you understand why evolution cannot be prevented, including the diversity of species it produces?
That is precisely the question relative to the point I am making about random. Do you have anything of substance to offer in the way of a response? What I have noted with you on this thread is that you seldom answer any questions regarding your statements and largely rely upon scorn and emotion to critique the statements of others. Can you offer anything substantive to address the premise?
You obviously didn't watch the video but felt compelled to comment.LOL
Read this:
Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?
Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true. I had heard doubts over the years from well-informed, sometimes brilliant people, but I had my hands full cultivating my garden, and it was easier to let biology take care of itself. But in recent years, reading and discussion have shut that road down for good.
This is sad. It is no victory of any sort for religion. It is a defeat for human ingenuity. It means one less beautiful idea in our world, and one more hugely difficult and important problem back on mankind’s to-do list. But we each need to make our peace with the facts, and not try to make life on earth simpler than it really is.
Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection. Out of these simple ingredients, conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years, he conjured up change that seems like the deliberate unfolding of a grand plan, designed and carried out with superhuman genius. Could nature really have pulled out of its hat the invention of life, of increasingly sophisticated life-forms and, ultimately, the unique-in-the-cosmos (so far as we know) human mind—given no strategy but trial and error? The mindless accumulation of small changes? It is an astounding idea. Yet Darwin’s brilliant and lovely theory explains how it could have happened.
Its beauty is important. Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.
Demolishing a Worldview
There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.
Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer, which collects some of the arguments Meyer’s book stirred up. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.
Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.). Although I can’t accept intelligent design as Meyer presents it, he does show that it is a plain case of the emperor’s new clothes: it says aloud what anyone who ponders biology must think, at some point, while sifting possible answers to hard questions. Intelligent design as Meyer explains it never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way. It does underline an obvious but important truth: Darwin’s mission was exactly to explain the flagrant appearance of design in nature.
The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.
As for Biblical religion, it forces its way into the discussion although Meyer didn’t invite it, and neither did Darwin. Some have always been bothered by the harm Darwin is said to have done religion. His theory has been thought by some naïfs (fundamentalists as well as intellectuals) to have shown or alleged that the Bible is wrong, and Judeo-Christian religion bunk. But this view assumes a childishly primitive reading of Scripture. Anyone can see that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, one based on seven days, the other on the Garden of Eden. When the Bible gives us two different versions of one story, it stands to reason that the facts on which they disagree are without basic religious significance. The facts on which they agree are the ones that matter: God created the universe, and put man there for a reason. Darwin has nothing to say on these or any other key religious issues.
Fundamentalists and intellectuals might go on arguing these things forever. But normal people will want to come to grips with Meyer and the downfall of a beautiful idea. I will mention several of his arguments, one of them in (just a bit of) detail. This is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.
Looking for Evidence
Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting—and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.
The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla—the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others—take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up. (Although fossils are subject to interpretation, and some biologists place pre-Cambrian life-forms closer than others to the new-fangled Cambrian creatures.)
Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces—although the existence of fossils depends on the surroundings in which the organism lived, and the history of the relevant rock during the ages since it died. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms. Hard-bodied forms are more likely to be fossilized than soft-bodied ones, but many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved—but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion.
This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion.
The Advent of Molecular Biology
Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology. There was no such thing in his own time. We now see from inside what he could only see from outside, as if he had developed a theory of mobile phone evolution without knowing that there were computers and software inside or what the digital revolution was all about. Under the circumstances, he did brilliantly.
Biology in his time was for naturalists, not laboratory scientists. Doctor Dolittle was a naturalist. (He is the hero of the wonderful children’s books by Hugh Lofting, now unfortunately nearing extinction.) The doctor loved animals and understood them, and had a sharp eye for all of nature not too different from Wordsworth’s or Goethe’s. But the character of the field has changed, and it’s not surprising that old theories don’t necessarily still work.
Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp; its simplicity is the heart of its brilliance and power. We all know that variation occurs naturally among individuals of the same type—white or black sheep, dove-gray versus off-white or pale beige pigeons, boring and sullen undergraduates versus charming, lissome ones. We all know that many variations have no effect on a creature’s prospects, but some do. A sheep born with extra-warm wool will presumably do better at surviving a rough Scottish winter than his normal-wooled friends. Such a sheep would be more likely than normal sheep to live long enough to mate, and pass on its superior trait to the next generation. Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species. The same mechanism naturally favors genes that are right for the local environment—warm wool in Scotland, light and comfortable wool for the tropics, other varieties for mountains and deserts. Thus one species (your standard sheep) might eventually become four specialized ones. And thus new species should develop from old in the upward-branching tree pattern Darwin described.
The advent of molecular biology made it possible to transform Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. The new version explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career.
The engine that powers Neo-Darwinian evolution is pure chance and lots of time. By filling in the details of cellular life, molecular biology makes it possible to estimate the power of that simple mechanism. But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it. Only if Neo-Darwinian evolution is creative enough to do that is it capable of creating new life-forms and pushing evolution forward.
Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.
So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?
Mutations
How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.
Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.
So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.
Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)
Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.
Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.
Building a Better Protein
Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?
It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.
The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.
What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.
In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.
A Bad Bet
But neo-Darwinianism understands that mutations are rare, and successful ones even scarcer. To balance that out, there are many organisms and a staggering immensity of time. Your chances of winning might be infinitesimal. But if you play the game often enough, you win in the end, right? After all, it works for Powerball!
Do the numbers balance out? Is Neo-Darwinian evolution plausible after all? Axe reasoned as follows. Consider the whole history of living things—the entire group of every living organism ever. It is dominated numerically by bacteria. All other organisms, from tangerine trees to coral polyps, are only a footnote. Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 1040 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against, it is not large enough. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.
His idea is still perfectly reasonable in the abstract. But concretely, he is overwhelmed by numbers he couldn’t possibly have foreseen: the ridiculously large number of amino-acid chains relative to number of useful proteins. Those numbers transcend the details of any particular set of estimates. The obvious fact is that genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?
Neo-Darwinianism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work. Studies of the sort Meyer discusses show that Neo-Darwinism is the quintessence of a bad bet.
The Great Darwinian Paradox
There are many other problems besides proteins. One of the most basic, and the last I’ll mention here, calls into question the whole idea of gene mutations driving macro-evolution—the emergence of new forms of organism, versus mere variation on existing forms.
To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young.
Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal. The German geneticists Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for the “Heidelberg screen,” an exhaustive investigation of every observable or inducible mutation of Drosophila melanogaster (the same patient, long-suffering fruit fly I meddled with relentlessly in an undergraduate genetics lab in the 1970s). “[W]e think we’ve hit all the genes required to specify the body plan of Drosophila,” said Wieschaus in answering a question after a talk. Not one, he continued, is “promising as raw materials for macroevolution”—because mutations in them all killed off the fly long before it could mate. If an exhaustive search rules out every last plausible gene as a candidate for large-scale Drosophila evolution, where does that leave Darwin? Wieschaus continues: “What are—or what would be—the right mutations for major evolutionary change? And we don’t know the answer to that.”
There is a general principle here, similar to the earlier principle that the number of useless polypeptides crushes the number of useful ones. The Georgia Tech geneticist John F. McDonald calls this one a “great Darwinian paradox.” Meyer explains: “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.” The philosopher of biology Paul Nelson summarizes the body-plan problem:
Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.
Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal.
It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.
Darwin’s Limits
Intelligent Design, as Meyer describes it, is a simple and direct response to a specific event, the Cambrian explosion. The theory suggests that an intelligent cause intervened to create this extraordinary outburst. By “intelligent” Meyer understands “conscious”; the theory suggests nothing more about the designer. But where is the evidence? To Meyer and other proponents, that is like asking—after you have come across a tree that is split vertically down the center and half burnt up—“but where is the evidence of a lightning strike?” The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer long before molecular biology and biochemistry. Darwin’s theory, after all, is an attempt to explain “design without a designer,” according to evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala. An intelligent designer might seem more necessary than ever now that we understand so much cellular biology, and the impossibly long odds facing any attempt to design proteins by chance, or assemble the regulatory mechanisms that control the life cycle of a cell.
Meyer doesn’t reject Darwinian evolution. He only rejects it as a sufficient theory of life as we know it. He’s made a painstaking investigation of Darwin’s theory and has rejected it for many good reasons that he has carefully explained. He didn’t rush to embrace intelligent design. Just the opposite. But the explosion of detailed, precise information that was necessary to build the brand-new Cambrian organisms, and the fact that the information was encoded, represented symbolically, in DNA nucleotides, suggests to Meyer that an intelligent designer must have been responsible. “Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information,” he writes. (“Digital” is confusing here; it only means information represented by a sequence of symbols.)
Was the Cambrian Explosion unique in some absolute sense, or was it the extreme endpoint of a spectrum? After all, there were infusions of new genetic information before and after. Meyer himself writes that “the sudden appearance of the Cambrian animals was merely the most outstanding instance of a pattern of discontinuity that extends throughout the geologic column.”
It’s not easy to decide whether something stands alone or at the far end of some spectrum. Consider Meyer’s “functionally specified digital information.” Information intended for one specific purpose and spelled out in a sequence of symbols is a rare bird in nature. It’s an outlier in the world of intelligence, too. We nearly always communicate in symbols that are used for many purposes; it’s hard for us to confine any symbol system to a single purpose. Even digits are used to represent numbers of many kinds, to express order as well as magnitude, as names (2001: A Space Odyssey) or parts of English phrases (“second rate”). A line of music can be heard in the head, hummed or sung, played on a zither or performed by a large orchestra. Or it can serve as a single graphic symbol meaning “music.” But the genetic code is used to specify the structure of certain molecules only (albeit in a series of separate steps and information-transfers within the cell). Nature, for its part, encodes information in many ways: airborne scents are important to bees, butterflies, elephants seeking to mate, birds avoiding trouble, and untold other creatures. The scent is a symbol; it’s not the scent that threatens the bird. Channels in sand dunes encode information about the passing breezes—and so on. There are endless examples—none approaching the sophistication and complexity of DNA coding.
If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.
A Final Challenge
I might, myself, expect to find the answer in a phenomenon that acts as if it were a new and (thus far) unknown force or field associated with consciousness. I’d expect complex biochemistry to be consistently biased in the direction that leads closer to consciousness, as gravitation biases motion towards massive objects. I have no evidence for this idea. It’s just the way biology seems to work.
Although Stephen Meyer’s book is a landmark in the intellectual history of Darwinism, the theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.
He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science.
Your "statistical impossibility" is every thinking man's statistical certainty, simply because you don't understand the first thing about probability and hence the word "random".
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science.
Your "statistical impossibility" is every thinking man's statistical certainty, simply because you don't understand the first thing about probability and hence the word "random".
But of course that is blatantly and laughably false. No one thinks that statistically neo-Darwinism is a certainty which is why materialists have had to posit the possibility of multiple universes to tame the long odds. It is the statistical improbability than convinced Antony Flew, one of the world's leading Atheist philosophers and defenders of neo-Darwinism, that the theory simply cannot explain the emergence of life. It is literally impossible. It is the long odds that convinced Francis Crick that aliens must have seeded earth with life! That is how bad the odds are. It is the statistical impossibility that moves DBT to invoke fallacy after fallacy in his attempts to defend Neo-Darwinism from attack. Its comical.
You obviously didn't watch the video but felt compelled to comment.LOL
Read this:
Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?
Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true. I had heard doubts over the years from well-informed, sometimes brilliant people, but I had my hands full cultivating my garden, and it was easier to let biology take care of itself. But in recent years, reading and discussion have shut that road down for good.
This is sad. It is no victory of any sort for religion. It is a defeat for human ingenuity. It means one less beautiful idea in our world, and one more hugely difficult and important problem back on mankind’s to-do list. But we each need to make our peace with the facts, and not try to make life on earth simpler than it really is.
Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection. Out of these simple ingredients, conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years, he conjured up change that seems like the deliberate unfolding of a grand plan, designed and carried out with superhuman genius. Could nature really have pulled out of its hat the invention of life, of increasingly sophisticated life-forms and, ultimately, the unique-in-the-cosmos (so far as we know) human mind—given no strategy but trial and error? The mindless accumulation of small changes? It is an astounding idea. Yet Darwin’s brilliant and lovely theory explains how it could have happened.
Its beauty is important. Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.
Demolishing a Worldview
There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.
Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer, which collects some of the arguments Meyer’s book stirred up. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.
Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.). Although I can’t accept intelligent design as Meyer presents it, he does show that it is a plain case of the emperor’s new clothes: it says aloud what anyone who ponders biology must think, at some point, while sifting possible answers to hard questions. Intelligent design as Meyer explains it never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way. It does underline an obvious but important truth: Darwin’s mission was exactly to explain the flagrant appearance of design in nature.
The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.
As for Biblical religion, it forces its way into the discussion although Meyer didn’t invite it, and neither did Darwin. Some have always been bothered by the harm Darwin is said to have done religion. His theory has been thought by some naïfs (fundamentalists as well as intellectuals) to have shown or alleged that the Bible is wrong, and Judeo-Christian religion bunk. But this view assumes a childishly primitive reading of Scripture. Anyone can see that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, one based on seven days, the other on the Garden of Eden. When the Bible gives us two different versions of one story, it stands to reason that the facts on which they disagree are without basic religious significance. The facts on which they agree are the ones that matter: God created the universe, and put man there for a reason. Darwin has nothing to say on these or any other key religious issues.
Fundamentalists and intellectuals might go on arguing these things forever. But normal people will want to come to grips with Meyer and the downfall of a beautiful idea. I will mention several of his arguments, one of them in (just a bit of) detail. This is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.
Looking for Evidence
Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting—and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.
The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla—the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others—take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up. (Although fossils are subject to interpretation, and some biologists place pre-Cambrian life-forms closer than others to the new-fangled Cambrian creatures.)
Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces—although the existence of fossils depends on the surroundings in which the organism lived, and the history of the relevant rock during the ages since it died. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms. Hard-bodied forms are more likely to be fossilized than soft-bodied ones, but many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved—but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion.
This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion.
The Advent of Molecular Biology
Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology. There was no such thing in his own time. We now see from inside what he could only see from outside, as if he had developed a theory of mobile phone evolution without knowing that there were computers and software inside or what the digital revolution was all about. Under the circumstances, he did brilliantly.
Biology in his time was for naturalists, not laboratory scientists. Doctor Dolittle was a naturalist. (He is the hero of the wonderful children’s books by Hugh Lofting, now unfortunately nearing extinction.) The doctor loved animals and understood them, and had a sharp eye for all of nature not too different from Wordsworth’s or Goethe’s. But the character of the field has changed, and it’s not surprising that old theories don’t necessarily still work.
Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp; its simplicity is the heart of its brilliance and power. We all know that variation occurs naturally among individuals of the same type—white or black sheep, dove-gray versus off-white or pale beige pigeons, boring and sullen undergraduates versus charming, lissome ones. We all know that many variations have no effect on a creature’s prospects, but some do. A sheep born with extra-warm wool will presumably do better at surviving a rough Scottish winter than his normal-wooled friends. Such a sheep would be more likely than normal sheep to live long enough to mate, and pass on its superior trait to the next generation. Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species. The same mechanism naturally favors genes that are right for the local environment—warm wool in Scotland, light and comfortable wool for the tropics, other varieties for mountains and deserts. Thus one species (your standard sheep) might eventually become four specialized ones. And thus new species should develop from old in the upward-branching tree pattern Darwin described.
The advent of molecular biology made it possible to transform Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. The new version explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career.
The engine that powers Neo-Darwinian evolution is pure chance and lots of time. By filling in the details of cellular life, molecular biology makes it possible to estimate the power of that simple mechanism. But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it. Only if Neo-Darwinian evolution is creative enough to do that is it capable of creating new life-forms and pushing evolution forward.
Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.
So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?
Mutations
How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.
Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.
So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.
Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)
Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.
Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.
Building a Better Protein
Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?
It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.
The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.
What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.
In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.
A Bad Bet
But neo-Darwinianism understands that mutations are rare, and successful ones even scarcer. To balance that out, there are many organisms and a staggering immensity of time. Your chances of winning might be infinitesimal. But if you play the game often enough, you win in the end, right? After all, it works for Powerball!
Do the numbers balance out? Is Neo-Darwinian evolution plausible after all? Axe reasoned as follows. Consider the whole history of living things—the entire group of every living organism ever. It is dominated numerically by bacteria. All other organisms, from tangerine trees to coral polyps, are only a footnote. Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 1040 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against, it is not large enough. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.
His idea is still perfectly reasonable in the abstract. But concretely, he is overwhelmed by numbers he couldn’t possibly have foreseen: the ridiculously large number of amino-acid chains relative to number of useful proteins. Those numbers transcend the details of any particular set of estimates. The obvious fact is that genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?
Neo-Darwinianism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work. Studies of the sort Meyer discusses show that Neo-Darwinism is the quintessence of a bad bet.
The Great Darwinian Paradox
There are many other problems besides proteins. One of the most basic, and the last I’ll mention here, calls into question the whole idea of gene mutations driving macro-evolution—the emergence of new forms of organism, versus mere variation on existing forms.
To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young.
Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal. The German geneticists Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for the “Heidelberg screen,” an exhaustive investigation of every observable or inducible mutation of Drosophila melanogaster (the same patient, long-suffering fruit fly I meddled with relentlessly in an undergraduate genetics lab in the 1970s). “[W]e think we’ve hit all the genes required to specify the body plan of Drosophila,” said Wieschaus in answering a question after a talk. Not one, he continued, is “promising as raw materials for macroevolution”—because mutations in them all killed off the fly long before it could mate. If an exhaustive search rules out every last plausible gene as a candidate for large-scale Drosophila evolution, where does that leave Darwin? Wieschaus continues: “What are—or what would be—the right mutations for major evolutionary change? And we don’t know the answer to that.”
There is a general principle here, similar to the earlier principle that the number of useless polypeptides crushes the number of useful ones. The Georgia Tech geneticist John F. McDonald calls this one a “great Darwinian paradox.” Meyer explains: “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.” The philosopher of biology Paul Nelson summarizes the body-plan problem:
Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.
Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal.
It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.
Darwin’s Limits
Intelligent Design, as Meyer describes it, is a simple and direct response to a specific event, the Cambrian explosion. The theory suggests that an intelligent cause intervened to create this extraordinary outburst. By “intelligent” Meyer understands “conscious”; the theory suggests nothing more about the designer. But where is the evidence? To Meyer and other proponents, that is like asking—after you have come across a tree that is split vertically down the center and half burnt up—“but where is the evidence of a lightning strike?” The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer long before molecular biology and biochemistry. Darwin’s theory, after all, is an attempt to explain “design without a designer,” according to evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala. An intelligent designer might seem more necessary than ever now that we understand so much cellular biology, and the impossibly long odds facing any attempt to design proteins by chance, or assemble the regulatory mechanisms that control the life cycle of a cell.
Meyer doesn’t reject Darwinian evolution. He only rejects it as a sufficient theory of life as we know it. He’s made a painstaking investigation of Darwin’s theory and has rejected it for many good reasons that he has carefully explained. He didn’t rush to embrace intelligent design. Just the opposite. But the explosion of detailed, precise information that was necessary to build the brand-new Cambrian organisms, and the fact that the information was encoded, represented symbolically, in DNA nucleotides, suggests to Meyer that an intelligent designer must have been responsible. “Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information,” he writes. (“Digital” is confusing here; it only means information represented by a sequence of symbols.)
Was the Cambrian Explosion unique in some absolute sense, or was it the extreme endpoint of a spectrum? After all, there were infusions of new genetic information before and after. Meyer himself writes that “the sudden appearance of the Cambrian animals was merely the most outstanding instance of a pattern of discontinuity that extends throughout the geologic column.”
It’s not easy to decide whether something stands alone or at the far end of some spectrum. Consider Meyer’s “functionally specified digital information.” Information intended for one specific purpose and spelled out in a sequence of symbols is a rare bird in nature. It’s an outlier in the world of intelligence, too. We nearly always communicate in symbols that are used for many purposes; it’s hard for us to confine any symbol system to a single purpose. Even digits are used to represent numbers of many kinds, to express order as well as magnitude, as names (2001: A Space Odyssey) or parts of English phrases (“second rate”). A line of music can be heard in the head, hummed or sung, played on a zither or performed by a large orchestra. Or it can serve as a single graphic symbol meaning “music.” But the genetic code is used to specify the structure of certain molecules only (albeit in a series of separate steps and information-transfers within the cell). Nature, for its part, encodes information in many ways: airborne scents are important to bees, butterflies, elephants seeking to mate, birds avoiding trouble, and untold other creatures. The scent is a symbol; it’s not the scent that threatens the bird. Channels in sand dunes encode information about the passing breezes—and so on. There are endless examples—none approaching the sophistication and complexity of DNA coding.
If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.
A Final Challenge
I might, myself, expect to find the answer in a phenomenon that acts as if it were a new and (thus far) unknown force or field associated with consciousness. I’d expect complex biochemistry to be consistently biased in the direction that leads closer to consciousness, as gravitation biases motion towards massive objects. I have no evidence for this idea. It’s just the way biology seems to work.
Although Stephen Meyer’s book is a landmark in the intellectual history of Darwinism, the theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.
He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.
Leroy, How do you arrive at a thinking man's certainty unless you really disregard the well thought post that immediately precedes yours? But you likely will avoid any substantive discussion of those points.
Are we saying now that liberal judge in the Dover case didn't settle science once and for all? Oh the horrors of having to intellectually reengage with the facts and the truth! Next we will question man-made global warming again!
Oh yes, and let's play the numbers game again when it suits us--all credible scientists are Darwinists. But when its convenient lets use Galileo to show real science being with the minority. No wait, that was religion against Galileo. Yes that's the difference in the two scenarios! We won't admit that Galileo was a theistic scientist also because that would ruin the dichotomy we tried to contrive. I think its best if we just stick to "all credible scientists are Darwinists" because we have the most luck with scorn, emotional outbursts, and liberal government mandates to keep our Darwinian agenda moving--we can't risk letting the survival of our agenda to chance lest it mutates and selects a better option.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" - Galileo
Random is the basis of Brownian motion. Increases in temp. cause increases in entropy, causes increases in random collisions, or increased reaction rate. Biological systems operate in a very narrow temperature range, the probability of a "reaction" is not based on simple "Normal or Poission" probability distributions. They are stepped Markovian chains, usually involving a catalyst or enzyme. The probability is not the calculation of the combinations. The amount of "information" contained in each progressive step of the electron and molecular configurations of the reactants "communicates" the direction of the next step. The order of complexity of the protein is similar to the string. How many twists or knots it has in it, determines the order. Interestingly they are polynomials and if you are interested, there is a field of Math called "Knot Theory" that looks at these problems.
rte post is outstanding and the part of Molecular Biology is the most important especially from the point of Molecular Evolution. (a good book if your interested,, by Wen-Hsiang Li)
GMO foods are a good example. Modification of the plants protective layer against insects, to increase overall food supply.
Currently genetic modifications in humans is restricted, but going on in animals at different levels. Some countries are no doubt doing it on humans. You think they care about your creationist, neo-darwinism, old darwinism, evolutionist hangups.
All random means is unpredictable. Your computer can generate "random" numbers. Actually pseudorandom numbers as they are generated by an algorithm and are therefore predictable. But if the algorithm is unknown it's just as good as any other "random."
(Can anything in this universe be unpredictable - random - or is it we simply don't know the algorithm?)
And distribution is not relevant as it is defined by the user. Do I want a Poisson distribution? No, for this use a Gaussian would be better.
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science.
Your "statistical impossibility" is every thinking man's statistical certainty, simply because you don't understand the first thing about probability and hence the word "random".
But of course that is blatantly and laughably false. No one thinks that statistically neo-Darwinism is a certainty which is why materialists have had to posit the possibility of multiple universes to tame the long odds. It is the statistical improbability than convinced Antony Flew, one of the world's leading Atheist philosophers and defenders of neo-Darwinism, that the theory simply cannot explain the emergence of life. It is literally impossible. It is the long odds that convinced Francis Crick that aliens must have seeded earth with life! That is how bad the odds are. It is the statistical impossibility that moves DBT to invoke fallacy after fallacy in his attempts to defend Neo-Darwinism from attack. Its comical.
You are quite mistaken, which shows me that you really do not understand evolution and think of it as something is questionable rather than absolutely unavoidable (which it is). You don't know a fallacy when it emerges from your own keyboard. That is a problem you and Thunderstruck have in common. And then there is Ringman... A whole other can of worms there.
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
All random means is unpredictable. Your computer can generate "random" numbers. Actually pseudorandom numbers as they are generated by an algorithm and are therefore predictable. But if the algorithm is unknown it's just as good as any other "random."
(Can anything in this universe be unpredictable - random - or is it we simply don't know the algorithm?)
And distribution is not relevant as it is defined by the user. Do I want a Poisson distribution? No, for this use a Gaussian would be better.
yes most probability programs use random number generators, but your statement ------ (Can anything in this universe be unpredictable - random - or is it we simply don't know the algorithm?) is certainly the center of the argument.
Intelligent design, At what degree of complexity is it considered intelligent?
"Intelligent design, At what degree of complexity is it considered intelligent?"
Up to you - you set the odds. Like the odds of the universal gravitational constant being such that life is possible from the possible values is minuscule. But it proves nothing unless you decide it does.
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
I think your example is not the case which is in question. There is no dispute about a specie adapting to its environment. The evidence lacking is for a situation where mutations are required to -- say evolve the ape into a man.
You are quite mistaken, which shows me that you really do not understand evolution and think of it as something is questionable rather than absolutely unavoidable (which it is). You don't know a fallacy when it emerges from your own keyboard. That is a problem you and Thunderstruck have in common. And then there is Ringman... A whole other can of worms there.
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
I think your example is not the case which is in question. There is no dispute about a specie adapting to its environment. The evidence lacking is for a situation where mutations are required to -- say evolve the ape into a man.
You continue to insist on this ape into man thing, even when you have been told that is not what happened. Explaining things to you is a complete waste of time.
While the usage of the word "primate" may be more palatable it makes no difference in what evolution cannot prove.
A primate is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/primate.htm
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
We gained lactose tolerance into adulthood about ten thousand years ago but sadly lost the ability to synthesis vitamin C about ten million years ago. Our ancestors used to be able to make it just like we do vitamin D. Due to the abundance of fruit in our food supply when that mutation first appeared, the mutation persisted. That abundance of dietary C caused it to spread to the entire population of our direct ancestors when they were still swinging from the trees in the African tropics. That would have been a nice capability to retain.
We still have the genes for it, but they are turned off by a mutation that occurred before we diverged from gorillas and chimpanzees, so they lost it too, providing yet another proof of our relatedness to the gorillas and chimpanzees. We all three have the very unfortunate mutation that turned off the gene for synthesizing vitamin C, proving a common ancestor for the three of us (i.e., the one in which the gene got turned off by a random mutation).
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget
Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget
Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of a functioning C-making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage.
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget
Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage.
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget
Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage.
You miss the point.
No I didn't. Your point was wrong, since based on a false premise.
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget
Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage.
You miss the point.
No I didn't. Your point was wrong, since based on a false premise.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false.
So, if you claim to be a Christian, exactly when is it that you start believing the Bible? Do you discount the entirety of Genesis? Do you believe in the stories about the patriarchs? Is there a video you could link where your militant atheist and former occultist friend, Aaron Ra, could comment? Perhaps, you could post some more videos where he makes fun of Christians.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false.
So, if you claim to be a Christian, exactly when is it that you start believing the Bible? Do you discount the entirety of Genesis? Do you believe in the stories about the patriarchs? Is there a video you could link where your militant atheist and former occultist friend, Aaron Ra, could comment? Perhaps, you could post some more videos where he makes fun of Christians.
That's my only problem with the guy. He's great at explaining evolution, though. He's got lots of series (serieses?) on various topics relating to it. Too bad he doesn't leave out the Christian bashing.
But to answer your question, the Bible states that God assigned the bringing forth of the living creatures (of which we are one) to nature. Seems quite clear to me.
So, I'll ask again, since you evaded the first time: Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
So, I'll ask again, since you evaded the first time: Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
That’s why I asked you as to exactly where in the Bible it became believable to you because my point, and the answer to your question is contained in Genesis.
So, I'll ask again, since you evaded the first time: Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
That’s why I asked you as to exactly where in the Bible it became believable to you because my point, and the answer to your question is contained in Genesis.
I said I believe what it says, i.e., that God created the heaven and the earth, and commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures. What's confusing you?
So, I'll ask again, since you evaded the first time: Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
That’s why I asked you as to exactly where in the Bible it became believable to you because my point, and the answer to your question is contained in Genesis.
I said I believe what it says, i.e., that God created the heaven and the earth, and commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures. What's confusing you?
I’m not the one who is confused. The answer to your question is there...IF you believe it.
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
This is evidence that there is a better statistical chance of converting an evolutionist to the truth then there is for spontaneous evolutionary processes to bring forth life.
There is no evidence for magical creation. All the evidence supports evolution even though all its mechanisms are not fully understood. A small percentage of creationists/Intelligent design claimants does not refute evolution or establish a case for creationism.
''There are also connections with creationism in its traditional forms, starting with the editor-in-chief, Matti Leisola. He is identified by BIO-Complexity as “a professor of Bioprocess Engineering at Aalto University (previously Helsinki University of Technology).” Unmentioned, however, is the fact that he is evidently a dyed-in-thewool creationist, having spoken on his “30 years as a non-evolutionist” at the 8th European Creationist Conference (Anonymous 2003), being described by Creation Ministries International as a biblical creationist (Wieland 2009), and having told a Finnish Christian youth magazine that evolution “is basically a heresy”
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
So, as a result of the fall of Adam, God turned that gene off in human beings, gorillas, and chimpanzees? Why those three? Other animals, those less directly in our line of descent, are still able to synthesize vitamin C, even other primates. Just not the higher primates that are so closely related to us. Is it just a coincidence that the fall of Adam hit us three in the same exact way, and left other species alone?
I suspect not. I suspect that we all three have the same defect in our vitamin C synthesizing gene because we are close cousin species with a fairly recent common ancestor that lived around ten million years ago that acquired a mutated vitamin C synthesizing gene, i.e., one that got turned off by a mutation we all three inherited. Man, the chimpanzee, and the gorilla, all inherited it from that common ancestor species.
Looks like someone is thinking intelligently from a well ordered mind.
Except for creationists, nobody takes intelligent design seriously. It had its chance to prove its merit and legitimacy in court and failed. It's not even a theory. It's conjecture, or at best, a hypothesis.
Abstract ''This article reviews two standard criticisms of creationism/intelligent design (ID)): it is unfalsifiable, and it is refuted by the many imperfect adaptations found in nature. Problems with both criticisms are discussed. A conception of testability is described that avoids the defects in Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. Although ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms, it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.''
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
Yeah, but why the anthropoid primates, and not other primates like gibbons? In fact most animals retain it. Mainly it's just the anthropoid primates that lost it, indicating a common ancestor that was the starting point of the loss, so the capacity to synthesize vitamin C could no longer pass on to any of the branches that followed after, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. It follows a pattern that's telling, and indicates something quite distinct from the notion that each anthropoid primate was a special creation, not related to the rest.
God created the heaven and the earth, and commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures.
God also created the creatures of the sea, birds of the air and every land creature.( and then nature took over from there- as in multiplying)
Gen. 1:21-22. AKJV 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:25 AKJV "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
God created the heaven and the earth, and commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures.
God also created the creatures of the sea, birds of the air and every land creature.( and then nature took over from there- as in multiplying)
Gen. 1:21-22. AKJV 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:25 AKJV "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
If Hadrian first described how he commanded his engineers to construct a wall along a certain line, and then later simply stated that he made the wall, everyone understands what's meant, and that there's no contradiction between those two statements. After all, there would be no wall there had Hadrian not commanded it be built.
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
I think your example is not the case which is in question. There is no dispute about a specie adapting to its environment. The evidence lacking is for a situation where mutations are required to -- say evolve the ape into a man.
If multiple beneficial mutations can be observed over the course 20 millennia with very light survival pressure. Why would it be wrong to assume that a population would gain at least 15,000 times as many beneficial mutations in a 15,000 times longer period of time? Especially under extreme survival pressure such as Ice ages coming and going? The environment fluctuating between frigid cold and back to tropical heat?
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"
Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.
That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science.
Your "statistical impossibility" is every thinking man's statistical certainty, simply because you don't understand the first thing about probability and hence the word "random".
But of course that is blatantly and laughably false. No one thinks that statistically neo-Darwinism is a certainty which is why materialists have had to posit the possibility of multiple universes to tame the long odds. It is the statistical improbability than convinced Antony Flew, one of the world's leading Atheist philosophers and defenders of neo-Darwinism, that the theory simply cannot explain the emergence of life. It is literally impossible. It is the long odds that convinced Francis Crick that aliens must have seeded earth with life! That is how bad the odds are. It is the statistical impossibility that moves DBT to invoke fallacy after fallacy in his attempts to defend Neo-Darwinism from attack. Its comical.
You are quite mistaken, which shows me that you really do not understand evolution and think of it as something is questionable rather than absolutely unavoidable (which it is). You don't know a fallacy when it emerges from your own keyboard. That is a problem you and Thunderstruck have in common. And then there is Ringman... A whole other can of worms there.
Point out the fallacy please in the post of mine you responded to and while you're at it, point out what I've said that entails a misunderstanding of evolution.
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
The bible is an attempt at explaining the existence of the world and why it is the way it is made by bronze age people who did not have the benefit of science and discovery.
For a very funny and first rate take-down of Neo-Darwinism and particularly the hopelessly confused Richard Dawkins, take a read of David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales. Stove is a first rate atheist philosopher who thinks Neo-Darwinism, or at least sociobiology, is pure hokum. His case is devastating. He makes Richard Dawkins look like an absolute fool. Its a great read. The dry humor is fantastic.
Yeah, but why the anthropoid primates, and not other primates like gibbons? In fact most animals retain it. Mainly it's just the anthropoid primates that lost it, indicating a common ancestor that was the starting point of the loss, so the capacity to synthesize vitamin C could no longer pass on to any of the branches that followed after, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. It follows a pattern that's telling, and indicates something quite distinct from the notion that each anthropoid primate was a special creation, not related to the rest.
If you want to put your faith in a parable based upon natural observations, that's your business.
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
The bible is an attempt at explaining the existence of the world and why it is the way it is made by bronze age people who did not have the benefit of science and discovery.
I'm not much of a believer but it is astounding how some core Bible truths are affirmed by science. The Bible says that "in the beginning was the word (logos, or information) and the word was God" and science has confirmed irrefutably that information in the form of digital code is the indispensable starting point of all life on earth. (BTW, Darwin didn't have a clue about any of this when he offered his theory.) DNA is nothing more than coded, Shannon complex, digital information. Protein strands are complex digitally coded information. Information therefore precedes ("comes before" for DBT's benefit) the instantiation of life. In all of human experience the only known source of Shannon complex, digitally coded information is some form of pre-existing intelligence. Some of the leading lights of materialism and Neo-Darwinism have conceded that natural selection cannot generate the necessary information, indeed the information must have been in existence before natural selection could even begin to work its "magic". Where did the information come from? The improbabilities are so bad that we have Nobel prize winning laureates hypothecating aliens from outer space. Its almost comical, yet the materialist superstition has such a firm grip on the minds of some that they remain blind to the truth.
For those referencing Genesis, who wrote it? when was it written? was it written by perfect men? or was it written by men of free will? How are you so sure that it can be taken as fact? Why is it more persuasive than the evidence of the vast fossil record? How do you know it's the word of god other than some man told me so, or you feel it in your heart? Does it come down to the idea salvation? or is it the idea that there absolutely needs to be some sort of purpose for our lives? BTW, I was reading up on it today and seems there are a few theories on the sources. Pretty interesting stuff for sure, but for me, it demonstrates that Genesis can not be taken literal.
For me, I can look out and see the wonders that mother nature provided for us. I can see the fossils or read about how the marsupials ended up in Australia and see how evolution has worked. I am going to believe that over some stories written by man.
BTW, for those that keep bringing politics into this argument, I grew up in a large strict christian family; 8 of us kids. As best I can tell, 2 of us are atheist and conservative, the other six are evenly divided between left and right and they all believe in creation. It is not a marxist or communist conspiracy to push evolution, it is the scientific community studying evidence, developing theories, testing them, conduction peer reviews. There is no need to try to put a "axis of evil" spin on evolution.
I have no illusions of a supernatural being, but if there is one, I am convinced that man got it all wrong.
This is how Christians describe how Eve could now experience pain after the Fall...
- Innerworkings of the body (e.g., pelvis bones for childbearing) no longer functioned as originally designed, causing increased sensation. - Design changes also took place (of the original pelvic bones for childbearing), resulting in increased sensation.
so it seems we now have God interfering with the original natural design mechanism he had delegated [nature] to bring forth for Him.
I mean nature does not change those things overnight.
Originally Posted by scoony
. There is no need to try to put a "axis of evil" spin on evolution.
Christians like to fall back on the devil and demons as the cause of their problems, yet before christians mushroomed into society,
the Hebrew (O.T.) had no personified devil and no demons battling God on earth, Gods enemy was clearly identified as mankind.
with mythology you can make up/modify/add sequels of any story you want and because such beliefs are faith based , no proof is needed.
CF christians can see the devil at work here, like Salem witch hunters could identify real McCoy witches.
Yeah, but why the anthropoid primates, and not other primates like gibbons? In fact most animals retain it. Mainly it's just the anthropoid primates that lost it, indicating a common ancestor that was the starting point of the loss, so the capacity to synthesize vitamin C could no longer pass on to any of the branches that followed after, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. It follows a pattern that's telling, and indicates something quite distinct from the notion that each anthropoid primate was a special creation, not related to the rest.
If you want to put your faith in a parable based upon natural observations, that's your business.
But don't try to pass it off as science.
you are confused again. Parable-based defenses are for the "theists". Science needs to parables and the above is no parable. Just a factual observation.
Radicalized evolutionists point to observations of natural occurrences, and their confirmation bias assuages their cognitive dissonance in resolving the dilemma in favor of their faith.
Ain't no difference in a parable based upon mutations, or what appear to be similar type fossils, etc., and a parable based upon a great flood in the past.
The ones in over their heads are those who try to defend magical explanations for the existence of the world and life when all the evidence points to widespread solar system formation from clouds of cosmic gas clouds and debris from past Supernova. Life evolves, how it began is not yet understood but is a work in progress.
The argument; we don't know, therefore God, is neither a valid argument or explanation.
The ones in over their heads are those who try to defend magical explanations for the existence of the world and life when all the evidence points to widespread solar system formation from clouds of cosmic gas clouds and debris from past Supernova. Life evolves, how it began is not yet understood but is a work in progress.
The argument; we don't know, therefore God, is neither a valid argument or explanation.
But who is defending "magical explanations"? Is it not those Darwinians whom the evidence has forced to hypothecate space aliens to account for the incredibly complex information necessary to instantiate life? It is true some proponents of intelligent design hypothecate God, but the theory itself does not require that God be the intelligent artificer. It only requires some sort of highly advanced intelligence. You mention the solar system, yet the Universe itself appears to have begun in a singularity of time and space out of literally nothing! Cosmologists have been very unhappy with the Big Bank theory since its inception because it implies a beginning and the instantiation of matter out of virtually nothing, thus essentially confirming the Biblical concept of a virtually inexplicable and miraculous creation event. That apparently magical" event is what science tells us occurred and what a coincidence that it dove tails with the Biblical idea of a special creation event (and a beginning).
We are now at 90 pages and you've finally admitted "how life began is not yet understood, but a work in progress" and blithely, "life evolves". "The work in progress (how life began)" is, as a research venture, virtually dead. Read the literature. Scientists are at a loss to explain the instantiation of life and many are quite blunt about the bleak prospects of ever finding a naturalistic explanation. But hope and faith spring eternal! In any event, what does "life evolves" mean? If it means that finch beaks change in size in consequence of environmental stressors, that is wholly non-controversial, but that is not what Neo-Darwinism is really about, Its about the much grander claim that the same process that causes variation in finch beak size also has the power to morph a finch into existence from some other creature in the first instance. But that idea is contradicted by the evidence at virtually every turn, including (and especially) the fossil record. What we know is that even with intelligent intervention (in the laboratory) species can only change so far (not into new species, mind you) and when the special breeding and selection (by human intelligence) is withdrawn, the specially bred specimens revert back to the mean within a few generations. Thousands of years of dog breeding by human intelligence has not changed a dog into a cat. In other words, biology and genetics overwhelmingly suggests the immutability of species, not their changeability.
Finally, the argument isn't "we don't know, therefore God". The argument is: we know that in all of human experience specified complex information comes from pre-existing intelligence. Specified complex information is a condition precedent to the existence of life. It is essentially impossible that natural processes could have created this information. Reasoning from the evidence to the best explanation then (the same logic Darwin applied!) the best explanation is that some sort of pre-existing super intelligence is responsible for the instantiation and variety of life on earth.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Who knows? Why would you expect to know that? Maybe one day you can ask him.
would God not be in the same place now?...or did he have some reason to move?
Do you know where God is now?
What makes you think God has to "be" anywhere? This is a metaphysical question and has nothing to do with religion. But what's the down side to slandering Catholics? Not like they'll cut your head off or anything. The worst they'll do is pray for you.
Saying to be anywhere assumes a physical presence, a presence within the universe. By definition God does not need a universe to exist in. Omnipresence means God is not restricted by physical law like Starman, who must be either here or there. Again, this is simple metaphysics.
To ask where was he requires that there exist somewhere to be. And somewhere to be implies a dimensional point in our universe, where else is there to be? And to occupy a dimensional point in our universe requires a physical presence.
To ask where was he requires that there exist somewhere to be. And somewhere to be implies a dimensional point in our universe, where else is there to be? And to occupy a dimensional point in our universe requires a physical presence.
Again I made no specific reference to a physical presence for God, but keep spinning.
most christian www. sites about 'where is God' just say He is omnipresent,
but you have decided that I was referring to a 3D physical presence for God to suite yourself.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
... And to occupy a dimensional point in our universe requires a physical presence.
A point in geometry has no dimensions, but it can have co-ordinates.
and surely an omnispresent God has a presence at all points?
Saying to be anywhere assumes a physical presence, a presence within the universe. By definition God does not need a universe to exist in. Omnipresence means God is not restricted by physical law like Starman, who must be either here or there. Again, this is simple metaphysics.
Starman, let's try it this way. You ask where is God. Where can he be? France? the Moon? Somewhere in the Milky Way? Next galaxy over? Those are all places in our universe. Where else? So of course asking the question implies somewhere in our universe. (And to exist in a place with dimensional coordinates you must have a physical presence at those coordinates) We have no "place" outside our universe for Him to be. We know of no place outside of our universe.
And omnipresence necessarily means unbound by physical laws, how else can the presence of God be everywhere? And what is the nature of his presence? As one smartass little kid being broken of a bad habit said on hearing the hand of God is everywhere, "It isn't in his nose."
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
The bible is an attempt at explaining the existence of the world and why it is the way it is made by bronze age people who did not have the benefit of science and discovery.
If somehow you and I were transported in time to before the Flood we would be stuck in a metal institute for the handicap. You have no idea about what you speak so confidently.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
The natural processes ordained by God after the fall include death and disease and sickness. In order for that to happen natural processes will fall short of perfection.. Ahem just like the Bible says.
The bible is an attempt at explaining the existence of the world and why it is the way it is made by bronze age people who did not have the benefit of science and discovery.
If somehow you and I were transported in time to before the Flood we would be stuck in a metal institute for the handicap. You have no idea about what you speak so confidently.
Check the actual history of creation myths in ancient cultures. Don't just accept what the church and bible study tells you about the world. Try to widen your horizons.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
Try reading a basic textbook on astrophysics instead of creationist propaganda, just a friendly suggestion.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
Try reading a basic textbook on astrophysics instead of creationist propaganda, just a friendly suggestion.
Some of Ringman's arguments are so bad even the creationist propagandist say not to use them.
Interesting point. He sure lets a lot of bad things happen then - wonder what his excuse might be.
He doesn't need an "excuse". But if you appeal to the Bible for the answer, you discover He cursed the entire universe because Adam disobeyed.
"Cursed the entire universe because Adam disobeyed".
That about that claim for a few minutes and what that says about your alleged god. What kind of petty being would do such a thing?
Does that even make sense, or it does it make more sense that the whole story is just an allegory?
the whole story, if that's what it is, and i suspect it is, is being told from one or more versions of the human side of the story(s).
in other words, given our consciousness and imagination, no wonder the theologians and the quantum physicists come up with the stories that they do.
and as long as they hold up, & work, who's to disagree? as time goes on, ideas have a way of expressing themselves as long as there's a human body that serves as a carrier.
Interesting point. He sure lets a lot of bad things happen then - wonder what his excuse might be.
He doesn't need an "excuse". But if you appeal to the Bible for the answer, you discover He cursed the entire universe because Adam disobeyed.
"Cursed the entire universe because Adam disobeyed".
That about that claim for a few minutes and what that says about your alleged god. What kind of petty being would do such a thing?
Does that even make sense, or it does it make more sense that the whole story is just an allegory?
the whole story, if that's what it is, and i suspect it is, is being told from one or more versions of the human side of the story(s).
in other words, given our consciousness and imagination, no wonder the theologians and the quantum physicists come up with the stories that they do.
and as long as they hold up, & work, who's to disagree? as time goes on, ideas have a way of expressing themselves as long as there's a human body that serves as a carrier.
The story of The Garden of Eden holds up as a coming of age story. It doesn't hold up as a scientific explanation for the origins of our universe.
As for "who's to disagree", we are all free to make that evaluation for ourselves. Just because a stories old doesn't make it true in a literal sense, and it's literary value may have been distorted or rendered obsolete over time.
my point is that ideology exists, and is carried in the minds of men, and in their writings, artifacts, etc. the living are the ones who express various stories, ideologies, beliefs, etc.
when an old idea dies off there is left less competition for an existing idea, which may die off sooner or later it's very self.
look how the old newtonian physics was once the golden child, but now the quantum people are taking reign, and it's showing the products that humans mfg.
similarly, lot's of old gods have mostly fallen away, while newer gods emerge and even flourish.
there's nothing wrong with searching for the ultimate truth, but would most folks recognize it if they met it coming down the street?
he may have learned some of his trade from the oracle at delphi. the priestess who was often filled with god (apollo?), was probably breathing in a little too much fumes from the underground cauldron? but at any rate, all those old timers had their following.
As the story goes, Yawheh being described in the bible as being the creator of both good and evil, set Adam up to fail.
That Last Book of the Bible, Revelation teaches Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. It was the plan all along. That gives folks like you a chance to accept His Gift of His Son or scoff.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
Try reading a basic textbook on astrophysics instead of creationist propaganda, just a friendly suggestion.
Perhaps you should do a little more study. How long do you think it takes for a star to form from a gas could? A year? A century? A millennium? A million years? Theoretically it take too long to be observed.
As the story goes, Yawheh being described in the bible as being the creator of both good and evil, set Adam up to fail.
That Last Book of the Bible, Revelation teaches Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. It was the plan all along. That gives folks like you a chance to accept His Gift of His Son or scoff.
It's your choice.
Not that simple. As the story goes, the crisis was engineered by God, Not by Adam, not by Eve, nor by the cunning beast, the Serpent...all who were punished for something that God Himself was fully responsible for, and not two naive humans who had no understanding of good and evil until after they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
Try reading a basic textbook on astrophysics instead of creationist propaganda, just a friendly suggestion.
Perhaps you should do a little more study. How long do you think it takes for a star to form from a gas could? A year? A century? A millennium? A million years? Theoretically it take too long to be observed.
There are stars to be observed in every state of their lives, young stars in the early stages or formation, old stars that have expanded into red giants, nova, supernova, etc.....read up on astronomy, not what they peddle on creation sites.
The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.
Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.
Back to, "I'm the center of the universe" type of thought. Because you have not recognized any experience with God does not eliminate other's experience with God.
You obviously don't understand gas mechanics. The gas pressure to prevent the formation of stars is at least fifty times stronger than the gravitational pull on that same gas.
By the way, after the Big Bang how did the individual gas molecules overcome the equilateral dispersion momentum to even make a "gas cloud"?
Try reading a basic textbook on astrophysics instead of creationist propaganda, just a friendly suggestion.
Perhaps you should do a little more study. How long do you think it takes for a star to form from a gas could? A year? A century? A millennium? A million years? Theoretically it take too long to be observed.
There are stars to be observed in every state of their lives, young stars in the early stages or formation, old stars that have expanded into red giants, nova, supernova, etc.....read up on astronomy, not what they peddle on creation sites.
And exactly how do you know these stars are in these stages since it takes too long for humans to see what they are doing?
For the sake of argument let me ask you something. If there waz an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create a universe like what we see in the various states we see them?
The state and condition a star is observed to be in tells you what stage of life they are in, a red giant for example is a star that has used most of its hydrogen and has expanded to a more diffuse state, cooler surface, etc. Google 'young star formation regions' to get pictures and information on stars forming withn clouds of hydrogen.
The state and condition a star is observed to be in tells you what stage of life they are in, a red giant for example is a star that has used most of its hydrogen and has expanded to a more diffuse state, cooler surface, etc. Google 'young star formation regions' to get pictures and information on stars forming withn clouds of hydrogen.
The state and condition a star is observed to be in tells you what stage of life they are in, a red giant for example is a star that has used most of its hydrogen and has expanded to a more diffuse state, cooler surface, etc. Google 'young star formation regions' to get pictures and information on stars forming withn clouds of hydrogen.
So you don't know.
I happen to know, I even do a bit of amateur astronomy, star gazing using a Maksitov reflector, the problem is that you are not willing to consider what I say or what I explain.
That's why you should educate yourself by looking at the evidence of star formation for yourself. Not just telescope pictures of star nurseries and star formation but the physics driving star formation, the nuclear process, fusion, hydrogen to helium, etc, by which stars go through the stages of their lifecycles and how this is observed by astronomers and astrophysicists.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
Not that simple. As the story goes, the crisis was engineered by God, Not by Adam, not by Eve, nor by the cunning beast, the Serpent... ..all who were punished for something that God Himself was fully responsible for, and not two naive humans who had no understanding of good and evil until after they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
not only that....but Adam & Eve did strive to reach the Tree of Life in Eden , but the Lord had it guarded by cherubim with flaming sword, denying them access..., the love was gone, instead he kicked their asses like a can down the road.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
He was a clever devil...
speaking of clever, what about a devout and dedicated story teller weaving satan into the god story. let god take credit for all the good things that occur. and slyly give satan the blame for all bad things that occurs. that gives god a free walk, with satan being responsible for the god-awful things. clever, huh?
never doubt the ability of a good story teller to spin the tale to his group's perceived advantage.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
He was a clever devil...
speaking of clever, what about a devout and dedicated story teller weaving satan into the god story. let god take credit for all the good things that occur. and slyly give satan the blame for all bad things that occurs. that gives god a free walk, with satan being responsible for the god-awful things. clever, huh?
never doubt the ability of a good story teller to spin the tale to his group's perceived advantage.
Yes, the Zoroastrian's were very cleaver. Obviously the Jews thought the same, which is why the ripped off the concept and added it to their set of fables.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Real science is hard.
Calculus, linear algebra, differential equations etc., it's no wonder folks like Ringman give up and go with "Magic" as their answer.
Takes the same degree of faith to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in various theological texts, as it does to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in support of the theory of evolution.
Takes the same degree of faith to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in various theological texts, as it does to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in support of the theory of evolution.
Nope.
We have the fossils and the DNA. In other words, we have evidence is support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, so no faith required.
Such deliberation is not needed, rather does it needs to be over flogged. Only a fool will think we are all alone in this universe. that is where to start all this from. Now, Call it what you want, Religion, Magik or Science but all these thing were created/made by an entity, God or what anyone wants to believe. The Universe is fat too complicated to be existing by chance, the possibility of the chances that will take for the universe to form itself all by itself without an original vaccum so absolutely impossible. As a Christian i belive GOD made all things possible. Science can't understand God and that where the problem lies.
Takes the same degree of faith to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in various theological texts, as it does to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in support of the theory of evolution.
Nope.
We have the fossils and the DNA. In other words, we have evidence is support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, so no faith required.
No difference from deriving a conclusion from written words, and deriving a conclusion from fossilized artifacts.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Real science is hard.
Yep. Especially hard to come up with that missing link.
I might add, even though a few times in the past top scientists have informed us they did so.
Once was the discovery of a tooth found by one of those tooth fairies, until later research proved it to be from a pig.
Keep placing your faith in men, rather than He who created them.
The ones in over their heads are those who try to defend magical explanations for the existence of the world and life when all the evidence points to widespread solar system formation from clouds of cosmic gas clouds and debris from past Supernova. Life evolves, how it began is not yet understood but is a work in progress.
The argument; we don't know, therefore God, is neither a valid argument or explanation.
But who is defending "magical explanations"? Is it not those Darwinians whom the evidence has forced to hypothecate space aliens to account for the incredibly complex information necessary to instantiate life? It is true some proponents of intelligent design hypothecate God, but the theory itself does not require that God be the intelligent artificer. It only requires some sort of highly advanced intelligence. You mention the solar system, yet the Universe itself appears to have begun in a singularity of time and space out of literally nothing! Cosmologists have been very unhappy with the Big Bank theory since its inception because it implies a beginning and the instantiation of matter out of virtually nothing, thus essentially confirming the Biblical concept of a virtually inexplicable and miraculous creation event. That apparently magical" event is what science tells us occurred and what a coincidence that it dove tails with the Biblical idea of a special creation event (and a beginning).
We are now at 90 pages and you've finally admitted "how life began is not yet understood, but a work in progress" and blithely, "life evolves". "The work in progress (how life began)" is, as a research venture, virtually dead. Read the literature. Scientists are at a loss to explain the instantiation of life and many are quite blunt about the bleak prospects of ever finding a naturalistic explanation. But hope and faith spring eternal! In any event, what does "life evolves" mean? If it means that finch beaks change in size in consequence of environmental stressors, that is wholly non-controversial, but that is not what Neo-Darwinism is really about, Its about the much grander claim that the same process that causes variation in finch beak size also has the power to morph a finch into existence from some other creature in the first instance. But that idea is contradicted by the evidence at virtually every turn, including (and especially) the fossil record. What we know is that even with intelligent intervention (in the laboratory) species can only change so far (not into new species, mind you) and when the special breeding and selection (by human intelligence) is withdrawn, the specially bred specimens revert back to the mean within a few generations. Thousands of years of dog breeding by human intelligence has not changed a dog into a cat. In other words, biology and genetics overwhelmingly suggests the immutability of species, not their changeability.
Finally, the argument isn't "we don't know, therefore God". The argument is: we know that in all of human experience specified complex information comes from pre-existing intelligence. Specified complex information is a condition precedent to the existence of life. It is essentially impossible that natural processes could have created this information. Reasoning from the evidence to the best explanation then (the same logic Darwin applied!) the best explanation is that some sort of pre-existing super intelligence is responsible for the instantiation and variety of life on earth.
Yep. Especially hard to come up with that missing link.
We found those a very long time ago. You're stuck in the 19th Century.
Look at the crown on top of this homo erectus skull. What gorilla or chimpanzee has one anything close to that, making room for a huge brain, by gorilla and chimpanzee standards, yet not nearly so large a brain as ours.
Such deliberation is not needed, rather does it needs to be over flogged. Only a fool will think we are all alone in this universe. that is where to start all this from. Now, Call it what you want, Religion, Magik or Science but all these thing were created/made by an entity, God or what anyone wants to believe. The Universe is fat too complicated to be existing by chance, the possibility of the chances that will take for the universe to form itself all by itself without an original vaccum so absolutely impossible. As a Christian i belive GOD made all things possible. Science can't understand God and that where the problem lies.
“It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million. For as long as there been humans we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. This perspective is a courageous continuation of our penchant for constructing and testing mental models of the skies; the Sun as a red-hot stone, the stars as a celestial flame, the Galaxy as the backbone of night.” Carl Sagan
Such deliberation is not needed, rather does it needs to be over flogged. Only a fool will think we are all alone in this universe. that is where to start all this from. Now, Call it what you want, Religion, Magik or Science but all these thing were created/made by an entity, God or what anyone wants to believe. The Universe is fat too complicated to be existing by chance, the possibility of the chances that will take for the universe to form itself all by itself without an original vaccum so absolutely impossible. As a Christian i belive GOD made all things possible. Science can't understand God and that where the problem lies.
Science can understand how man has a desire to develop and believe in a god and that is where the real problem of your argument lies.
The state and condition a star is observed to be in tells you what stage of life they are in, a red giant for example is a star that has used most of its hydrogen and has expanded to a more diffuse state, cooler surface, etc. Google 'young star formation regions' to get pictures and information on stars forming withn clouds of hydrogen.
So you don't know.
I happen to know, I even do a bit of amateur astronomy, star gazing using a Maksitov reflector, the problem is that you are not willing to consider what I say or what I explain.
That's why you should educate yourself by looking at the evidence of star formation for yourself. Not just telescope pictures of star nurseries and star formation but the physics driving star formation, the nuclear process, fusion, hydrogen to helium, etc, by which stars go through the stages of their lifecycles and how this is observed by astronomers and astrophysicists.
How many stars have you seen form while you watched? O yea. None. Theoretically it take longer than several life times.
Tell us again how the first life appeared. O yea. No one knows.
Your faith is the unseen and untestable is fantastic. Too bad it's in yourself instead of the Lasting God.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Jesus quoted Genesis more than any other book. It has lots "to do with the message of Jesus."
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Jesus quoted Genesis more than any other book. It has lots "to do with the message of Jesus."
" And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
well, to speculate which more than one of us here on the fire are fond of doing, some have suggested the whole thingy is a phase change plasma or chemistry. that causes the stars to come out at night, and the sun to lighten the world up for the benefit of the trees during the day.
some are convinced that the trees and humans are mirror images of each other. the trees breathe out, and humans breathe in, and vice versa.
but i'm straying from the main objective of the thread, and that's to either substantiate or discredit the evolution hypothesis.
what if evolution is just one minor facet of the bigger story? fake news you say? well, we all know about that stuff.
i'd like to think the earth is becoming very old. after 6,000 years would that be the case, or not likely?
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state?
Seriously, why would He? Everything we know, let's take the bible, indicates that the creator wants to make himself known to humanity, not play hide and seek.
See the work of Georges Lemaître concerning aging the universe through universal expansion. He was a Jesuit trained Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. (The Catholic Church trying to suppress science again. )
Takes the same degree of faith to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in various theological texts, as it does to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in support of the theory of evolution.
Nope.
We have the fossils and the DNA. In other words, we have evidence is support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, so no faith required.
No difference from deriving a conclusion from written words, and deriving a conclusion from fossilized artifacts.
Somebody wrote it, therefore it's true regardless of the evidence?
The bible has no evidence foundation equal to the fossil and DNA evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection.
some are convinced that the trees and humans are mirror images of each other. the trees breathe out, and humans breathe in, and vice versa.
Ents.
i am personally glad that many orgs. over the world have telescopes set up on mtns, etc. to address the advent of outside objects, groups, etc. traveling toward the urth.
And yet we miss so much. Not long ago an asteroid capable of doing significant damage whizzed by at astronomically close range and we didn't see it coming. Which may be reassuring to those who said they don't want to see it coming on the how do you want to die thread.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
I don't reply to unattributed quackdoodles. But for your information, the Veil Nebula (a supernova remnant) is older than that.
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Jesus quoted Genesis more than any other book. It has lots "to do with the message of Jesus."
If Jesus believed in the "miracles" of Genesis, he was simply wrong. After all, he never made any claim to understanding science, anthropology, or biology,
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
Got a link to a reputable source?
How about a link to a peer review article in a real journal such as Nature?
Why do educated people believe the evidence of evolution and uneducated people believe pre-literate myths that have been proven not to be true?
Being uneducated should not be a requirement for being a Christian.
Talking snakes, 6000 year old universes, worldwide floods? None of this has anything to do with the message of Jesus. Or with reality.
Not to mention Ringman's feeble attempts to explain gas pressure vs. gravity. While those who believe this drivel are sincere, they are more to be pitied than censured.
Jesus quoted Genesis more than any other book. It has lots "to do with the message of Jesus."
If Jesus believed in the "miracles" of Genesis, he was simply wrong. After all, he never made any claim to understanding science, anthropology, or biology,
He even preached against washing one's hands before eating, so no, not a sound scientific source.
I am not about to worship science. My God does not change.
Of course he's changed.
Introduction of Satan after the Jews spent some time in Babylon.
Old Testament vs. New. That's a HUGE change.
From stoning homosexuals to the many churches that now cater to them.
Christianity's been evolving since before it started.
Not to mention that at one time God had many sons. (See the Book of Job).
At first, God spoke to humans in their own language.
Later, God lived atop a high mountain which his followers could see from far away.
Still later, the spirit of God resided in a box made of gopher wood. After the ark was destroyed, God was spoken to inside of a large temple in Jerusalem, where only self-appointed priests could go.
When the Romans destroyed the temple, we evolved the concept of God being everywhere.
Then, after Christianity, Christianity split into many denominations who believe the other denominations are heretics.
We complicate religion with too many useless details and myths. When Rabbi Hillel, 2000 years ago, was asked if he could recite the entire Talmud while standing on one leg, he stood on one leg and said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. All else is merely commentary."
Takes the same degree of faith to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in various theological texts, as it does to believe the parables and prophecies put forth in support of the theory of evolution.
That's the fallacy of equivocation for you. Ignoring both evidence and the absence of evidence in an attempt to justify a belief that lacks justification to the point of demonstrating the worthlessness of the foundation of religious belief, faith, as a means of sorting fact from fiction.....implying that there is no such thing as factual information or evidence, that all is taken on 'faith' and is therefore of equal value. Which is about an absurd a claim that it is possible to make.
The state and condition a star is observed to be in tells you what stage of life they are in, a red giant for example is a star that has used most of its hydrogen and has expanded to a more diffuse state, cooler surface, etc. Google 'young star formation regions' to get pictures and information on stars forming withn clouds of hydrogen.
So you don't know.
I happen to know, I even do a bit of amateur astronomy, star gazing using a Maksitov reflector, the problem is that you are not willing to consider what I say or what I explain.
That's why you should educate yourself by looking at the evidence of star formation for yourself. Not just telescope pictures of star nurseries and star formation but the physics driving star formation, the nuclear process, fusion, hydrogen to helium, etc, by which stars go through the stages of their lifecycles and how this is observed by astronomers and astrophysicists.
How many stars have you seen form while you watched? O yea. None. Theoretically it take longer than several life times.
Tell us again how the first life appeared. O yea. No one knows.
Your faith is the unseen and untestable is fantastic. Too bad it's in yourself instead of the Lasting God.
You can see stars in the process of formation, just as you can see stars in the last stages of their life cycles.
Below is W3, deemed to be one of the most active factories of massive stars in our entire galaxy, home to a glob of stellar mass many hundred thousand times the mass of our Sun:
The bible has no evidence foundation equal to the fossil and DNA evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Even worse than there beiing no evidence for the creation events in Genesis, ther is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that they did not and cannot have occurred.
For instance, snakes do not have a Broca's organ, a hyoid bone, or a voice box. Snakes don't talk (to Eve or anyone else).
The earth is proven beyond doubt to be much older than 6,000 years.
There are many "missing links" between ancient life forms, whose lifetimes we can date well, and modern ones, including humans. (Some poster tried to discredit evolution by saying a pig's tooth was mistaken for a hominid. Well, so what? There are many thousands of fossil hominid teeth.)
The rainbow was NOT created by God after Noah's non-existent flood. Rainbows are a natural (and necessary) consequence of electromagnetic radiation (including light). Wihout electromagnetism, there could have been no universe in the first place.
Ringman clings to every straw he can find to pretend evolution did not occur. Why?
He says that just because star formation and evolution take a long time, and we cannot see the process from beginning to end, it cannot happen.
Suppose Ringman went out in the woods for 20 minutes before hunting season to see if there were deer in the area. Suppose he saw deer trails, lots of deer tracks, buck rubs on every other sapling, deer droppings, and smelled deer urine? Would he conclude there were no deer because he hadn't seen any in 20 minutes?
I will ask again. Does Christianity have to be so dumbed down that only those with low intelligence or little education are allowed in?
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
a very fair question.
if one can't think about god, then what's the issue?
i personally suspect that our ability to examine ourselves didn't come from evolution?
Such deliberation is not needed, rather does it needs to be over flogged. Only a fool will think we are all alone in this universe. that is where to start all this from. Now, Call it what you want, Religion, Magik or Science but all these thing were created/made by an entity, God or what anyone wants to believe. The Universe is fat too complicated to be existing by chance, the possibility of the chances that will take for the universe to form itself all by itself without an original vaccum so absolutely impossible. As a Christian i belive GOD made all things possible. Science can't understand God and that where the problem lies.
“It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million. For as long as there been humans we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. This perspective is a courageous continuation of our penchant for constructing and testing mental models of the skies; the Sun as a red-hot stone, the stars as a celestial flame, the Galaxy as the backbone of night.” Carl Sagan
“If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It... prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy?Science is, at least in part, informed worship.” Carl
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective.
Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al).
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
I don't reply to unattributed quackdoodles. But for your information, the Veil Nebula (a supernova remnant) is older than that.
How do you know? What is the dating system you used?
Ringman clings to every straw he can find to pretend evolution did not occur. Why?
He says that just because star formation and evolution take a long time, and we cannot see the process from beginning to end, it cannot happen.
Suppose Ringman went out in the woods for 20 minutes before hunting season to see if there were deer in the area. Suppose he saw deer trails, lots of deer tracks, buck rubs on every other sapling, deer droppings, and smelled deer urine? Would he conclude there were no deer because he hadn't seen any in 20 minutes?
I will ask again. Does Christianity have to be so dumbed down that only those with low intelligence or little education are allowed in?
I don't think that was the original intent.
That is an excellent parable (analogy, but I am trying to be more biblical).
Ringman clings to every straw he can find to pretend evolution did not occur. Why?
He says that just because star formation and evolution take a long time, and we cannot see the process from beginning to end, it cannot happen.
Suppose Ringman went out in the woods for 20 minutes before hunting season to see if there were deer in the area. Suppose he saw deer trails, lots of deer tracks, buck rubs on every other sapling, deer droppings, and smelled deer urine? Would he conclude there were no deer because he hadn't seen any in 20 minutes?
I will ask again. Does Christianity have to be so dumbed down that only those with low intelligence or little education are allowed in?
I don't think that was the original intent.
You are adding to what I am asking. You believe in the unknowable because you want it to be true. Not because someone has observed it.
The idea that only uneducated and low intelligence or little education is required to be a Christian is a grossly ignorant and exaggerated error. There are hundreds of Ph.D level and masters degree scientists who are Christians. Many accept God's Word as written. Just the other day I saw a video by a Ph.D scientist who went to a creation seminar to correct the speakers. He was converted due to the abundance of factual information presented and eventually became a Christian.
Again I ask, Where did the first information come that made the first living cell?
Cause the only argument they got is that (in their opinion), the religion stuff makes even less sense than the theory of evolution.
No.
Evolution stands on it's own merits. Conversely, creationist myths cannot. Even if tomorrow evolution was effectively refuted, you would still have all your work ahead of you, because it would not prove your belief true, you would still be left with no good evidence for your beliefs.
Later, God lived atop a high mountain which his followers could see from far away.
Still later, the spirit of God resided in a box made of gopher wood. After the ark was destroyed, God was spoken to inside of a large temple in Jerusalem, where only self-appointed priests could go.
When the Romans destroyed the temple, we evolved the concept of God being everywhere.
CF Christians have said God is beyond the 3D time/space thing...
Ark of the Covenant;
Exodus 25:8 "And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
Exodus 25:22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.
Infinite God not constrained by time, infinite God not bound by space, became manifest in one locale. A God not bound by time, bound Himself to the time-bound A God not bound by space, bound Himself to that box.
The one above all natural world creational constraints wasnt everywhere, nor was he just anywhere...He was right there.
Cause the only argument they got is that (in their opinion), the religion stuff makes even less sense than the theory of evolution.
No.
Evolution stands on it's own merits. Conversely, creationist myths cannot. Even if tomorrow evolution was effectively refuted, you would still have all your work ahead of you, because it would not prove your belief true, you would still be left with no good evidence for your beliefs.
The theory of evolution fails on its own merits.
That's why it's called the theory of evolution.
No need for refutation, at all. The burden is on its proponents.
94 pages by my fire screen count, and of course, the burden hasn't been met, and likely never will be.
But what *has* occurred on all these pages, is evolutians disparaging theistic viewpoints as a purported support of the theory of evolution.
Evolutians appear to be very sensitive about their faith.
And certainly, none would ever deny Darwin three times before the cock crows.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
Rich, considering that some star systems and galaxies are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. And considering that we are looking at them, definitively demonstrates that such star or galaxy is at least millions of years old.
We can not say if that star is still there today. But we know it was there millions of years ago, because that is how long it took the light to reach Earth.
Fubs, Please learn what "theory" means in science. It's not what you think it is, and your ignorance is showing. Again.
And it certainly does not fail on its own merits, but rather succeeds quite splendidly. Over and over and over again.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Evolutians can't exist without theists.
Cause the only argument they got is that (in their opinion), the religion stuff makes even less sense than the theory of evolution.
No.
Evolution stands on it's own merits. Conversely, creationist myths cannot. Even if tomorrow evolution was effectively refuted, you would still have all your work ahead of you, because it would not prove your belief true, you would still be left with no good evidence for your beliefs.
The theory of evolution fails on its own merits.
That's why it's called the theory of evolution.
No need for refutation, at all. The burden is on its proponents.
94 pages by my fire screen count, and of course, the burden hasn't been met, and likely never will be.
But what *has* occurred on all these pages, is evolutians disparaging theistic viewpoints as a purported support of the theory of evolution.
Evolutians appear to be very sensitive about their faith.
And certainly, none would ever deny Darwin three times before the cock crows.
Yep.
Anyone who uses the word Theory like Fubarski does in relation to science only demonstrates his extreme level of scientific ignorance.
Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.
Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.
The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.
All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.
Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.
Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.
The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.
All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.
Call it the theory of evolutians.
Good job continuing to display your ignorance.
He's some help for you from Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
Just because the New Testament uses the format of identifying that a story is a parable doesn't mean all stories in the Bible are meant to be taken literally.
Wikipedia, a good liberal site that can be relied upon for promoting liberal falsehoods.
Let's try a more credible source:
"In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts. "
This would be from your "science" boys themselves.
Like I posted, you look at a fossilized toe bone, and christen it a whole new species.
Pull that crap in any other science, and you'd get laughed outta the building.
There's no question "evolution", which just means change, happens.
But the theory of evolution, the explanation of what the change means, is unproven, and isn't likely to ever *be* proven, as I posted.
Fairly apparent through alla these pages, is that ever time you evolutians get handed your head because you can't prove the theory, you drag the conversation down with semantics.
Tried/failed again here, but it doesn't matter.
You can't prove the theory, and that's all that does matter.
Cause the only argument they got is that (in their opinion), the religion stuff makes even less sense than the theory of evolution.
No.
Evolution stands on it's own merits. Conversely, creationist myths cannot. Even if tomorrow evolution was effectively refuted, you would still have all your work ahead of you, because it would not prove your belief true, you would still be left with no good evidence for your beliefs.
The theory of evolution fails on its own merits.
That's why it's called the theory of evolution.
No need for refutation, at all. The burden is on its proponents.
94 pages by my fire screen count, and of course, the burden hasn't been met, and likely never will be.
But what *has* occurred on all these pages, is evolutians disparaging theistic viewpoints as a purported support of the theory of evolution.
Evolutians appear to be very sensitive about their faith.
And certainly, none would ever deny Darwin three times before the cock crows.
Evolution is proven. The 'theory of evolution' refers to the means and mechanisms of evolution.
Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.
Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.
The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.
All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.
Call it the theory of evolutians.
''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
There was a comment earlier that our ability to think made us special and perhaps alluded to having a soul - either way something extra provided by god and not otherwise " natural". There's plenty of cases where personality has changed following brain damage or disease. Not a soul, but biological function I'm afraid.
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
Rich, considering that some star systems and galaxies are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. And considering that we are looking at them, definitively demonstrates that such star or galaxy is at least millions of years old.
We can not say if that star is still there today. But we know it was there millions of years ago, because that is how long it took the light to reach Earth.
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
Just because the New Testament uses the format of identifying that a story is a parable doesn't mean all stories in the Bible are meant to be taken literally.
Okay. You use the Bible the way you want and I will use It correctly.
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.
Geology has billions of dead things buried in water born sediment all over the world. That is exactly what one would look for for evidence of a world wide flood. Fossils are the preserved bones of the dead things. Genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetic are a few things used to support Special Creation. Adaptation was predicted by William Blythe, a creationists, as God's mechanism for preserving animals, ten years prior to Darwin's' book
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.
Geology has billions of dead things buried in water born sediment all over the world. That is exactly what one would look for for evidence of a world wide flood. Fossils are the preserved bones of the dead things. Genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetic are a few things used to support Special Creation. Adaptation was predicted by William Blythe, a creationists, as God's mechanism for preserving animals, ten years prior to Darwin's' book
The strata runs deep, there are no large or small animals fossils to be found in precambrian layers.....3 billion years of microbes before conditions enabled an explosion of complexity and diversity. That is not evidence for special creation, it is evidence for natural evolution. Nor is it anything like genesis describes.
Creationists sift the evidence and their explanations of that evidence through the filter of their faith and what comes out of that filtering does not explain the evidence.
With the universe being about 6,000 years old there;s not much time to play with. God added in stars that appear to be of different ages just to fool you infidels.
A couple years ago there was a non-creationist astronomer on TV who developed a program to plot novas and super novas. His program could track the debris up to about a million years. He enlisted the aid of astronomers from around the world to use his program. After a few years the oldest they could find was about 7,000 years since its destruction. Maybe one of you evolutionists could fill them in on the missing years.
Or is it you guys are not accepting facts.
Like I asked, If there was an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being could He create what we now see in its present state? This is not a trick question. And its more philosophical than science or religion.
Rich, considering that some star systems and galaxies are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. And considering that we are looking at them, definitively demonstrates that such star or galaxy is at least millions of years old.
We can not say if that star is still there today. But we know it was there millions of years ago, because that is how long it took the light to reach Earth.
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
Don't you think that physicists take relativity into account?
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
Only in the sense that, if it were indeed wrong, it would be extremely easy to prove it wrong. Ways to prove evolution wrong would be manifold, were it in fact wrong. You'd hardly be able to research it without proving it wrong constantly. Just for one example, find a single equine fossil prior to (beneath, in undisturbed strata) the Paleocene Epoch. In terms of life on earth, that's like ten minutes till midnight on a clock where midnight represents the present. Were evolution false, those fossils would be abundant. Heck, you'd find modern day horses at every level you dug (all the way back to the Cambrian) if evolution were false. Find one, and you've disproved evolution.
That's what we mean when we say evolution is disprovable. It doesn't actually mean that there's a chance it will eventually be disproved. With so many ways to disprove it, were it untrue, it would have already been disproved long ago. Now we're beyond that, and arguing only over precise aspects of the mechanisms by which it occurred.
Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.
Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.
The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.
All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.
Call it the theory of evolutians.
Good job continuing to display your ignorance.
He's some help for you from Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective.
Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al).
I already addressed the definition of faith as defined by the original Webster definition and the meaning of it in Greek--citing a lexicon. The faith you describe is an evolutionist's faith and not a biblical faith.
And there is the practical side that we want to reiterate again ...
Theistic views birthed our country and the other beneficent countries of the world and gave them the liberties that we enjoy based on all men being created and therefore deemed of equal value. Theistic premises do not guarantee that man will not be selfish or remain uncorrupted; but they provide moral restraint against selfishness, hold all humanity to an equal standard of justice, and provide the societal framework for the potential development of beneficence. Theistic based governments have provided a framework for the liberty to express atheism and all other forms of religion, providing they do not cross the foundational moral boundaries of that society. At the point in time in which theism is completely rejected or overwhelmed by the due process of a free society, that society will, experience the loss of liberties, and begin a moral decline from which there will be no recovery. This will proceed under the guise of science until it reaches the inevitable Big Bang that will ultimately destroy itself.
There is no moral basis for human equality in either evolution or atheism. Human equality in an atheistic or evolutionary context lies solely with the arbitrary whims of the power structure, because the power structure answers to no transcendent moral authority and only answers to itself. This is why governments based on the premises of evolution and atheism have consistently demonstrated their tyrannical despotism, their eventual corruption, the loss of the practice of liberty of conscience, and often even basic human rights for some dissident segments of the population. When evolution and atheism are the fundamental premises, they will suppress and try to forcibly eradicate theism because it becomes enemy number 1 to the agenda for is opposed to its very foundational premises.
There is no moral basis for human equality in either evolution or atheism. Human equality in an atheistic or evolutionary context lies solely with the arbitrary whims of the power structure, because the power structure answers to no transcendent moral authority and only answers to itself. This is why governments based on the premises of evolution and atheism have consistently demonstrated their tyrannical despotism, their eventual corruption, the loss of the practice of liberty of conscience, and often even basic human rights for some dissident segments of the population. When evolution and atheism are the fundamental premises, they will suppress and try to forcibly eradicate theism because it becomes enemy number 1 to the agenda for is opposed to its very foundational premises.
I have a question.
The premise of the above paragraph is that only withing theism resides human equality and moral propriety.
How do you explain that every major religion has not only condoned inequality, but they have at various times promoted it and in the case of christian religion the despotic and tyrannical opposition to fact in the form of the inquisition and the killing and imprisoning of the victims thereof?
That seems to me to be no less tyrannical and despotic than any government. It also seems to me that to be arguing in favor of a theocracy that has practiced such despotism is more than just ingenuous, it is A bold faced lie intended to deceive or it is pure plain and simple ignorance. Either of which makes such debate a fools errand.
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.
Geology has billions of dead things buried in water born sediment all over the world. That is exactly what one would look for for evidence of a world wide flood. Fossils are the preserved bones of the dead things. Genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetic are a few things used to support Special Creation. Adaptation was predicted by William Blythe, a creationists, as God's mechanism for preserving animals, ten years prior to Darwin's' book
Do you really believe that all those billions of fossils were all deposited at the same time in one flood?
It took millions of years to bury all those billions of dead things.
There is no moral basis for human equality in either evolution or atheism. Human equality in an atheistic or evolutionary context lies solely with the arbitrary whims of the power structure, because the power structure answers to no transcendent moral authority and only answers to itself. This is why governments based on the premises of evolution and atheism have consistently demonstrated their tyrannical despotism, their eventual corruption, the loss of the practice of liberty of conscience, and often even basic human rights for some dissident segments of the population. When evolution and atheism are the fundamental premises, they will suppress and try to forcibly eradicate theism because it becomes enemy number 1 to the agenda for is opposed to its very foundational premises.
I have a question.
The premise of the above paragraph is that only withing theism resides human equality and moral propriety.
How do you explain that every major religion has not only condoned inequality, but they have at various times promoted it and in the case of christian religion the despotic and tyrannical opposition to fact in the form of the inquisition and the killing and imprisoning of the victims thereof?
That seems to me to be no less tyrannical and despotic than any government. It also seems to me that to be arguing in favor of a theocracy that has practiced such despotism is more than just ingenuous, it is A bold faced lie intended to deceive or it is pure plain and simple ignorance. Either of which makes such debate a fools errand.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
In summary I'm promoting what our founders promoted--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty.
''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''
And yet may be wrong.
The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.
Geology has billions of dead things buried in water born sediment all over the world. That is exactly what one would look for for evidence of a world wide flood. Fossils are the preserved bones of the dead things. Genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetic are a few things used to support Special Creation. Adaptation was predicted by William Blythe, a creationists, as God's mechanism for preserving animals, ten years prior to Darwin's' book
Do you really believe that all those billions of fossils were all deposited at the same time in one flood?
It took millions of years to bury all those billions of dead things.
What kept them from decaying before they fossilized over those millions of years?
https://biologydictionary.net › fossil-record Fossil Record Definition A fossil record is a group of fossils which has been analyzed and arranged chronologically and in taxonomic order. Fossils are created when organisms die, are incased in dirt and rock, and are slowly replaced by minerals over time. What is left is a mineral impression of an animal which once existed. Many fields and specialties are utilized to categorize and arrange these fossils, including comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, and DNA analysis. Using the data from the fossil record, scientist try to recreate phylogenies, or trees describing the relationships between animals, both alive and extinct. The fossil record helps inform how different groups of animals are related through evolution.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
In summary I'm promoting what our founders promoted--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty.
How did our founders promote equality for the Indians, the slaves, the non land owners, the females of or species ETC?
You are a lying sack of SCHIT. They did not. It is just that simple. It too several constitutional amendments and a lot of years to legally create equality which did not of and by itself create factual equality. Nor have we yet created religious equality amongst the citizens of this country despite what simple minded people like to think.
Name three societies founded on atheism and three founded on evolution.
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
What a froolish thing to say!
I assume you are trying to use the slowing of time by gravity to explain how stars can appear older than otherwise. Well, it would take a very massive object.to do this meaningfully, more massive than anything in our galazy that would affect the lifetimes of stars more than a bitrsy bit. You aren't going to weasel out of the universe's real age--13,800,000,000 years rounded off--to pretend that it could b interpreted as only being 6,000 years old.
A few pages ago, BTW, you asked me what time scale I used to assert the Veil Nebula (and many other supernova remnants) is much older than 6,000 yfears. I do not have time to explain to you how astronomers figure out the age of stuff and you do not have the ability to understand it if I did. Suffice it to say it's "universally" understood. By astronomers.
And while we're at it, you claimed to have seen a video of some "scientist" who went to a creationist meeting and became converted. Can you tell us the name of said scientist, if one exists?
https://biologydictionary.net › fossil-record Fossil Record Definition A fossil record is a group of fossils which has been analyzed and arranged chronologically and in taxonomic order. Fossils are created when organisms die, are incased in dirt and rock, and are slowly replaced by minerals over time. What is left is a mineral impression of an animal which once existed. Many fields and specialties are utilized to categorize and arrange these fossils, including comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, and DNA analysis. Using the data from the fossil record, scientist try to recreate phylogenies, or trees describing the relationships between animals, both alive and extinct. The fossil record helps inform how different groups of animals are related through evolution.
So do we have fossils now in the formation stages, if so where?
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
In summary I'm promoting what our founders promoted--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty.
How did our founders promote equality for the Indians, the slaves, the non land owners, the females of or species ETC?
You are a lying sack of SCHIT. They did not. It is just that simple. It too several constitutional amendments and a lot of years to legally create equality which did not of and by itself create factual equality. Nor have we yet created religious equality amongst the citizens of this country despite what simple minded people like to think.
Name three societies founded on atheism and three founded on evolution.
And what pray tell was used as the basis for the arguments for abolition of slavery and the rest of those groups?
https://biologydictionary.net › fossil-record Fossil Record Definition A fossil record is a group of fossils which has been analyzed and arranged chronologically and in taxonomic order. Fossils are created when organisms die, are incased in dirt and rock, and are slowly replaced by minerals over time. What is left is a mineral impression of an animal which once existed. Many fields and specialties are utilized to categorize and arrange these fossils, including comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, and DNA analysis. Using the data from the fossil record, scientist try to recreate phylogenies, or trees describing the relationships between animals, both alive and extinct. The fossil record helps inform how different groups of animals are related through evolution.
So do we have fossils now in the formation stages, if so where?
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
In summary I'm promoting what our founders promoted--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty.
How did our founders promote equality for the Indians, the slaves, the non land owners, the females of or species ETC?
You are a lying sack of SCHIT. They did not. It is just that simple. It too several constitutional amendments and a lot of years to legally create equality which did not of and by itself create factual equality. Nor have we yet created religious equality amongst the citizens of this country despite what simple minded people like to think.
Name three societies founded on atheism and three founded on evolution.
And what pray tell was used as the basis for the arguments for abolition of slavery and the rest of those groups?
And what does any of this have to do with evolution? You guys do go off on irrelevant tangents at times.
https://biologydictionary.net › fossil-record Fossil Record Definition A fossil record is a group of fossils which has been analyzed and arranged chronologically and in taxonomic order. Fossils are created when organisms die, are incased in dirt and rock, and are slowly replaced by minerals over time. What is left is a mineral impression of an animal which once existed. Many fields and specialties are utilized to categorize and arrange these fossils, including comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, and DNA analysis. Using the data from the fossil record, scientist try to recreate phylogenies, or trees describing the relationships between animals, both alive and extinct. The fossil record helps inform how different groups of animals are related through evolution.
So do we have fossils now in the formation stages, if so where?
Of course. All over the world.
Here's a partially fossilized head of a wild boar. It's a mixture of pure replacement minerals and natural bone preserved by not being exposed to oxygen, and thereby not being exposed to the sorts of bacteria that can breakdown bone matter.
https://biologydictionary.net › fossil-record Fossil Record Definition A fossil record is a group of fossils which has been analyzed and arranged chronologically and in taxonomic order. Fossils are created when organisms die, are incased in dirt and rock, and are slowly replaced by minerals over time. What is left is a mineral impression of an animal which once existed. Many fields and specialties are utilized to categorize and arrange these fossils, including comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, and DNA analysis. Using the data from the fossil record, scientist try to recreate phylogenies, or trees describing the relationships between animals, both alive and extinct. The fossil record helps inform how different groups of animals are related through evolution.
So do we have fossils now in the formation stages, if so where?
… In March of 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting "an almost instantaneous emergence of life" ... Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
The strata runs deep, there are no large or small animals fossils to be found in precambrian layers.....3 billion years of microbes before conditions enabled an explosion of complexity and diversity. That is not evidence for special creation, it is evidence for natural evolution. Nor is it anything like genesis describes.
Creationists sift the evidence and their explanations of that evidence through the filter of their faith and what comes out of that filtering does not explain the evidence.
Evolutionists sift the evidence and their explanations of that evidence through the filter of their faith and what comes out of that filtering does not explain the evidence.
The strata runs deep, there are single cell small animals fossils to be found in Precambrianc layers. You haven't read about them because it doesn't fit your narrative. Immediately after the Precambrian layer is the Cambrian layer. Many evolutionist call the abundant life forms found there the Cambrian explosion. There are NO transitional forms from one to the other. Exactly as a Creationist predicts.
Genesis describes the reason there is a Precambrian, Cambrian and all the other strata. It's called the Genesis Flood. Like the Bible teaches, people reject the obvious and worship the creation instead of the Creator.
[quote=MILES58][quote=Thunderstick]How do you explain that every major religion has not only condoned inequality, but they have at various times promoted it and in the case of christian religion the despotic and tyrannical opposition to fact in the form of the inquisition and the killing and imprisoning of the victims thereof?[quote]
Your use of the "inquisition" is a demonstration of what happens when unbelievers take over authority from Bible believers. Read "Foxes Book of Martyrs". A real eye opener for folks who are unfamiliar with the middle years of the Catholic Church. By the way I'm not knocking the modern Catholic Church.
The strata runs deep, there are no large or small animals fossils to be found in precambrian layers.....3 billion years of microbes before conditions enabled an explosion of complexity and diversity. That is not evidence for special creation, it is evidence for natural evolution. Nor is it anything like genesis describes.
Creationists sift the evidence and their explanations of that evidence through the filter of their faith and what comes out of that filtering does not explain the evidence.
Evolutionists sift the evidence and their explanations of that evidence through the filter of their faith and what comes out of that filtering does not explain the evidence.
The strata runs deep, there are single cell small animals fossils to be found in Precambrianc layers. You haven't read about them because it doesn't fit your narrative. Immediately after the Precambrian layer is the Cambrian layer. Many evolutionist call the abundant life forms found there the Cambrian explosion. There are NO transitional forms from one to the other. Exactly as a Creationist predicts.
Genesis describes the reason there is a Precambrian, Cambrian and all the other strata. It's called the Genesis Flood. Like the Bible teaches, people reject the obvious and worship the creation instead of the Creator.
And what would be the age of the Precambrian and Cambrian layers you attribute to the Genesis flood?
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
What a froolish thing to say!
I assume you are trying to use the slowing of time by gravity to explain how stars can appear older than otherwise. Well, it would take a very massive object.to do this meaningfully, more massive than anything in our galazy that would affect the lifetimes of stars more than a bitrsy bit. You aren't going to weasel out of the universe's real age--13,800,000,000 years rounded off--to pretend that it could b interpreted as only being 6,000 years old.
A few pages ago, BTW, you asked me what time scale I used to assert the Veil Nebula (and many other supernova remnants) is much older than 6,000 yfears. I do not have time to explain to you how astronomers figure out the age of stuff and you do not have the ability to understand it if I did. Suffice it to say it's "universally" understood. By astronomers.
And while we're at it, you claimed to have seen a video of some "scientist" who went to a creationist meeting and became converted. Can you tell us the name of said scientist, if one exists?
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you. Read his book. Like I posted earlier, you are basing your age on uniformitarianism. If there is an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being certainly He knows more than you, including how to create a universe in its present condemned state. You can't answer the question about the time scale because you don't know. I agree the supernova remnants are older than 6,000 years. They are at least a thousand years older.
By the way, see if you can find out how many known novae and super novae there are. I bet you will not find more than about 300. That opinion is based on Adam sinning and God cursing the universe about 7,000 years ago.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
So if fossils started forming over four BILLION years ago your Genesis flood explanation doesn’t hold water.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
But the ages of the various fossils differ by, in many cases, hundreds of millions of years (confirmed by radiometric dating), e.g., a fossil of a Dimetrodon vs a fossil of a Neanderthal man.
PS Why don't we ever find Dimetrodon fossils amongst T-Rex Fossils, or at least at the same strata, since you assert they lived at the same time, and were killed by the same global flood?
The Declaration's most famous sentence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Even today, this inspirational language expresses a profound commitment to human equality.
This ideal of equality has certainly influenced the course of American history. Early women's rights activists at SENECA FALLS in 1848 modeled their "DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS" in precisely the same terms as the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they said, "that all men and women are created equal." Similarly, the African-American anti-slavery activist DAVID WALKER challenged white Americans in 1829 to "See your Declaration Americans!!! Do you understand your own language?" Walker dared America to live up to its self-proclaimed ideals. If all men were created equal, then why was slavery legal? http://www.ushistory.org/us/13a.asp
This statement became the ultimate catalyst for the correction of many injustices that were prevalent at the time in which it was written.
Theism and belief in equal creation has been proven to have corrected many injustices whereas on the other hand evolution and atheism has served as the catalyst for greatest injustices and horrors in history.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
So nobody got it? Athens, 600BC, democracy was born. If they really were theists, by Zeus, they would've stayed with the royal monarchy model. Being educated men in a day when classics were taught the founding fathers would've known this.
Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.
Published: Proletary, No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909. Published according to the text in Proletary. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973,Moscow, Volume 15, pp. 402-413. Translated: Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs. Transcription and Markup: R. Cymbala, B. Baggins, D. Walters, and K. Goins.
So nobody got it? Athens, 600BC, democracy was born. If they really were theists, by Zeus, they would've stayed with the royal monarchy model. Being educated men in a day when classics were taught the founding fathers would've known this.
If you want to play word games, what kind of republic?
Representative Republic with strictly limited voting franchise, i.e., limited to those who have a significant stake in the general well being of the nation rather than potential parasites.
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack.
Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia.
JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either.
Relying on fossils as evidence for the theory of evolution makes no sense, and never has.
The creation, and later discovery, of fossils are both random events. There can be no representative sample of a cross-section of fauna at the time, nor any idea of the population of a particular species extant at any particular time. A species might have numbered in the millions, but due to geographic location would leave no fossil trace.
For that reason, there can also be no certainty regarding any mutations that may have occurred within a species, even if similarities within specimens are found.
The only thing certain about a fossil, is that the fossilized specimen happened to be preserved, and later discovered.
Unusual, for a person to base their faith on such a random cascade of events.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
Explaining your misconceptions about fossils grows very tiresome. It's like explaining calculus to third grade kids. Why don't you take a few days off and visit a natural history museum? There is an excellent one in Pittsburgh and (I assume) in other large cities in your state as well.
Then you will know why there wasn't any world wide flood.
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning.
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective.
Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al).
I already addressed the definition of faith as defined by the original Webster definition and the meaning of it in Greek--citing a lexicon. The faith you describe is an evolutionist's faith and not a biblical faith.
To have faith essentially means the hope of something being true without evidence. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to know until confirmed.
Keep common usage, multiple meanings in common usage, blanket usage and the fallacy of equivocation in mind.
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
''faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent''
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews)
Webster's New World College Dictionary defines faith as "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence."
In other words, not visible, not tangible, no instrinsic evidence, just a virtue of hope or wishful thinking, that God will one day deliver on a promise.
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
What a froolish thing to say!
I assume you are trying to use the slowing of time by gravity to explain how stars can appear older than otherwise. Well, it would take a very massive object.to do this meaningfully, more massive than anything in our galazy that would affect the lifetimes of stars more than a bitrsy bit. You aren't going to weasel out of the universe's real age--13,800,000,000 years rounded off--to pretend that it could b interpreted as only being 6,000 years old.
A few pages ago, BTW, you asked me what time scale I used to assert the Veil Nebula (and many other supernova remnants) is much older than 6,000 yfears. I do not have time to explain to you how astronomers figure out the age of stuff and you do not have the ability to understand it if I did. Suffice it to say it's "universally" understood. By astronomers.
And while we're at it, you claimed to have seen a video of some "scientist" who went to a creationist meeting and became converted. Can you tell us the name of said scientist, if one exists?
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you. Read his book. Like I posted earlier, you are basing your age on uniformitarianism. If there is an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being certainly He knows more than you, including how to create a universe in its present condemned state. You can't answer the question about the time scale because you don't know. I agree the supernova remnants are older than 6,000 years. They are at least a thousand years older.
By the way, see if you can find out how many known novae and super novae there are. I bet you will not find more than about 300. That opinion is based on Adam sinning and God cursing the universe about 7,000 years ago.
Russell Humphries of The Institute for Creation Research??
Do you have a link to his peer reviewed journal article on this subject in the Journal Nature?
That is a very general and very superficial definition. I would say belief without epistemological proof. That does not exclude evidence but merely indicates the insufficiency of evidence to constitute a proof.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack.
Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia.
JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either.
You're telling me his credentials are not real? What school did he get his degrees from, then? As for JPL, I think he is a quack. We are now even.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
More specifically, his post are all about Marxist.
Not all atheist are Marxist, but Thunderstick doesn't seem to do very well with simple set theory.
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack.
Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia.
JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either.
You're telling me his credentials are not real? What school did he get his degrees from, then? As for JPL, I think he is a quack. We are now even.
Nope not even. You're still lost in fairyland.
First, JPL is not a "he." It's the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That's the part that launches deep space probes. NASA thinks Humphries is a quack.
Second, just because one has a physics degree does not make one knowledgeable about cosmology. Most physicists spend their lives testing different metals for GE.
Third, has Humphries ever submitted a paper to a peer reviewed scientific journal like "Nature?"
Fourth, does he even belong to or attend the IAU?
That makes it four to zero for my side and against creationism. Winning arguments against you on this subject is like stealing candy from a baby.
That is a very general and very superficial definition. I would say belief without epistemological proof. That does not exclude evidence but merely indicates the insufficiency of evidence to constitute a proof.
It's the essence of faith to believe in spite of having insufficient evidence/justification. That is what it means to have 'faith.'
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
Exactly. It used to influence politics as well, and cause the death of millions (?) of people because of the conflict of the different religious "brands". Religion never helped the technological advancement of society and always hindered and repressed it. I don't think it offers any real improvement on society anyway - people know what's right and wrong - you don't need to have a religious faith for that (it's been "in-grained" as a behavior that has helped us to survive and develop or evolve). I don't buy a higher purpose or being special / spiritual - we're just smart monkeys really .
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
Wrong question, ace. "Religion" is 100% man-made. I believe you meant to say "what need is there for a creator."
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
Wrong question, ace. "Religion" is 100% man-made. I believe you meant to say "what need is there for a creator."
But I could be wrong.
I said exactly what I meant to say, nothing more, nothing less, Chief.
Well sport, religion has always been at its core man's attempt to explain how we got here. That's fairly obvious.
So your question makes no sense. There's a surprise.
Whatever stories man has used in an attempt to explain the world and life in ancient times is not necessarily the same as an actual evidence based explanation for these things as in science....Chief.
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning.
Well you walked right into this one ... You are giving dictionary definitions all the time regarding biblical words and not taking context, logic, or original languages into consideration. Now when I deliberately do the same thing you have done continuously you want to object. Thanks for making this very easy to show your double standards. However the difference in these two cases is that the dictionary definition would apply to a theory which is an unproven assumption i.e. macro evolution.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
Explaining your misconceptions about fossils grows very tiresome. It's like explaining calculus to third grade kids. Why don't you take a few days off and visit a natural history museum? There is an excellent one in Pittsburgh and (I assume) in other large cities in your state as well.
Then you will know why there wasn't any world wide flood.
I go there to those occasionally and find myself amused at the attempts to pass this off as science. It's even more entertaining if I can engage someone dubbed an expert in conversation about it.
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective.
Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al).
I already addressed the definition of faith as defined by the original Webster definition and the meaning of it in Greek--citing a lexicon. The faith you describe is an evolutionist's faith and not a biblical faith.
To have faith essentially means the hope of something being true without evidence. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to know until confirmed.
Keep common usage, multiple meanings in common usage, blanket usage and the fallacy of equivocation in mind.
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
''faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent''
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
None. Faith isn't based on proof of God's existence or necessity.
Do you have a link to his peer reviewed journal article on this subject in the Journal Nature?
Peer reviews do not establish truth. Truth can only be discovered--it cannot be created. It is the MO of the evolutionary world not to peer review anything coming from a theistic perspective so as not to give any recognition for the potential exposure of the falsehoods of macro evolution. Then these guys say, we don't have any peer reviews on this topic so we can safely assume it is not science. These are maneuvers that leftists have used for generations.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Leftism--Communism--atheism--evolutionary theory all walk hand in hand. While not all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists. Both atheists and communists espouse the evolutionary theory. Theism is the bulwark against all leftist agendas because you cannot be a leftist and a theist.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories.
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack.
Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia.
JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either.
You're telling me his credentials are not real? What school did he get his degrees from, then? As for JPL, I think he is a quack. We are now even.
Nope not even. You're still lost in fairyland.
First, JPL is not a "he." It's the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That's the part that launches deep space probes. NASA thinks Humphries is a quack.
Second, just because one has a physics degree does not make one knowledgeable about cosmology. Most physicists spend their lives testing different metals for GE.
Third, has Humphries ever submitted a paper to a peer reviewed scientific journal like "Nature?"
Fourth, does he even belong to or attend the IAU?
That makes it four to zero for my side and against creationism. Winning arguments against you on this subject is like stealing candy from a baby.
Since you don't agree with him he's a quack? That's good.
Since Obama turned NASA into a Muzzie organization it has no credibility to me.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories.
If you understood even the first thing about evolution, you would realize that there are direct parallels between capitalism and natural selection. You would know that both the economics of capitalism and evolutionary stable strategies are essentially the same math and that economists and evolutionary biologists have been stealing mathematics from each other for decades. You would also understand that socialism has a form of mathematics that parallels a form of group selection that has been shown NOT to function evolutionarily. Thus, reality is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claim. Why you insist on simply making things up is beyond me, but between you and Ringman, I don't know which is most dishonest or stupid.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories.
To this extent, you are correct, but not in the way you think. The left promotes certain viewpoints because they believe them to be destructive to existing Christian order and civilization, so they promoted psychoanalytic theory when it first came out. They promote Cultural Marxism, too, for the same reason. They promote economic collectivism for the same reason. They promote the LGBTQ Cross Dressing lifestyle for the same reason. And they promote evolution theory for the same reason, i.e., they believe it to be destructive to the existing, Christian, order and civilization. That they promote it, however, even for nefarious reasons, doesn't make it false. Things are either true or false on their own merits.
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well.
As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic.
But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period.
And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal.
You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was.
One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm?
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not...
Yup. You got it wrong.
Nope, he got it right.
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that.
Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims.
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens.
Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds.
is the faith of illiterate superstitious peasant Christians around the time of Jesus different to christians of today?
A little presumptuous and arrogant there, aren't we? People of the time were not stupid idiots, witness the Roman empire, Commerce existed across nations. Jews studied the scripture. Jesus as a child discussed the sacred Jewish texts.
And yes, if you're not locked into sola scriptura the traditions of people of the time of Jesus are acknowledged (so far as they compliment the bible). They were there and heard Him and the apostles. It would be naive to think everything got written down in the bible.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not...
Yup. You got it wrong.
Nope, he got it right.
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that.
Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims.
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens.
Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds.
You could not be more wrong.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03
Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp...
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well.
As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic.
But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period.
And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal.
You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was.
One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm?
If you don't know the first you sure don't know the rest.
As far as thousands go, I couldn't care less. Most folks rely on what they are told and never check things for themselves. You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded.
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not...
Yup. You got it wrong.
Nope, he got it right.
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that.
Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims.
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens.
Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds.
You could not be more wrong.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03
Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp...
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps
Your internet search skills provide a simple cursory gleaning from the lemmings. Go ahead and read your links and show me how it addresses my objections to evolution.
I of course would be more interested in YOUR views, not just some lemming view.
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well.
As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic.
But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period.
And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal.
You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was.
One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm?
If you don't know the first you sure don't know the rest.
As far as thousands go, I couldn't care less. Most folks rely on what they are told and never check things for themselves. You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded.
Ringman,
Did you see that “statement of faith” posted by Indy?
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded.
What four labs? Accordong to whom? I suspect that nobody believes any of the stuff you post except maybe the Billy Bob Bubba Bible School for Grade School Dropouts.
And why haven't you tried to defend the absurd story about the talking snake?
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Leftism--Communism--atheism--evolutionary theory all walk hand in hand. While not all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists. Both atheists and communists espouse the evolutionary theory. Theism is the bulwark against all leftist agendas because you cannot be a leftist and a theist.
Cuba is a communist country, yet they remain predominantly Roman Catholic. Please explain how this is possible?????
While is is true that the Soviet Unions official stance in the early 1900's was of science over religion, they never outlawed religion. Churches remained open and folks still worshiped. Seems the promise of salvation is too persuasive for even a communist government to quell.
Oh and China officially recognizes 5 different religions.
I am still interested in learning of a society that is based on evolution.
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake.
Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did.
PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones.
And for about 60 or 70 years, that same number of people have been trying to build an electrical generator powered by fusion energy.
It has not happened yet. But that does not mean it is not possible, nor that it will not happen tomorrow.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
Well sport, religion has always been at its core man's attempt to explain how we got here. That's fairly obvious.
So your question makes no sense. There's a surprise.
We will have to disagree on this one. I believe religion was founded as an attempt by the few men to use the superstitions of the many men to control them and extort from them.
"Should you lie with your wife on the wrong day of the month, you shall bring to the temple a feast of dove meat for the consumption of the priests"??????
You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded.
What four labs? Accordong to whom? I suspect that nobody beliweves any of the stuff you post except maybe the Billy Bob Bubba Bible School for Grade School Dropouts.
And why haven't you tried to defend the absurd story about the talking snake?
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
God's Word does not need me to defend It. When you and I are in our respective places for eternity, then I will be vindicated and you will still hate God.
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake.
Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did.
PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones.
Right, like “they” .... the paleontologists say.... “aquatic lizard” .... smaller and a bit different, but much like a slim monitor lizard.
Nope, not an example of “evolutionary transition.”
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake.
Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did.
PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones.
Right, like “they” .... the paleontologists say.... “aquatic lizard” .... smaller and a bit different, but much like a slim monitor lizard.
Nope, not an example of “evolutionary transition.”
BUT..... you can believe it if you choose to.
Every transition also represents a species unto itself. Any creature whose legs are becoming so small as to be almost or completely useless are in transition because legs and arms originally served an important function. They shrink when not used for survival, so environmental pressures no longer maintain their size and strength. The emu is a bird, for example, without wings of any description any longer. Only vestiges of wing "arms" remain, that hang limply and uselessly beneath their plumage.
While is is true that the Soviet Unions official stance in the early 1900's was of science over religion, they never outlawed religion. Churches remained open and folks still worshiped. Seems the promise of salvation is too persuasive for even a communist government to quell.
Then there's this: The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.
Many of those who had been arrested in the 1920s would continue to remain in prison throughout the 1930s and beyond.
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone. Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.
The campaign slowed down in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and came to an abrupt end after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. The challenge produced by the German invasion would ultimately prevent the public withering away of religion in Soviet society.
You may choose to believe that “micro evolution” .... aka genetic variation ..... is proof of “macro evolution.”
Sorry, but you guys keep advancing the definition of micro evolution whenever a case is shown to you that goes beyond your previous definition. One of you has already classified as micro evolution the relatedness between the rhinoceros and the horse, i.e., their having sprang from a common ancestor. That amounts to an admission of speciation by natural selection, i.e., evolution. You can't call that variation within a species anymore. That goes well beyond that.
PS Macro evolution is merely the accumulation of micro evolution to the point where the genetic division between two lines is sufficient to prevent breeding back together. We call that "speciation," i.e., "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." - Wikipedia
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning.
Well you walked right into this one ... You are giving dictionary definitions all the time regarding biblical words and not taking context, logic, or original languages into consideration. Now when I deliberately do the same thing you have done continuously you want to object. Thanks for making this very easy to show your double standards. However the difference in these two cases is that the dictionary definition would apply to a theory which is an unproven assumption i.e. macro evolution.
That just confirms that you don't understand what I said, not about dictionary definitions or anything else.
Once again, people use words loosely, often using the word faith when they mean hope, or trust or good will - ''he acted in good faith'' - ''he acted in good will'' - therefore the word becomes a blanket term for a number of different concepts.
Being a blanket term for a number of different concepts, some folks (read theists) love to shift between meanings in order to justify their own faith in things unseen and non-detectable, their God, their Holy Book, etc, thereby equivocating between one common usage of the word and meaning to another whenever it suits.
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
A belief held without the support of evidence is a belief held on faith. It's as simple as that. Your objections are just a smokescreen.
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible,
If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation?
Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03
Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp...
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps
transitional forms - Understanding Evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03 Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull. A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms. ... Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses. But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist. As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
You may choose to believe that “micro evolution” .... aka genetic variation ..... is proof of “macro evolution.”
Many well respected paleontologists and well respected evolutionists would disagree.
Btw.... do you think that man caused global warming is “settled science?”
Not TRH but the answers are pretty simple.
1. "Many well respected paleontologists and well respected evolutionists would disagree." Not true. Name one if you think that's true.
2. There is no such thing in science as "settled science." That's a political term, not a scientific term and Obama knows less about science than Ringman. Here's what's actually going on. There is overwhelming evidence that the climate is warming and that ONE major cause is CO2 released by fossil fuels. Our data does not exactly tell us how fast, though, although predictions get better all the time. Settled? There is always the possibility that something else is going on and could be discovered.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
You are amazing. You are stuck in gross ignorance of God's Infiniteness. The light, just as the dark, came from God. At the end of everything we know there will be no more sun. The Lord will be our light like in the beginning.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
So now you don't believe that the sun makes daylight? Why in the world would God "make" light and dark several days before making the sun (which obviously makes light). And how did the plants do photosynthesis before there was sunlight?
And what about God placing the sun, moon, and stars in the "firmanent" as "signs." That's astrology. Christians aren't supposed to believe in astrology.
And there is no such thing as a "firmament." The sun, moon, and stars are in space. Our spacecraft did not crash into any "firmament."
And finally...what about the talking snake? You're ignoring it.
Religion would be a lot more credible if it would jettison stone age myths after they are known to be false. At one time Christians believed that rifling made lead balls fly truer because little mean devils sat on the lead balls and diverted them from their true course. The rifling made the balls spin and the devils couldn't stay aboard! Believing in creationism is equally absurd. There is no evidence and, to the contrary, the evidence all supports evolution.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
You are amazing. You are stuck in gross ignorance of God's Infiniteness. The light, just as the dark, came from God. At the end of everything we know there will be no more sun. The Lord will be our light like in the beginning.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
Nuclear fusion and photon emission is understood well enough to know it doesn't come from something non detectable like a God, whatever that's supposed to be.
is the faith of illiterate superstitious peasant Christians around the time of Jesus different to christians of today?
A little presumptuous and arrogant there, aren't we? People of the time were not stupid idiots,witness the Roman empire, Commerce existed across nations. Jews studied the scripture. Jesus as a child discussed the sacred Jewish texts.
People in the Middle East were not largely peasants, illiterate and superstitious types, ..around the time of Jesus?
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. ..
A belief held without the support of evidence is a belief held on faith. It's as simple as that. Your objections are just a smokescreen.
Thunder is just like Nighthawk, things can't be straightforward for them, they have to complicate-convolute something even as simple as faith.
FAITH
Greek mythology, Pistis /ˈpɪstɪs/ (Πίστις) was the personification of good faith, trust and reliability.
English Christian N.T. , ' Faith' is the word used to represent 'Pistis' from the Greek N.T. KJV, ESV and NASB bibles translate through a method called - Form Equivalence or “formal translation”. That means word for word for word, where it makes semantic sense and carries the source language meaning properly,
This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.
Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?
Seems to me that Leroy and TRH are not keeping up with what is going on in the evolution news. This horse business was discredited long ago. Here is one example.... from a noted and well respected evolutionist:
[u]Lifted:
Many museums and school textbooks today depict horse evolution as orthogenetic. That is, variations in the fossil record of the horse follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic. In other words, evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. This is **not** what evolutionists teach today.Orthogenesis has been proved wrong and is no longer accepted by evolutionary scientists.
Notice this comment by the late Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, world renowned evolutionist and palenthologist:
“Orthogenetic evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. Discussion of this point has been so lengthy and extensive that it has, frankly, become boring. There is at present a clear consensus of paleontologists that orthogenesis, in this sense, is not real. There is no known sequence in the fossil record that requires or substantiates such a process. Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth “tigers,” can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic. All supposed examples are more simply and fully interpreted as due to some other cause, such as natural selection.” [/u]
A falsehood remains a falsehood, no matter how many claim it to be true.... no matter how often it is portrayed on the evening news as incontrovertible fact.
For you Indy....read what he says....
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson.....that’s one...., there are others.... they are there if one has the intellectual desire to see all angles.
Most don’t.....
Re: age...... there are more and more questions being raised about AGW.... models are just flat out wrong....there are even credible scientists saying the the measuring techniques being used to prove agw are bogus..... so, Indy, stay tuned... agw just another way to control the masses.....
Is "arrogant stupidity" a valid term to use without offending anyone? Like I mean if I say this is what I believe in and have no proof to back it up, and then like to fling faeces on others ideas even though they have evidence and proof to substantiate them (in some desperate attempt to justify my beliefs over anything else), would that make me an arrogant stupid person?
Unrelated question, but why is Jesus depicted as being white?
And what's the deal with Adam and Eve and incest - isn't incest a sin?
Is "arrogant stupidity" a valid term to use without offending anyone? Like I mean if I say this is what I believe in and have no proof to back it up, and then like to fling faeces on others ideas even though they have evidence and proof to substantiate them (in some desperate attempt to justify my beliefs over anything else), would that make me an arrogant stupid person?
Unrelated question, but why is Jesus depicted as being white?
And what's the deal with Adam and Eve and incest - isn't incest a sin?
Well, Palestinians (he was born in Palestine as I recall, no?) are considered "white" aren't they?
Tall, Blond, and Blue Eyed as many time depicted?..........................................now that would be a stretch!
Probably looked more like Yassar Arafat.
Geno
PS, y'all are getting close to 100 pages on my machine. Good job.
[quote=mauserand9mm]So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not....
Yup. You got it wrong.
Nope, he got it right.
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that.
Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims.
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens.
Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds.
You could not be more wrong.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03
Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp...
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps
Your internet search skills provide a simple cursory gleaning from the lemmings. Go ahead and read your links and show me how it addresses my objections to evolution.
I of course would be more interested in YOUR views, not just some lemming view.
I have been posting sources for my views and answering specific questions that have been brought up by creationists. I don't know any lemmings. Are we playing with two separate sets of rules now?
As one side has evidence and reason while the other has mere faith, a belief held without the support of evidence, there is no contest regardless of protestations to the contrary. I'm sure that theists imagine victory regardless.
And it would be fine if it were left at that. But I find hypocrisy with the ardent creationalists - the methods and theory of evolution are a branch of science. Look at the technological gains we've had with science - life expectancy and improvement in quality of life medical advances being notable. Faith alone does nothing to aid this improvement, in fact it hindered it in the early stages (the church opposes...). Everything in our daily like is influenced by science - if you attack evolution, you attack science, but yet you're happy to live in a modern world. Any scientific theorems or theories in any religious scribings? - I think not.
Why attack evolution only? Why not attack the modern surgery, building construction, internet, cell phones - man didn't make these things, god did?
people use words loosely, often using the word faith when they mean hope, or trust or good will - ''he acted in good faith'' - ''he acted in good will'' - therefore the word becomes a blanket term for a number of different concepts.
Being a blanket term for a number of different concepts, some folks (read theists) love to shift between meanings in order to justify their own faith in things unseen and non-detectable, their God, their Holy Book, etc, thereby equivocating between one common usage of the word and meaning to another whenever it suits.
Theists can mystically spin it anyway they like,, but fact remains their- belief, hope, trust, or FAITH in a yet unfulfilled,underlivered promise [from God] is no different to hoping and trusting or putting faith in ones semi-auto pistol or rifle won't jam with the next shot,
..on which one can only form conjecture or speculate.
Sadly there are christians who not only refute rational science, but even refute the clear and concise words of God in Bible.
TF49 telling people that what you believe as a christian doesn't matter..,.yet Jesus says otherwise, Nighthawk, claiming God is beyond time & space, thus blatantly ignorant or just dismissive of the fact Bible shows the O.T. God manifesting in a small confine of the physical 3D world.(Exodus) Hawk claiming one must have a 3D presence to be at a non-dimensional point in space...which is simply untrue for an ALL capable God. iTs highly evident he lacks both basic geometric science knowledge and Biblical knowledge of God, and just asserts desperate wild ass claims.
Any supposed christian who so poorly underestimates or simply does not acknowledge the God Bible describes, and that they claim to believe in, are not people anyone should sensibly rely on to explain the meaning of faith or much else relating to God.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
So now you don't believe that the sun makes daylight? Why in the world would God "make" light and dark several days before making the sun (which obviously makes light). And how did the plants do photosynthesis before there was sunlight?
I guess I was not clear. The sun came from the same Place the light did: From God's Word. He spoke and it was created. Asking why God did anything is beyond even my opinions. The plants had the light of God for a day prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars. They don't need the sun. They need light.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
And what about God placing the sun, moon, and stars in the "firmanent" as "signs." That's astrology. Christians aren't supposed to believe in astrology.
You are grasping at straws. The word is used to describe where God placed His astrological bodies. Because you are distorting the Facts of God's Word you are adding to HIs Word. The sun, moon and stars are for "signs and seasons and times and years."
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
And there is no such thing as a "firmament." The sun, moon, and stars are in space. Our spacecraft did not crash into any "firmament."
Because you don't understand space is not nothing. It is something. Some translations use the word "firmament" to describe it.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
And finally...what about the talking snake? You're ignoring it.
Again I apologize. I guess I didn't answer you statement to your satisfaction. What is it you wanted me to address about a talking snake? You can read about it in Genesis 3. I don't know how to add more.
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
Religion would be a lot more credible if it would jettison stone age myths after they are known to be false. At one time Christians believed that rifling made lead balls fly truer because little mean devils sat on the lead balls and diverted them from their true course. The rifling made the balls spin and the devils couldn't stay aboard! Believing in creationism is equally absurd. There is no evidence and, to the contrary, the evidence all supports evolution.
Again you are off track. There is zero evidence for evolution; except in the minds of the brainwashed.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
You are amazing. You are stuck in gross ignorance of God's Infiniteness. The light, just as the dark, came from God. At the end of everything we know there will be no more sun. The Lord will be our light like in the beginning.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
Nuclear fusion and photon emission is understood well enough to know it doesn't come from something non detectable like a God, whatever that's supposed to be.
God is detectable by those who seek Him. I am very sorry for you.
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson.....that’s one...., there are others.... they are there if one has the intellectual desire to see all angles.
Most don’t.....
Most creationists get things wrong, perhaps because they are not educated enough to wade through big words.
Dr. Siimpson did NOT (as some think) claim that horses didn't evolve. Rather he postulated "punctuated equilibrium," which is now accepted as the WAY species often evolve. This means that rather than horses evolving smoothly, at the same rate, they evolve quite rapidly due to some external stimulus (predators? climate?) and then evolve very slowly unless and until there is some other stimulus.
Is "arrogant stupidity" a valid term to use without offending anyone? Like I mean if I say this is what I believe in and have no proof to back it up, and then like to fling faeces on others ideas even though they have evidence and proof to substantiate them (in some desperate attempt to justify my beliefs over anything else), would that make me an arrogant stupid person?
Unrelated question, but why is Jesus depicted as being white?
And what's the deal with Adam and Eve and incest - isn't incest a sin?
The Bible uses the words "willfully ignorant." even if they are offending, they are valid. You might be an arrogant willfully ignorant person.
Jesus is depicted as Jew or Black 9in some books).
The "deal" with Adam and Eve and incest is Ludacris. God created one person and from that person made the second person. They were flawless. Their children married each other or the offspring of their brothers and sisters. Incest was not a sin for about 2,500 - 3,000 years later when Moses received the Law from God forbidding close marriages. God knew the human population had accumulated enough mutations to deleteriously affect the offspring.
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson.....that’s one...., there are others.... they are there if one has the intellectual desire to see all angles.
Most don’t.....
Most creationists get things wrong, perhaps because they are not educated enough to wade through big words.
Dr. Siimpson did NOT (as some think) claim that horses didn't evolve. Rather he postulated "punctuated equilibrium," which is now accepted as the WAY species often evolve. This means that rather than horses evolving smoothly, at the same rate, they evolve quite rapidly due to some external stimulus (predators? climate?) and then evolve very slowly unless and until there is some other stimulus.
Evolution happens fast when we can't watch it and slowly when we try to watch it. That sounds lie blind faith to me.
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson.....that’s one...., there are others.... they are there if one has the intellectual desire to see all angles.
Most don’t.....
Most creationists get things wrong, perhaps because they are not educated enough to wade through big words.
Dr. Siimpson did NOT (as some think) claim that horses didn't evolve. Rather he postulated "punctuated equilibrium," which is now accepted as the WAY species often evolve. This means that rather than horses evolving smoothly, at the same rate, they evolve quite rapidly due to some external stimulus (predators? climate?) and then evolve very slowly unless and until there is some other stimulus.
You asked for an example and I supplied it. There are others if you care to look.
He is clear in what he says. Perhaps you cannot comprehend or simply choose not to.
But, if you desire to believe that “natural selection” ...... micro evolution.....is proof of macro evolution, you may continue to do that. It is not and you would be wrong according to a growing number of evolutionary scientists.
I will put it simply..... natural selection .... micro evolution.... is NOT proof of macro evolution. Those who believe that are being duped.
Edit to add: Simpson was apparently an ardent evolutionist. I did not say nor imply that he was not. He was simply saying that regarding the horse story, “natural selection” .......could explain it and was a better explanation..... simple genetic variation. Further, there are other paleontologists that are at odds with the entire horse evolution story. Go and read for your self.
Is "arrogant stupidity" a valid term to use without offending anyone? Like I mean if I say this is what I believe in and have no proof to back it up, and then like to fling faeces on others ideas even though they have evidence and proof to substantiate them (in some desperate attempt to justify my beliefs over anything else), would that make me an arrogant stupid person?
Unrelated question, but why is Jesus depicted as being white?
And what's the deal with Adam and Eve and incest - isn't incest a sin?
Legit question.
Couple of comments....
Jesus was a Jew .... Semitic.....and apparently, very ordinary looking. Bible implies that. Look it up if you like. I suspect he is depicted as white to sell more posters and paintings to white people. Missionaries tell me that Africans and melanesians will picture jesus as black and that is reflected in their artwork.
Adam and Eve has perfect genes. Their children married their siblings. Seems,thst after sin and death entered the race, there has been a deterioration of the genetic gene pool.... mutations happen and they are almost universally considered detrimental. It was only after the Law was given that incest was sin. Understandably correct.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
You are amazing. You are stuck in gross ignorance of God's Infiniteness. The light, just as the dark, came from God. At the end of everything we know there will be no more sun. The Lord will be our light like in the beginning.
By the way the sun gets its energy to produce light from God; the Source of everything.
Nuclear fusion and photon emission is understood well enough to know it doesn't come from something non detectable like a God, whatever that's supposed to be.
God is detectable by those who seek Him. I am very sorry for you.
So you claim....yet there are very few if any theists that are able to agree on what exactly they are 'detecting.' The God of Hinduism is not the God of Islam which is not the God of Christianity or Judaism or the Norse gods, Greek gods, Egyptian gods.....an awful lot of gods getting around don't you think? Or perhaps it's just fertile imagination rather than detection....
Cuba is a communist country, yet they remain predominantly Roman Catholic. Please explain how this is possible?????
While is is true that the Soviet Unions official stance in the early 1900's was of science over religion, they never outlawed religion. Churches remained open and folks still worshiped. Seems the promise of salvation is too persuasive for even a communist government to quell.
Oh and China officially recognizes 5 different religions.
I am still interested in learning of a society that is based on evolution.
I gave you specific examples of the specific agenda of communism. The fact that they allow "some state registered churches" to be open is for the exact propaganda purpose of deceiving gullible people like yourself does not mean they don't have an agenda to destroy theism over time. It also shows how little you know about how Communism truly works in reality. All you need to do in in any of those scenarios is start publicly sharing the gospel outside of a registered church building and the police will quickly show up to stop you. Again, take away atheism and evolution from the Communist party platform and it will die. Have you ever been in a former Communist country and talked to people? Have you ever talked to anyone who has been in China for an extended period of time and knows what really is happening there? I have done both -- have you?
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
A belief held without the support of evidence is a belief held on faith. It's as simple as that. Your objections are just a smokescreen.
Sir you are being deliberately obtuse in face of the definition of biblical faith--which definition is derived by the root word in Greek and its contextual meaning in scripture. You may be a purveyor of your theories, but understand they carry no intellectual credibility.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
That's like denying that your house burned down, because you can't explain what sparked it, even though you're staring at it up in flames. You might stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your house burned down, but it won't alter the fact that it evidently did.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
Sir, any Being who can create a sun can create light without a sun. This Being would create light first in order for starlight to reach the earth without relying on the stars to generate it. Sorta logical for Someone who knows that.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
That's like denying that your house burned down, because you can't explain what sparked it, even though you're staring at it up in flames.
Bad analogy - its like saying my house burned down when I cannot prove that I ever had a house that was built.
Actually you could infer you had a house if you saw the ashes etc. from the fire. We see the results of evolution. We theorize it happened and, mirblu dictu, we find intermediate forms in older layers of rock, and no modern forms there.
Obviously life changed. That's the evidence.
Tell me what is the evidence that most of your Old Testament stuff happened. And don't say "the Bible is true because the Bible said it was true." Some of us graduated from elementary school.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
The Evolutionary Theory of Life started evolving well before Darwin.
What you MEANT to say is that the Theory of how life evolves cannot exist without knowing how life started. That is, of course, ridiculous. It continues to evolve even without knowing how it started because we are watching it happen. It is sort of like being at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. You can rank the finishers without knowing how, when, or even where they started. Pretty simple.
I regularly watch the finishes of NASCAR races and baseball games without ever having seen them start. It's not hard to figure this stuff out.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
That's like denying that your house burned down, because you can't explain what sparked it, even though you're staring at it up in flames. You might stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your house burned down, but it won't alter the fact that it evidently did.
You still sound silly to the creationists and stupid to evolutionists. Give up on your theistic evolution. God did NOT use evolution. Consider these problems.
I see the two colomn didn't copy from my essays correctly. I hope you can follow what is Bible and what is fable.
Comparing Creation with Evolution Rich Coyle April 4, 2013 (541) 450-4170 [email protected]
Certainly one who believes God created using evolutionary concepts does not understand either. Creation demands life while evolution demands death. God’s Word says the last enemy He will destroy is death. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s start with some beginnings.
Creation:
Infinite Being by the Power of His Word calls time, space and mater into existence
Water everywhere shrouded in darkness before anything else, then God made light and established the day night cycle, first day
God separated the water below from the water above, second day
God made the earth from water below and is cool, near the center of the known universe based on the science of the Sloan Digital Sky camera and Hubble’s Red Shift and separated the dry land from the ocean so dry land appeared and plant life appeared after its kind, on land before life in water, third day
Sun, moon and stars created after earth for signs and seasons and days and years, forth day
God made large and small life forms in
Evolution:
Begins with nothing
The singularity or cosmic egg, contrary to the bedrock of scientific thought of cause and effect, nothing becomes something and “inflates” and “explodes” in equilateral dispersion and causes light. This breaks Newton’s law of a body at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force.
Gas clouds form contrary to known gas mechanics of gas. Gas pressure is at least fifty times greater than the gravitational pull on the molecules
Stars form from gas clouds then explode after forming heavy elements
Star particles form more celestial things including planets
Earth is formed from white hot gas and cools for millions of years while being bathed in light from the evolving sun
Oceans forms water and flying creatures above the water after their kind, fifth day
God created small and large land animals to reproduce after their kind. Finally God formed man from the dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life making him unique among physical life, sixth day
Bible creation eschatology says Heaven and earth will end hot.
All this is consistent with the scientific concept of an effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause.
Reproducing life spontaneously forms large marine plants and animals
Marine creatures evolve into multi-cellular plants and animals, some animals develop lungs, move onto land and including evolve in the plants and animals up to man, who is nothing more than an advanced animal
Cosmos suffers ultimate heat death through entropy and ends cold
This entire process contradicts the scientific concept of an effect cannot be equal to or greater than its cause.
One person tried to use falling dominos to show an effect can be greater than its cause. Immediately I suggested he didn’t take into account the multiple hours an intelligent being spent setting up the desired effect. Therefore the falling dominos verified the correct interpretation of science’s cause and effect.
For the student of God’s Word, the Bible, who accepts It as the final authority there is no difficulty fitting all scientific observations into God’s creation. He does not try to insert fallible man’s opinions above God’s Word. We see God created Adam and Eve mature, ready to “be fruitful and multiply”. Obviously the plants
and trees were mature because this first couple could not wait for a growing season before they could eat.
Looking a bit further one realizes the entire universe was obviously created mature. It does not have the appearance of age because age is an interpretation imposed on the evidence.
Actually you could infer you had a house if you saw the ashes etc. from the fire. We see the results of evolution. We theorize it happened and, mirblu dictu, we find intermediate forms in older layers of rock, and no modern forms there.
Obviously life changed. That's the evidence.
Tell me what is the evidence that most of your Old Testament stuff happened. And don't say "the Bible is true because the Bible said it was true." Some of us graduated from elementary school.
I agree "life" changed. Animals are smaller than in the "fossil record" and not as diverse. Just as one would expect if a "very good" creation happened followed by a curse. As far as your intermediate forms: There should be multiple millions for scientists to exam. There are scant few and everyone doesn't even agree they are intermediate forms. It requires lots of blind faith the continue believing and preaching your religion.
Archeologists tend to disagree with you on the Historicity of the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is ample documentation if you are serious, but I doubt you are.
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
Sir, any Being who can create a sun can create light without a sun. This Being would create light first in order for starlight to reach the earth without relying on the stars to generate it. Sorta logical for Someone who knows that.
Excellent response. Very clear. I suspect he will read and not comprehend and continue on his merry way.
A clear example of reacting poorly when hit with a resounding slap of cognitive dissonance.
You still sound silly to the creationists and stupid to evolutionists. Give up on your theistic evolution. God did NOT use evolution.
As bearing on Christianity, I may well sound stupid to the atheists, and as bearing on science, I may well sound silly to the Young Earth Creationists. To me, I just sound like a non-science-denying Christian who sees no contradiction between science and revelation.
Gas clouds form contrary to known gas mechanics of gas. Gas pressure is at least fifty times greater than the gravitational pull on the molecules
Discussing science with you is not very fruitful because you are a functional illiterate on the subject and one has to have a high school education to understand the argument.
For instance, I ask for any evidence, outside of the Bible, that the miracles in Genesis happened. Instead of evidence, you just repeat the assertions and try to refute the overwhelming opinion of science by saying things that indicate you don't understand what you're talking about, or have read from bissed sources.
The above statement is an example.
The "known mechanics of gas" are such that pressure depends on gas density and temperature (duh). Gravitationsl force depends on the mass of the attractor and its distance. (duh). So gravity can easily overcome gas pressuren in many circumstances. How do you think the earth holds onto its air? (duh, duh, duh.) How do you think the sun, which is 100% gas and has a temperature of 6000 degrees Kelvin, keeps from flying apart? (duh, duh, duh, duh.)
I ask again, WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS THERE, OUTSIDE OF THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE, THAT THE MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS HAPPENED??
Gas clouds form contrary to known gas mechanics of gas. Gas pressure is at least fifty times greater than the gravitational pull on the molecules
Discussing science with you is not very fruitful because you are a functional illiterate on the subject and one has to have a high school education to understand the argument.
For instance, I ask for any evidence, outside of the Bible, that the miracles in Genesis happened. Instead of evidence, you just repeat the assertions and try to refute the overwhelming opinion of science by saying things that indicate you don't understand what you're talking about, or have read from bissed sources.
The above statement is an example.
The "known mechanics of gas" are such that pressure depends on gas density and temperature (duh). Gravitationsl force depends on the mass of the attractor and its distance. (duh). So gravity can easily overcome gas pressuren in many circumstances. How do you think the earth holds onto its air? (duh, duh, duh.) How do you think the sun, which is 100% gas and has a temperature of 6000 degrees Kelvin, keeps from flying apart? (duh, duh, duh, duh.)
I ask again, WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS THERE, OUTSIDE OF THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE, THAT THE MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS HAPPENED??
And do YOU believe in talking snakes?
So, we have some astrophysicists who claim, without observational evidence, clouds turn into stars. We have others who are just as educated who disagree. One is based on the unseen faith that things cannot be created in their present condition and the other depends on things we can see and not guess about what happened in the unseen past.
There are no "MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS" for the Bible believer It is all sober history. You start from an opposite bias as me. We were not there and know no one who was and take our positions on faith: Yours that God is not real and mine is that the God of the Bible is more real than we are.
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
A belief held without the support of evidence is a belief held on faith. It's as simple as that. Your objections are just a smokescreen.
Sir you are being deliberately obtuse in face of the definition of biblical faith--which definition is derived by the root word in Greek and its contextual meaning in scripture. You may be a purveyor of your theories, but understand they carry no intellectual credibility.
I'm not the one being obtuse. It is you who is trying to impose a meaning to faith that is not applicable. The bible itself defines faith as a belief held without evidence; Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews.
But maybe you just don't understand the definition or significance of faith.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
Wrong! We know what did NOT happen. Therefore God.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
Wrong! We know what did NOT happen. Therefore God.
What exactly is this thing 'we know did not happen' and how do we actually 'know' this?
Plus the claim "we know what did not happen" does not logically equate to "God" - which is also unexplained.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
At least we creationists appeal to Something rather than nothing, which can do nothing, for all we see. You choose blind faith over logic. And then try to smugly act as though you have the upper hand.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
i believe in a higher power but not organized religion. last time i had surgery they had to resuscitate me i can remember what went on the operating room when that happened.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
At least we creationists appeal to Something rather than nothing, which can do nothing, for all we see. You choose blind faith over logic. And then try to smugly act as though you have the upper hand.
Except that science doesn't appeal to 'nothing' Something exists and that something works on a defined set of principles which we call physics, strong force, weak force, gravity, etc. Science does not appeal to anything, it simply observes the world and learns about it through rigorous testing....weeding out errors in the process.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
i believe in a higher power but not organized religion. last time i had surgery they had to resuscitate me i can remember what went on the operating room when that happened.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
i believe in a higher power but not organized religion. last time i had surgery they had to resuscitate me i can remember what went on the operating room when that happened.
Your point and it's relationship to the fact that evolution happens?
If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists.
.
HAW! HAW! HAW! I suspect it didn't really happen.
So answer me this, Einstein. If God made the light and the darkness BEFORE he made the sun and the moon, how is that possible? The sun is what MAKES the light. Or maybe Genesis ! is just plain wrong.
Sir, any Being who can create a sun can create light without a sun. This Being would create light first in order for starlight to reach the earth without relying on the stars to generate it. Sorta logical for Someone who knows that.
Excellent response. Very clear. I suspect he will read and not comprehend and continue on his merry way.
A clear example of reacting poorly when hit with a resounding slap of cognitive dissonance.
Not clear at all. This first light, it came from where? There was no where for it to come from, and it went where?
Such light does not exist in this universe, so what evidence do you have of this amazing Nuevo Light existed? Have you generated this typ of light in the lab? Do you have a mathematics that explains how it exists stationary in time and space? Tell us more about this first light because it is unlike and photon beam we know today. It must really be something.
Sir, any Being who can create a sun can create light without a sun.
So why then create a sun to produce light , when one has already created light?
Quote
.. This Being would create light first in order for starlight to reach the earth without relying on the stars to generate it. Sorta logical for Someone who knows that.
Whats wrong with just relying on the stars to generate starlight?
Simple: create stars at just the right time and place, and you have starlight arriving exactly when and where you want it.
Well its seems God created interim light, so he could have time to get a process up and running to provide light proper.
Well obviously, we dont' know anything about light since we don't know anything about the first photon. Obviously light, like evolution can't happen since we don't know how it could have started.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
i believe in a higher power but not organized religion. last time i had surgery they had to resuscitate me i can remember what went on the operating room when that happened.
Your point and it's relationship to the fact that evolution happens?
no that there is a higher power and you leave your body when you die, which i did for a while.
Out of body experience/lucid dreams are common. The near death experience has been generated in the lab using healthy patients who were not at risk of dying.
''What happens when you die? As she lay blindfolded in a seat in a dimly lit room, Anna* came close to finding out.
But Anna wasn't dying, or even close to death, when she entered what she described as an alternate realm. Instead, she was among 13 volunteers who had agreed to take the powerful hallucinogenic dimethyltryptamine (DMT) for a study conducted by the psychedelic research group at Imperial College London, U.K.
The researchers, who watched Anna surf her consciousness in the low light of the research room at one of the world's most prestigious research institutions, pumped the volunteers with the psychedelic to learn how close DMT could bring a person to the sensation of skirting death.
DMT's trip is said to mimic the feeling of almost dying so accurately that those who take it describe hallucinations that mirror near-death experiences—psychological events reported by people who have come close to or believe they have come close to dying.''
The bright white light at the end of tunnel that people see as they die is due to the effects of loss of peripheral vision as vision starts to shut down.
Also known as “St. Anthony’s Fire” ..or “Devil’s curse.”
it has been suggest an outbreak of convulsive ergotism led to accusations of bewitchment in Europe and Salem.
but don't let medical science get in the way of christians believing folks were possessed.
Originally Posted by DBT
Out of body experience/lucid dreams are common....''
Some claim that people have temporarily died and seen the terrifying hell christians believe in., before making a comeback to continue leading their mortal lives.
however, I don't understand why God would send anyone to hell who didn't rightfully belong there.
from what I recall from scripture, folks only go to hell to await judgement, never heard of any temporary visitor passes being issued.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
i believe in a higher power but not organized religion. last time i had surgery they had to resuscitate me i can remember what went on the operating room when that happened.
Your point and it's relationship to the fact that evolution happens?
no that there is a higher power and you leave your body when you die, which i did for a while.
Sure - if you like that you should try some of those hippie drugs from the 60s and 70s. I hear they really give you a good trip.
Guy has a hallucination and thinks he was knockin' on heaven's door. Hilarious.
Gas clouds form contrary to known gas mechanics of gas. Gas pressure is at least fifty times greater than the gravitational pull on the molecules
Discussing science with you is not very fruitful because you are a functional illiterate on the subject and one has to have a high school education to understand the argument.
For instance, I ask for any evidence, outside of the Bible, that the miracles in Genesis happened. Instead of evidence, you just repeat the assertions and try to refute the overwhelming opinion of science by saying things that indicate you don't understand what you're talking about, or have read from bissed sources.
The above statement is an example.
The "known mechanics of gas" are such that pressure depends on gas density and temperature (duh). Gravitationsl force depends on the mass of the attractor and its distance. (duh). So gravity can easily overcome gas pressuren in many circumstances. How do you think the earth holds onto its air? (duh, duh, duh.) How do you think the sun, which is 100% gas and has a temperature of 6000 degrees Kelvin, keeps from flying apart? (duh, duh, duh, duh.)
I ask again, WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS THERE, OUTSIDE OF THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE, THAT THE MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS HAPPENED??
And do YOU believe in talking snakes?
So, we have some astrophysicists who claim, without observational evidence, clouds turn into stars. We have others who are just as educated who disagree. One is based on the unseen faith that things cannot be created in their present condition and the other depends on things we can see and not guess about what happened in the unseen past.
There are no "MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS" for the Bible believer It is all sober history. You start from an opposite bias as me. We were not there and know no one who was and take our positions on faith: Yours that God is not real and mine is that the God of the Bible is more real than we are.
No.
What an absolute loon you are!
If 10,000 astrophysicists found evidence that gas clouds condense into stars, and the Hubble Space Telescope photographed it (which it has, by the way), and YOU found ONE astrophysicist that fell down the stairs and broke his arm, you would claim that "all astrophysicists have broken arms."
It is not possible to defend Genesis based on anything one can observe anywhere in the universe.
"We're eager to conduct more work in these deposits to understand the environment of the MRD specimen, the relationship to climate change"
LOL
And they "think" it's a male.
How cute.
Anything's possible, when you have enough faith.
At least, they're honest enough ta report that if ya believe in evolution, climate change naturally follows.
No faith. Just evidence.
Climate change has been happening and affecting species for millions of years. No one disputes that. Ever hear of the Ice Age (duh)? You've gotta be pretty dumb to iognore stuff like that.
And what about they "think" it's a male? It's very hard to determine sex from hominin fossils if you don't have the pelvis.
"Anything's possible if you have enough faith." Let me ask you this, since ringman refuses to answer. do you actually believe in the entire book of genesis? Is thare any EVIDENCE that it happened?
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
At least we creationists appeal to Something rather than nothing, which can do nothing, for all we see. You choose blind faith over logic. And then try to smugly act as though you have the upper hand.
Except that science doesn't appeal to 'nothing' Something exists and that something works on a defined set of principles which we call physics, strong force, weak force, gravity, etc. Science does not appeal to anything, it simply observes the world and learns about it through rigorous testing....weeding out errors in the process.
"science" can't explain from where came absolute morality, beauty, gravity, and all the other "laws" we enjoy.
When's the last time "science" saw life come from non-life? When's the last time "science" saw a star form? When's the last time "science" saw one new animal form from a different animal instead of lots more extinction?
Creationists accept these things happened in the past and only go down hill from the curse onward.
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
At least we creationists appeal to Something rather than nothing, which can do nothing, for all we see. You choose blind faith over logic. And then try to smugly act as though you have the upper hand.
Except that science doesn't appeal to 'nothing' Something exists and that something works on a defined set of principles which we call physics, strong force, weak force, gravity, etc. Science does not appeal to anything, it simply observes the world and learns about it through rigorous testing....weeding out errors in the process.
"science" can't explain from where came absolute morality, beauty, gravity, and all the other "laws" we enjoy.
When's the last time "science" saw life come from non-life? When's the last time "science" saw a star form? When's the last time "science" saw one new animal form from a different animal instead of lots more extinction?
Creationists accept these things happened in the past and only go down hill from the curse onward.
Actually science speaks directly to all of these things, as you should know, but obviously have a self-inflicted ignorance of.
[quote=IndyCA35"Anything's possible if you have enough faith." Let me ask you this, since ringman refuses to answer. do you actually believe in the entire book of genesis? Is thare any EVIDENCE that it happened?[/quote]
I'm am very sorry for my lack of being able to communicate about Genesis. I mentioned previously I accept all of Genesis as sober history. There is abundant historical evidence for the Whole Book of Genesis; which is rejected by the vast majority of people. Scientist reject it for the same reason the mill worker and the retail clerk reject it. They don't want to submit to the God Who created them.
When considering LB’s comment, a thought came to mind.....
There is a stage and the grand symphony of life is being played.... majesty....grandeur..... immensity....complexity ..... and the mystery of the unknown... that’s the creation and the world we see....
Man’s science “speaking to it” is like a small young child.... sitting way in the back...away from the stage....beating on a toy drum.
The child can only comprehend the drum.... he only knows that he beats it and it makes noise..... he cannot see nor comprehend nor appreciate the grand symphony.
Man, for all his beating on the drum cannot explain what is happening on the stage..... man cannot create anything.... not even a single cell....
The child somehow does not realize that even the drum he beats has been given to him....he is only fascinated by his own action of hitting the drum and making a noise.
Starting to sound like Gus....? ..... no more lunesta for me
only man is arrogant enough to think they can tell what happened a million yrs ago from a fossil.... lmao
Yet it is man that tells us that God, whatever that is, created the universe.
At least we creationists appeal to Something rather than nothing, which can do nothing, for all we see. You choose blind faith over logic. And then try to smugly act as though you have the upper hand.
Except that science doesn't appeal to 'nothing' Something exists and that something works on a defined set of principles which we call physics, strong force, weak force, gravity, etc. Science does not appeal to anything, it simply observes the world and learns about it through rigorous testing....weeding out errors in the process.
"science" can't explain from where came absolute morality, beauty, gravity, and all the other "laws" we enjoy.
When's the last time "science" saw life come from non-life? When's the last time "science" saw a star form? When's the last time "science" saw one new animal form from a different animal instead of lots more extinction?
Creationists accept these things happened in the past and only go down hill from the curse onward.
Nobody is claiming that life just pops into existence here, there and everywhere. It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....none of which has a bearing on the fact that there is life on Earth and it does evolve according to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....
In other words we (collectively) don't know a lot about it. Yet you seem sure that there is no Creator. I don't agree with Ringman but I fully understand why he makes his arguments for creationism. He's simply affirming his faith.
On the other hand I've often wondered why some argue so vehemently against the existence of a Creator. It's obvious that it can't be "proven" scientifically one way or the other, so the whole argument is pointless.
Seems to me that the argument agaist a Creator is not affirming anything, it's just an attempt to tear down the beliefs of others, to prove to people like Ringman that his faith is misguided.
In other words, a fools errand. Seems to be driven by envy of what others have.
It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....
In other words we (collectively) don't know a lot about it. Yet you seem sure that there is no Creator. I don't agree with Ringman but I fully understand why he makes his arguments for creationism. He's simply affirming his faith.
On the other hand I've often wondered why some argue so vehemently against the existence of a Creator. It's obvious that it can't be "proven" scientifically one way or the other, so the whole argument is pointless.
Seems to me that the argument agaist a Creator is not affirming anything, it's just an attempt to tear down the beliefs of others, to prove to people like Ringman that his faith is misguided.
In other words, a fools errand. Seems to be driven by envy of what others have.
We don't know x, therefore God is a really, really silly argument. A work in progress shouldn't make assumptions. Science examines and tests evidence, forms hypothesis and theories based on this process of discovery and does not say "well, dang, we don't know this, by golly, God must have done it"
It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....
In other words we (collectively) don't know a lot about it. Yet you seem sure that there is no Creator. I don't agree with Ringman but I fully understand why he makes his arguments for creationism. He's simply affirming his faith.
On the other hand I've often wondered why some argue so vehemently against the existence of a Creator. It's obvious that it can't be "proven" scientifically one way or the other, so the whole argument is pointless.
Seems to me that the argument agaist a Creator is not affirming anything, it's just an attempt to tear down the beliefs of others, to prove to people like Ringman that his faith is misguided.
In other words, a fools errand. Seems to be driven by envy of what others have.
We don't know x, therefore God is a really, really silly argument. A work in progress shouldn't make assumptions. Science examines and tests evidence, forms hypothesis and theories based on this process of discovery and does not say "well, dang, we don't know this, by golly, God must have done it"
Yes, as I said, the existence of a Creator can't be proven one way or the other scientifically, so why engage in sceintific arguments about it? Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have..
Two recently posted “statements of faith” …… no evidence from the fossil record…. no transitional forms…. do not have a clue as to how the first life ever got started…. based on simple observation of “genetic variation” …
“How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....”
“Nobody is claiming that life just pops into existence here, there and everywhere. It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....none of which has a bearing on the fact that there is life on Earth and it does evolve according to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....”
Gotta have a lot of “faith” to believe without evidence.
Of course, there is this:
“I'm not the one being obtuse. It is you who is trying to impose a meaning to faith that is not applicable. The bible itself defines faith as a belief held without evidence; Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews. But maybe you just don't understand the definition or significance of faith.”
This statement demonstrates almost complete ignorance of what constitutes biblical faith or the origin of faith.
Can post from a cut and paste and be totally oblivious to the understanding and meaning of what was posted.
Edit to add: Oh, and then there is the origin of the universe. Hawkins and Krauss have been discredited, so they are left only their limited imaginations to explain the origin of the universe. They say.... well, we know it happened and we have "faith" that …...somehow..... it happened but we are sure that God didn't do it.
When considering LB’s comment, a thought came to mind.....
There is a stage and the grand symphony of life is being played.... majesty....grandeur..... immensity....complexity ..... and the mystery of the unknown... that’s the creation and the world we see....
Man’s science “speaking to it” is like a small young child.... sitting way in the back...away from the stage....beating on a toy drum.
The child can only comprehend the drum.... he only knows that he beats it and it makes noise..... he cannot see nor comprehend nor appreciate the grand symphony.
Man, for all his beating on the drum cannot explain what is happening on the stage..... man cannot create anything.... not even a single cell....
The child somehow does not realize that even the drum he beats has been given to him....he is only fascinated by his own action of hitting the drum and making a noise.
Starting to sound like Gus....? ..... no more lunesta for me
Time for a second cup of coffee.
for a guy that converses with snakes, you got a lot to say for yourself.
When considering LB’s comment, a thought came to mind.....
There is a stage and the grand symphony of life is being played.... majesty....grandeur..... immensity....complexity ..... and the mystery of the unknown... that’s the creation and the world we see....
Man’s science “speaking to it” is like a small young child.... sitting way in the back...away from the stage....beating on a toy drum.
The child can only comprehend the drum.... he only knows that he beats it and it makes noise..... he cannot see nor comprehend nor appreciate the grand symphony.
Man, for all his beating on the drum cannot explain what is happening on the stage..... man cannot create anything.... not even a single cell....
The child somehow does not realize that even the drum he beats has been given to him....he is only fascinated by his own action of hitting the drum and making a noise.
Starting to sound like Gus....? ..... no more lunesta for me
Time for a second cup of coffee.
for a guy that converses with snakes, you got a lot to say for yourself.
My neighbor down the road has a bunch of goats. Perhaps if I go to him and perform some tasks, I can get him to pay me with the spotted ones. Then I, too, can strip some branches of almond and poplar trees and place them where his goats will water and I'll end up with more spotted goats and grow exceedingly prosperous.
" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."
What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?
I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.
There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.
The thief comes to steal and destroy.
Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.
When considering LB’s comment, a thought came to mind.....
There is a stage and the grand symphony of life is being played.... majesty....grandeur..... immensity....complexity ..... and the mystery of the unknown... that’s the creation and the world we see....
Man’s science “speaking to it” is like a small young child.... sitting way in the back...away from the stage....beating on a toy drum.
The child can only comprehend the drum.... he only knows that he beats it and it makes noise..... he cannot see nor comprehend nor appreciate the grand symphony.
Man, for all his beating on the drum cannot explain what is happening on the stage..... man cannot create anything.... not even a single cell....
The child somehow does not realize that even the drum he beats has been given to him....he is only fascinated by his own action of hitting the drum and making a noise.
Starting to sound like Gus....? ..... no more lunesta for me
Time for a second cup of coffee.
for a guy that converses with snakes, you got a lot to say for yourself.
Once again, it's been a while. Science and religion do not conflict. Science is about things we can see and measure. Religion is about things we cannot see and measure. And do not quote scripture to me. I see ithe bible literary work teaching morals, not as a textbook teaching science.
So, we have some astrophysicists who claim, without observational evidence, clouds turn into stars. We have others who are just as educated who disagree. One is based on the unseen faith that things cannot be created in their present condition and the other depends on things we can see and not guess about what happened in the unseen past.
There are no "MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS" for the Bible believer It is all sober history. You start from an opposite bias as me. We were not there and know no one who was and take our positions on faith: Yours that God is not real and mine is that the God of the Bible is more real than we are.
No.
What an absolute loon you are!
If 10,000 astrophysicists found evidence that gas clouds condense into stars, and the Hubble Space Telescope photographed it (which it has, by the way), and YOU found ONE astrophysicist that fell down the stairs and broke his arm, you would claim that "all astrophysicists have broken arms."
It is not possible to defend Genesis based on anything one can observe anywhere in the universe.
And...do YOU believe in talking snakes???[/quote]
You resort to ad hominin. I'm not surprised.
Your arrogance is exceeded by your naivety. The idea you think you know something about the universe is amazing.
You need to read more carefully the Text you want me to address. I don't believe in talking "snakes", but do believe a snaked deceived Eve. Just as I believe a donkey spoke to Baalam.
The God Who created the snake and the donkey can certainly give them voice if He wants.
Of course the most famous scientific theory of the 20th century and the foundation for nearly everything after is at its most basic form an elaborate mathematical explanation trying to explain away and avoid accepting the most obvious results of one of the most famous scientific experiments of all time.
Skeptics trying to make broad statements from their attempts to interpret a few verses.
Thomas saw the evidence that Jesus deliberately presented and believed. We all are faced with believing evidence on the basis of other verifiable witnesses. Jesus gave others the opportunity to witness His resurrection so their testimony would be the evidence to be considered later for those who would not see Jesus for themselves. I never went to the moon, but I can believe it is possible because others have provided evidence of doing so. The person is a fool who denies all evidence that they have not personally experienced. As Luke records, Jesus resurrection was testified with many infallible proofs.
Faith believes what it cannot see or experience on the basis of evidence--faith is the substance (reality not theory) it is the evidence ( the confidence in the proofs) of things not (personally) seen.
Skepticism never allows a mind to make a sound interpretation of scripture--but honest inquiry can.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true. Evolution prevents the mind from accepting some of the most basic forms of common sense.
Gas clouds form contrary to known gas mechanics of gas. Gas pressure is at least fifty times greater than the gravitational pull on the molecules
Discussing science with you is not very fruitful because you are a functional illiterate on the subject and one has to have a high school education to understand the argument.
For instance, I ask for any evidence, outside of the Bible, that the miracles in Genesis happened. Instead of evidence, you just repeat the assertions and try to refute the overwhelming opinion of science by saying things that indicate you don't understand what you're talking about, or have read from bissed sources.
The above statement is an example.
The "known mechanics of gas" are such that pressure depends on gas density and temperature (duh). Gravitationsl force depends on the mass of the attractor and its distance. (duh). So gravity can easily overcome gas pressuren in many circumstances. How do you think the earth holds onto its air? (duh, duh, duh.) How do you think the sun, which is 100% gas and has a temperature of 6000 degrees Kelvin, keeps from flying apart? (duh, duh, duh, duh.)
I ask again, WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IS THERE, OUTSIDE OF THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE, THAT THE MOST ABSURD PARTS OF GENESIS HAPPENED??
And do YOU believe in talking snakes?
The reality of the world that we live in testifies that all intricate design has a designer. A designer designing something is less incredulous than meticulous design spontaneously occurring. Therefore it is more scientific to believe in the Intelligent design of intricate systems than in a random origin. Either way a miracle is required, but a designer is far more scientifically demonstrated. A scientific test cannot be performed with an intelligent design for the test. When we understand that creation is a miracle - it would be obtuse to suppose that a finite mind could properly assess what is absurd on the part of the infinite designer when the finite mind has no to way to evaluate infinite knowledge.
It's not about whether you believe in talking snakes, its about whether you believe in spiritual beings that can masquerade for deceit. People still masquerade and deceive today and we still use the expression for that as "being a snake."
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true.
and most certainly we don't know where we're going next.
it's been that way pretty much from the beginning.
man in his awareness & consciousness has used imagination to help himself along.
the fact that humans, but not the other apes can build cathedrals, go to the moon, etc. is no small thing.
That may be your interpretation, but I think we know all of those in pretty good detail, and most evolutionary biologists and educated people would agree.
and most certainly we don't know where we're going next.
it's been that way pretty much from the beginning.
man in his awareness & consciousness has used imagination to help himself along.
the fact that humans, but not the other apes can build cathedrals, go to the moon, etc. is no small thing.
That may be your interpretation, but I think we know all of those in pretty good detail, and most evolutionary biologists and educated people would agree.
i accept that you believe that we do. i take the position that we don't, and i also know that's pretty far out in a world of public schooled individuals.
actually, we don't have a clue, as the buddhists have long known.
we're making up the story the best we can, just like the ancient goat-herders sitting under the shade of the oak trees while their herds graze fresh grass beside the stream.
the fact we can go to the moon and send landers to Mars is no small event.
the high priests at NASA are consulting to set up the new branch of the military?
It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....
In other words we (collectively) don't know a lot about it. Yet you seem sure that there is no Creator. I don't agree with Ringman but I fully understand why he makes his arguments for creationism. He's simply affirming his faith.
On the other hand I've often wondered why some argue so vehemently against the existence of a Creator. It's obvious that it can't be "proven" scientifically one way or the other, so the whole argument is pointless.
Seems to me that the argument agaist a Creator is not affirming anything, it's just an attempt to tear down the beliefs of others, to prove to people like Ringman that his faith is misguided.
In other words, a fools errand. Seems to be driven by envy of what others have.
We don't know x, therefore God is a really, really silly argument. A work in progress shouldn't make assumptions. Science examines and tests evidence, forms hypothesis and theories based on this process of discovery and does not say "well, dang, we don't know this, by golly, God must have done it"
Yes, as I said, the existence of a Creator can't be proven one way or the other scientifically, so why engage in sceintific arguments about it? Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have..
Claims are made on a public forum and claims are questioned. Nobody is forced to do it. Some profess their faith for Christianity, others for Islam or Hinduism....New Age or whatever. Christians question the claims of Islam, Hindus disagree with both, but atheists question all supernatural claims.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true. Evolution prevents the mind from accepting some of the most basic forms of common sense.
That which has evolved is not designed. The initial assumption of design is false, which effects everything that follows.
When considering LB’s comment, a thought came to mind.....
There is a stage and the grand symphony of life is being played.... majesty....grandeur..... immensity....complexity ..... and the mystery of the unknown... that’s the creation and the world we see....
Man’s science “speaking to it” is like a small young child.... sitting way in the back...away from the stage....beating on a toy drum.
The child can only comprehend the drum.... he only knows that he beats it and it makes noise..... he cannot see nor comprehend nor appreciate the grand symphony.
Man, for all his beating on the drum cannot explain what is happening on the stage..... man cannot create anything.... not even a single cell....
The child somehow does not realize that even the drum he beats has been given to him....he is only fascinated by his own action of hitting the drum and making a noise.
Starting to sound like Gus....? ..... no more lunesta for me
Time for a second cup of coffee.
for a guy that converses with snakes, you got a lot to say for yourself.
So, Leroy.... care to explain your “converses with snakes” comment?
" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."
What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?
I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.
There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.
The thief comes to steal and destroy.
Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.
Your beliefs are your own business and if they bring you joy and comfort and harm no one, enjoy, nobody can take that away from you. But when faith/belief is made public, claimed to be truth, then naturally it is going to be questioned by those who don't see things that way, including other theists who hold different beliefs.
" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."
What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?
I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.
There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.
The thief comes to steal and destroy.
Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.
Your beliefs are your own business and if they bring you joy and comfort and harm no one, enjoy, nobody can take that away from you. But when faith/belief is made public, claimed to be truth, then naturally it is going to be questioned by those who don't see things that way, including other theists who hold different beliefs.
Well,of course.... your comment does not address the issue that victoro inquired about.
.. when faith/belief is made public, claimed to be truth, then naturally it is going to be questioned by those who don't see things that way, including other theists who hold different beliefs.
TF49 considers himself one of those xtra special Christians, that are here to 'help' people find the 'truth' be they what he considers misguided theists or otherwise.
before the internet you would tend to find them on street corners clutching Bible atop a milk crate annoying the passing public with rants about, the blood of the lamb and fire/ brimstone.
Originally Posted by DBT
Your beliefs are your own business ..
some Christians are on a hell bent mission of making their personal beliefs your personal beliefs.
it even comes with threats parroted from Bible along the lines of , 'believe or else'
We all are faced with believing evidence on the basis of other verifiable witnesses.
Without the ability to cross examine the witnesses you speak of , Why would any rational reasonable person form a conviction that what they claim to have witnessed was true beyond all reasonable doubt?
and we only have an old biblical narrative , not signed affidavits from witnesses.
lets remember that Jesus was constantly not recognized;... by Mary at the tomb or by his close disciples when Jesus stood on the shore or on the road to Emmaus.
so much for the 'proof value' of eyewitness testimony.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
As Luke records, Jesus resurrection was testified with many infallible proofs.
Proof is proof, its either proof or it aint proof- pure and simple, ..Why the need to refer to proof as fallible or infallible?
mere Evidence however, is a different matter.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Faith believes what it cannot see or experience on the basis of evidence--faith is the substance (reality not theory) it is the evidence ( the confidence in the proofs) of things not (personally) seen.
What you personally consider proof is not necessarily such to others. When folks are desperate to believe something rather than being impartial, we all know the personal interpretation of evidence can become irrational and cause the 'truth' to go pear shaped.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Skepticism never allows a mind to make a sound interpretation of scripture--but honest inquiry can.
Interpretation of scripture varies from person to person, but like many others who differ to you, they also like to claim their own interpretation as superior.
since you consider your own view superior, you are not merely skeptical of other views but rather dismissive.
Claims are made on a public forum and claims are questioned. Nobody is forced to do it. Some profess their faith for Christianity, others for Islam or Hinduism....New Age or whatever.
Yep, there's a whole lotta Muslims, Hindus, and new agers posting here, I see what you mean.
" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."
What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?
I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.
There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.
The thief comes to steal and destroy.
Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.
Your beliefs are your own business and if they bring you joy and comfort and harm no one, enjoy, nobody can take that away from you. But when faith/belief is made public, claimed to be truth, then naturally it is going to be questioned by those who don't see things that way, including other theists who hold different beliefs.
Well,of course.... your comment does not address the issue that victoro inquired about.
I wasn't responding to 'victoro' - I must have missed what was said.
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true. Evolution prevents the mind from accepting some of the most basic forms of common sense.
That which has evolved is not designed. The initial assumption of design is false, which effects everything that follows.
Claims are made on a public forum and claims are questioned. Nobody is forced to do it. Some profess their faith for Christianity, others for Islam or Hinduism....New Age or whatever.
Yep, there's a whole lotta Muslims, Hindus, and new agers posting here, I see what you mean.
I wasn't just talking about here, my remark was about claims made on public forums and questioned in public forums, be that here or anywhere else. That is the principle. It's not personal or restricted to this forum.
Prayer is a form of supplication to a higher power, a God....please God grant us this request. Which is odd from the perspective of God, being described as omniscient and omnipotent, therefore perfectly able to create a world where both suffering and supplication is unnecessary. Some may hope and pray for financial gain or power and status.
Christians can tend to question or dislike the hand their God has dealt them.
of course they have choices in how they play their hand,, they can listen to scientific meteorological reports of an impending hurricane or tornado, and get their asses out of that region in timely manner, or cling to prayers hoping God will redirect the tempest winds to some other location and consequently to some other unfortunate souls horror or disadvantage.
Faith is trusting that some other poor unsuspecting baztard deserves a hurricane more than the person praying does.
AS, no matter how you fight Him, Roman's and its satan fought Him more ferociously. HE and His Word will be rolling along just as He wishes and proclaimed all along long after you are dust and gone.
Why are you so concerned about us stupid Christians being wrong? If you see yourself as our protector, stand down.
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
Well, they moved north and needed to blend in with the snow due to polar bears, you know. They didnt need to have pigmented skin to absorb the suns winter rays cause they discovered fire.
Well its right there in the BIble, how many instances are there where a guest got invited to a feast and got thrown out by the King that had him invited?
Originally Posted by TF49
I suspect you will have to do a cut and paste, but go ahead.....
You want to know the verse , but get annoyed if I directly quote/cut and paste it word-for-word from Bible.
go figure.
Originally Posted by TF49
You post without thinking and without understanding.
you mean people don't follow your understanding, or is Ringmans or Thundersticks or jAgX s etc etc,.. that people need to follow...?
Well its right there in the BIble, how many instances are there where a guest got invited to a feast and got thrown out by the King that had him invited?
Originally Posted by TF49
I suspect you will have to do a cut and paste, but go ahead.....
You want to know the verse , but get annoyed if I cut and paste it directly word-for-word from Bible.
How many instances? I suspect zero, but you go ahead, find it, post it and then explain it.....
Explain who got invited....who.... that is important to understanding what is being taught....then explain the guest got “thrown out” part.
Before you attempt this, it might help to review and understand what a parable is and why it is used.....,also you might think about what a metaphor is.
So, what is it going to be? Back up what you say or continue to bob and weave and dodge?
Well, we both know you don’t know what your talking about. I know the passage and verses you are referring to.... well, I think I know what you are referring to but that may be a bad assumption given the lack of clarity here.
Here’s the thing.....you implied that a person was invited to a feast.... and the got thrown out of the feast ... and apparently condemned.
That is not what the passage teaches.
The theological implication is that God invited.... a person came... was found unworthy and then got tossed out. You may not realize it, but it is kinda like a person was invited in by God....then judged unworthy.....judged AFTER.....and then thrown out. Implies that God was pulling a fast one....also implies the insufficiency of Jesus’ death.
This is just flat out wrong teaching. Wrong interpretation of the passage and verses.
Now, I know that this may be beyond your understanding and you may continue to believe whatever and go wherever your understanding leads you..... but don’t go saying the Bible teaches something when it does not.
Anyway..... go on....live your life and do what you do....
The theological implication is that God invited.... a person came... was found unworthy and then got tossed out. You may not realize it, but it is kinda like a person was invited in by God....then judged unworthy.....judged AFTER.....and then thrown out. Implies that God was pulling a fast one....
I made no such claim that God was pulling a 'fast one' ..but I can't stop you choosing to read into things that way... and an 'all knowing' God would not be shocked and surprised that an unworthy guest came, for he would know well in advance such would arrive and He could easily have prevent him from entering where he did not belong,.., rather than waiting and abruptly throwing him out after the fact..... Discretely screening your guests at the door makes sense and saves creating such an avoidable scene.
but we all know that myth gets more mileage with captive readers if you include hype and drama.
The story simply defies how a royal court or all wise God with sensible protocols would do things.
I see lots of prayer requests on The Fire. What I don't see is evidence they improve outcomes for the prayer recipient.
Do you believe that the prayer requestors owe you some kind of evidence on the outcome?
What an interestingly defensive response?
I was just making an observation about a data point.
A "data point?" What if all the prayer requestors want is to know that others are thinking about them, and praying for them. Who are you to demand "results" from them??
How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are.
Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
The evolutionary theory of life cannot evolve unless it can first start. We have found one point of agreement though--and that we both know that evolution is totally useless theory when it come explaining the origins of life because it is a statistical impossibility.
How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....
You still engage with the fallacy of ''we don't know x, therefore God.''
I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true. Evolution prevents the mind from accepting some of the most basic forms of common sense.
That which has evolved is not designed. The initial assumption of design is false, which effects everything that follows.
and why would that which we observe in adaptation and variation not be by design?
" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."
What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?
I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.
There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.
The thief comes to steal and destroy.
Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.
Your beliefs are your own business and if they bring you joy and comfort and harm no one, enjoy, nobody can take that away from you. But when faith/belief is made public, claimed to be truth, then naturally it is going to be questioned by those who don't see things that way, including other theists who hold different beliefs.
Well,of course.... your comment does not address the issue that victoro inquired about.
Btw.... Leroy, are you there?
Leroy prefers to ask questions or make scathing remarks, he prefers not to engage in a substantive exchange.
I see lots of prayer requests on The Fire. What I don't see is evidence they improve outcomes for the prayer recipient.
Do you believe that the prayer requestors owe you some kind of evidence on the outcome?
What an interestingly defensive response?
I was just making an observation about a data point.
I can certainly share a response on this point. I went to the hospital a few months ago with a bad case of c-diff. I shared that with a few here. A lot of people were praying. A week later I went back to work. When I reported back to my family doctor she assumed I could not yet be working with an iron count that was still significantly off the charts low from blood loss. How can you even function without a severe headache or dizziness? I said I feel quite well in spite of the fact that I medically should not be.
So you asked for a response and I gave it. God does not always choose to answer prayers as we see fit. But I have a number of examples in my life where a medical diagnosis was one thing and reality was something for which the doctors just shook their heads. Generally I have been blessed with very good health but I had a few serious medical events in my life. I will share another.
"We have diagnosed you with a very serious and rare heart valve (sporadic) blockage that needs removed by a special operation." What are the chances of error in this diagnosis, I asked?" None, I know what I am seeing on the echo report, but I want another look on Monday to know where to refer you for surgery.You have a growth on a leash like an old sink stopper that occasionally plugs the valve and sends you into palpitations--fortunately so far it eventually releases and then floats again. Should it never release it will quickly become life threatening and likely fatal. My children come in and I talk to them, as possibly this is the last time for that, since I am living on borrowed time till the operation. This is quite an experience when your children are young. I am at peace in God's hands, but of course I am concerned for my family. Many prayers are offered all over the country. We have a prayer and anointing service in the interim. Saturday I feel terrible until evening and then I sense an immediate turn around. Sunday I sense that I am healed. Monday they cannot find a trace of anything with the scope. The doctor does not even want to talk to me, but discharges me remotely. I refuse to leave the room till he comes and talks. He tries all forms of back peddling to explain that he only thought he saw something--I remind him of what he said that there was no chance of a wrong diagnosis because the growth is very evident. I asked why I could not go home over the weekend if the diagnosis was merely a suspicion. He said, when you came in we almost lost you and we could not allow you to go home. I said now I am being discharged and what did you treat me for? He said nothing proactively. So why am I leaving now when I had a serious event when I arrived and now nothing is being done? Because we can't find anything wrong with you and could not advise any treatment.
So to clarify doc--I came here with a serious condition.I passed out in the ER and was brought back.I had heart palpitations that were observed. I had an echo that showed a mass. I was told I had a very rare heart situation. I was re examined Monday with a scope which found nothing. I am now leaving with a clean bill of health with no medical treatment or procedure. How do you explain this doc? I don't really know. OK sir then I will tell you--the only thing that occurred between those those diagnosis was prayer and divine intervention. Well I'm glad you are better and can be discharged. Yes so am I, and one more time doc--you are confirming that you did not treat me and you have no further treatment to suggest. Yes that is correct and I really need to leave right now. The nurse looks at me says--I'm with you -- I know what happened.
Heven't heard from Ringman for several pages so I'll stop beating him up.
Ringman has the type of faith that, if there was evidence the sky was blue, and Genesis said it was red, he would refuse to look at it. His faith makes him ignore all the evidence for evolution and all the evidence that whoever wrote Genesis, they had very little to do with God or reality. There are worse things to have than that kind of faith.
For the record I believe in the basics of Christianity, and that religion is necessary for society to be anything but a bunch of greedy people immersed in moral relativism.
As for prayer, Jesus taught us how to pray. (Did you ever hear of the Lord's Prayer?) All these prayers (people post "prayers sent") for someone to get well, etc., are NOT what the Lord's Prayer says. It says "thy will be done."
And I don't think such prayers work. True, you can find cases where, coincidentally, someone prays and someone gets well. But for at least 500 years, every public event in England has been preceded by a prayer for the health and long lives of the royal family. Yet they don't live any longer than otherwise. People should pray for "thy will be done" instead of any specific outcome.
And "thy kingdom come?" Many people think that means the end of time and that someone is going to come down from the clouds and banish everyone to hell. Rubbish. Jesus was quite explicit in saying that the kingdom of God is within us. It hasn't come yet. Pray that it does.
As for hell, I don't believe in the concept of hell that some Christians have. It was basically thought up in the Dsrk Ages to scare ignorant peasants into subsidizing the drunkenness and adultery of oligarchs like the Borgia Popes.
Our current Bible was basically thought up by a bunch of medieval bishops around 300 AD, not by Jesus or even Paul. They included some writings and threw out others, including several "gospels." Were they divinely inspired? Why would we think so? I believe Christianity would be a lot more attractive if we threw out some of the more egregious absurdities of the Old Testament as well as the scary monster stuff in Revelation.
All of our prayers should have a balance of being honest communication that is yielding to the sovereign will of God. I never gave into all the requests of my children, and sometimes denying them was for their own good; but they also needed to know that they could come and talk about anything ... and sometimes they did get what they wanted ... if they did not demand it ... if they could benefit from it. They knew I enjoyed giving what I felt would be for their good and that is why they came and asked. Those conversations built trusting relationships and character in my children. This is the analogy given in scripture for prayer.
and why would that which we observe in adaptation and variation not be by design?
Because it either succeeds or not depending on the genetic makeup of the organism. Most die. The world is littered with the remains/fossils of extinct species. If that is an example of intelligent design, the Architect is not qualified. The claim of design was put to the test but failed for reasons that are easily accessed and need no repeating.
All of our prayers should have a balance of being honest communication that is yielding to the sovereign will of God. I never gave into all the requests of my children, and sometimes denying them was for their own good; but they also needed to know that they could come and talk about anything ... and sometimes they did get what they wanted ... if they did not demand it ... if they could benefit from it. They knew I enjoyed giving what I felt would be for their good and that is why they came and asked. Those conversations built trusting relationships and character in my children. This is the analogy given in scripture for prayer.
My long ago prayer for the life of my little grandson would have been for his own good. Didn't happen.
As for prayer, Jesus taught us how to pray. (Did you ever hear of the Lord's Prayer?) All these prayers (people post "prayers sent") for someone to get well, etc., are NOT what the Lord's Prayer says. It says "thy will be done."
“This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us” (1 John 5:14).
cAn prayer ignite powder in a Glock if you pull on a dud primer? or cause a perps gun to miraculously fail?
WHAT did the Irish Catholic say when their journey was slowed cause 3 of the 4 Jet engines had quit on the B747...? " I pray the 4th don't go otherwise we will be stuck up here all night'
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
My long ago prayer for the life of my little grandson would have been for his own good. Didn't happen.
many a graveyard headstone says stuff like; ..'resting in eternal bliss with God and the angels', etc
then some God fearing living folk say; ' take comfort they have gone to a better place'...
yet rarely would they be willing to trade places with the dead.
As noted prayer also is yielding to God's sovereign will. Right now my young nephew has a little boy released from the NICU whose life is still hanging in the balance of uncertainty. The prayer of the parents is that God's will be done. Their faith does not guarantee a miracle but they know it can happen. Whether we have faith in God or not, it will not always change whether or not certain events will transpire. But for those who live by faith .... good can still come out of tragedy. The death of Christ could be considered a tragedy of death for an innocent man who dared to challenge the religious establishment. But His life and death brought hope to many others who suffer tragedy. Even tragedy when yielded to sovereignty can have purpose. Tragedy without yielding to sovereignty is tragedy and meaninglessness.
All of our prayers should have a balance of being honest communication that is yielding to the sovereign will of God. I never gave into all the requests of my children, and sometimes denying them was for their own good; but they also needed to know that they could come and talk about anything ... and sometimes they did get what they wanted ... if they did not demand it ... if they could benefit from it. They knew I enjoyed giving what I felt would be for their good and that is why they came and asked. Those conversations built trusting relationships and character in my children. This is the analogy given in scripture for prayer.
My long ago prayer for the life of my little grandson would have been for his own good. Didn't happen.
Bowsinger,
I “babysat” a couple of grandkids last night. Great fun. And I did think about what it might be like to lose one... or my own child.... I cannot imagine the emotional torment and grief that would come with that. My heartfelt condolences to you.
There are troubles and times of grief that come into this world. I had a time like that when my wife of 38 years passed away from cancer. It was a terrible time for her. She was ill for almost three years. Yes, many prayers from friends, family, church members and from folks we didn’t know. The prayers were for healing but also for strength as we went through this time. She was not healed but, after about two years of struggle, she had peace with the Lord and later went home in true victory.
I did not share her peace.. I struggled the entire time. I had a true “sovereignty of God” issue. But, when I was greatly confused, troubled and disappointed with all that was going on.....God spoke to my mind.... it was very clear, spoke with authority.... spoke with finality and spoke with love...and spoke without providing an explanation......He told me, and these are the exact words....”I want her in heaven with me.”
I was stricken with two emotions at the same time... grief and joy.... grief that I suddenly knew, without a doubt that radiation and chemo were not going to save her life.... but joy....joy of knowing that God was in on it, He was there.... He knew.... He knew her and He was going to take her to be with him. There was also a kind peace about it...I knew God was with us and while I did not nor had not wanted any of this struggle ...... somehow .....God’s hand was there and His purpose were being fulfilled.
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset. Crowfoot
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
Hope is irrelevant to truth.
hope dwells eternal.
at least that's what my grandmom always said.
it's almost as if ideology possesses humans as carriers.
others might add that bacteria also possesses humans as carriers.
What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset. - Crowfoot
Day or Night do not really disappear; its always day or night somewhere .. When whirlpools fade the ocean is still producing them elsewhere...life goes on. [subject to how one views it]
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
Hope is irrelevant to truth.
It is not irrelevant to life. Why such an unmitigated need to destroy it? To knowingly and purposelessly destroy it is evil. What virtue is there in being a missionary of despair and nihilism when you have no better truth? To pursue such endeavors, IMO bespeaks deep personal issues. just sayin.
What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset. - Crowfoot
Day or Night do not really disappear; its always day or night somewhere .. When whirlpools fade the ocean is still producing them elsewhere...life goes on. [subject to how one views it]
This is why men like Crowfoot and Black Elk knew the Circle was Sacred.
Black Elk Speaks (1961)Our tepees were round like the nests of birds, and these were always set in a circle, the nation's hoop. If the vision was true and mighty, as I know, it is true and mighty yet; for such things are of the spirit, and it is in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost.
Everybody dies. And whether you measure against a Christian eternity or a Darwinistic span of billions of years, the longest life is but a puff of smoke. Of that, there can be no debate. But there is only one hope for seeing those loved ones again.
Hope is irrelevant to truth.
It is not irrelevant to life. Why such an unmitigated need to destroy it? To knowingly and purposelessly destroy it is evil. What virtue is there in being a missionary of despair and nihilism when you have no better truth? To pursue such endeavors, IMO bespeaks deep personal issues. just sayin.
In trading we say "Hope is not a strategy". Hoping a stock is going to go up, doesn't make it go up. It's going to do what it's going to do and the best thing you can do is make your decisions based upon the best data available. Unrealistic hopes are seldom helpful and can lead to some bad places. Accepting that we have a finite life and working to live THIS life to its' best and fullest is not nihilism and despair but an appreciation for what we have here and now, and not suffering the paradise lost of a paradise that does not exist.
In trading we say "Hope is not a strategy". Hoping a stock is going to go up, doesn't make it go up. It's going to do what it's going to do and the best thing you can do is make your decisions based upon the best data available. Unrealistic hopes are seldom helpful and can lead to some bad places. Accepting that we have a finite life and working to live THIS life to its' best and fullest is not nihilism and despair but an appreciation for what we have here and now, and not suffering the paradise lost of a paradise that does not exist.
That's good - I like that. (Did you make that up or "borrow" it from somewhere?)
I think religion started off with the same intention but somehow stories had to be told to get people to listen, and it just turned into what it is today.
You only live once has been my mantra, but not to the point of wanting to experience death defying adrenalin stunts of course.
Religion is hope and can help you through dire situations but it's kinda a last desperate resort. The were Australian prisoners of war who worked on the railways for the Japanese, and one of them said he kept going (mentally and physically) thanks to a hope of returning home to see his family, and imagining that every time he went to sleep. Kept him sane and maybe even kept him alive I guess.
God has demonstrated time and again that His prophetic promises come true. On that basis our hope is not a mere happy thought but a joyful expectation that lives in the present and looks to the future.
Science cannot offer us anything authoritative regarding our origins because it cannot repeatedly test spontaneous generation. Science cannot predict our future because it has no reliable data for that.
Looking far into the past or into the future with science will only show it's inadequacy to provide those answers. We look with faith, not a blind one, but one that sees all the promises kept to the prophets. We also see lives that have been radically changed by faith in Christ. I have known drunks and crackheads changed by Christ without going through any rehab programs. I'm not saying those programs are not necessary at times but I have seen when they were not. We are not merely talking about a mind change but a heart change...a metamorphosis of a new person. This is real evidence of a hope that is assured.
God has demonstrated time and again that His prophetic promises come true. On that basis our hope is not a mere happy thought but a joyful expectation that lives in the present and looks to the future.
Science cannot offer us anything authoritative regarding our origins because it cannot repeatedly test spontaneous generation. Science cannot predict our future because it has no reliable data for that.
Looking far into the past or into the future with science will only show it's inadequacy to provide those answers. We look with faith, not a blind one, but one that sees all the promises kept to the prophets. We also see lives that have been radically changed by faith in Christ. I have known drunks and crackheads changed by Christ without going through any rehab programs. I'm not saying those programs are not necessary at times but I have seen when they were not. We are not merely talking about a mind change but a heart change...a metamorphosis of a new person. This is real evidence of a hope that is assured.
Scientist are much better about admitting there are things we don't know. Substituting your God, or any other mythical or supernatural answer is not really an answer.
As for your assertion that no one's ever kicked any addiction without Christ demonstrates your parochial view of the world.
Are you really so arrogant to think no non-Christian has ever kicked a habit? "Twelve Step" program generally have a very generous definition of "higher power". What they really mean by this is have a purpose beyond yourself. This purpose is not limited to Christianity, can be Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, or Americanism, a strong belief in our constitution. It can even be Marxism, because, as we know, plenty of commie Marxist are true believers. Or this purpose can be as simple as one's family.
What's not included is Nihilism. It's also a common symptom of the mass shooters who just want the world to burn.
God has demonstrated time and again that His prophetic promises come true. On that basis our hope is not a mere happy thought but a joyful expectation that lives in the present and looks to the future.
Science cannot offer us anything authoritative regarding our origins because it cannot repeatedly test spontaneous generation. Science cannot predict our future because it has no reliable data for that.
Looking far into the past or into the future with science will only show it's inadequacy to provide those answers. We look with faith, not a blind one, but one that sees all the promises kept to the prophets. We also see lives that have been radically changed by faith in Christ. I have known drunks and crackheads changed by Christ without going through any rehab programs. I'm not saying those programs are not necessary at times but I have seen when they were not. We are not merely talking about a mind change but a heart change...a metamorphosis of a new person. This is real evidence of a hope that is assured.
As for prophesies, there are those who claim Nostradamus made a lot of prophesies that later came true. Both groups have to do a lot of creative reading and ignore a lot of text and a lot of misses, to make their claims.
This is why men like Crowfoot and Black Elk knew the Circle was Sacred.
The Yin-Yang circle of opposites concept was recognized by Fu-Shi several thousands of yrs before Judaism/christianity. representative of female/ male, darkness/ light, hot/ cold, good/ evil. etc
The elements stay in balance and are not static or separate, they flow into one another - they are complimentary and relative to one another because they come from ONE common source. ...The nature of yin - yang lies in the interchange and interplay of the two components – like night flows into day.
Where Asaiah 45:7 says " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
is essentially the dual nature of the Yin-Yang stemming from ONE common source. only that sheep/goat herder monotheists were more than a little late to the party.
understanding the concept of yin and yang allows one to suspend judgment on any one component as you realize that the forces in ones life are dynamic - in constant state of change, and that they balance and flow as they are meant, to maintain a state of equilibrium.
when you are a King you what inferior fearful submissive subjects, so they can look up to you
what better way to make them inferior than to set up the cause and effect for them to be evil.
As much as christians are polarised in their good/evil battle, it is their own God that controls hell, empowers evil with divine authority and provides the dominion to operate in.
Sort of like clandestinely supporting Jihad terrorists whilst getting your dumb flock to simultaneously fight a war on terror.
it's looks like we're moving farther and farther away from the High Majicc, and much more into the post-modern where rationale, science & technology are motivating the masses.
of course in the case of dorian the mighty, i hope that the water remains with the water, and the land remains with the land. might be some negotiation going on before it's over?
Society seems very anti science and rapidly growing more so. Also more militant religious. Quite the opposite of what you are saying, Gus, at least in America. I agree that the rest the world is going the other direction. But it ain't to be mistaken for post modernism.
speaking of the current world, the us and maybe two-three other minor countries are dealing with the english measurement system? that is, not the metric system, although we all know pretty much what it is and how it works.
many have thought we're leaving the industrial age and moving further into the ecological age. but yet, the mass politics all accept we should bring more mfg jobs back to america. and i agree. it's hard to beat making something to sell abroad.
the ecological age is more feely, sweet, airy, and bubbly? that is, live and let live, and let's all combine resources to save the urth. (like we had any resources: well, brainpower & technology), but not much else.
the idea of allowing der chinese to do our dirty work & mfg, and off loading it onto walmart for domestic distribution is not a bad concept...at least as long as the domestic money holds out. they get the pollution, and we get the plastic toys in the cardboard boxes to go under our aluminum xmas trees.
lot's of conflicting opinions and view points on post-modernism. i'd like to hear yours when you have a chance.
Rivers meander because their velocity increases on the outside of bends, thus more erosion and greater depth. sediment removed is deposited on inner curves downstream because the velocity is slower.
iTs always about the path of least resistance no matter how fast or slow the river, or the varying degree of meandering.
meandering or no meandering, a course of the river will be determined by the path of least resistance. To not following the path of least resistance, is to not follow the Law of Gravity.
least resistance to gravity...rivers meander because they obey the Law of Gravity..
Rivers "flow" because of the law of gravity. Meanders, however, don't develop where the effects of gravity are greatest (steep high gradient straight high velocity sections). Instead, meanders develop and grow when the effects of gravity on velocity are diminished as a river's gradient decreases and it follows a more gently sloping surface, although the initial curve is likely caused by an obstruction (in that sense, the initial development is caused by the flow in the path of least resistance).
"Meandering Streams: At a bend in a stream the water's momentum carries the mass of the water against the outer bank. Water piles up on the outer bank making it a little deeper and the inner bank a little shallower. The greater depth on the outer side of the bend also leads to higher velocity at the outer bank. The greater velocity combined with the greater inertial force on the outer bank erodes a deepr channel. The deeper channel reinforces the velocity increase. The inner bank remains shallower, increasing friction, thereby reducing the velocity. Where the depth and velocity of the water on the outer bank increase so do the competence and capacity. Erosion occurs on the outer bank or cut bank. Where velocity of the water on the inner bank decreases so do the competence and capacity. Deposition occurs, leading to the formation of a point bar. Over time, the position of the stream changes as the bend migrates in the direction of the cut bank. As oxbow bends accentuate and migrate, two bends can erode together forming a cutoff and leaving an oxbow lake."
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I think you're oversimplifying a complex process You don't see many meanders on high gradient, high velocity streams that are more affected by gravity.
Rivers "flow" because of the law of gravity.....meanders develop and grow when the effects of gravity on velocity are diminished .
So rivers meander even as they obey the Law of Gravity.
Unless a river course can defy gravity and meander , then I say rivers meander because they obey the Law of Gravity.
Originally Posted by thirdbite
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I think you're oversimplifying a complex process You don't see many meanders on high gradient, high velocity streams that are more affected by gravity.
There is no process complex or otherwise , without a river obeying the Law of Gravity and taking the path of least resistance.
When a river meanders its because it is obeying the Law of Gravity....unless there's a way a river can defy gravity and ignore the path of least resistance and still manage to meander.
No one has ever said that a river doesn't obey the law of gravity. Of course they do, but there is a lot more going on than that. As far as I know, gravity is pretty universal. Would you say life evolves because of the law of gravity or it evolves under the conditions subject to the law of gravity? Maybe your statement "then I say rivers meander because they obey the Law of Gravity" would be better stated as "rivers meander while obeying the law of gravity as well as other physical laws". At least it's been a welcome diversion from the unsupportable claims against evolution.
All physical events will occur subject to all laws of physics, but not necessarily because of a specific law or principle. You can think of it in the manner in which you understand it and which makes sense to you.
meanders happen because there is transition from gravitational (potential) energy to kinetic.,
and when a river is closer to its gradient profile, surplus energy is put into lateral erosion, such lateral outer curve bank erosion takes place because such is the path of least resistance for water.
iTs always about the path of least resistance .To not following the path of least resistance, is to not follow the Law of Gravity.
but since this thread includes the interests of literal minded theists, we should mention the meta-physics of Moses parting the Red Sea.
After reflection, you are correct. The development of meanders and other river features is a complex dynamic process, but stripped to its essence, it is caused by gravity and flowing in path of least resistance. Reckon I'm too mundane to operate at that level.
As for prophesies, there are those who claim Nostradamus made a lot of prophesies that later came true. Both groups have to do a lot of creative reading and ignore a lot of text and a lot of misses, to make their claims.
No other book in the world comes even close to the same scale of prophecies. There are around 300 regarding Christ, along with major world events. Post up a book of equivalents with the prophecies and their fulfillments.
After reflection, you are correct. The development of meanders and other river features is a complex dynamic process, but stripped to its essence, it is caused by gravity and flowing in path of least resistance. Reckon I'm too mundane to operate at that level.
I purposely kept it very simple [K.I.S.S] for two reasons 1. the question was basic, 2. mindful this is the CF ..
I don't think me going into the details of hydraulic action, centrifugal forces etc, was at all warranted..
Originally Posted by LeroyBeans
Originally Posted by Gus
i like the path of least resistance. kind of like a meandering river?
WATCH THIS.......A great discussion by those much smarter than anyone on this forum, on the major shortcomings of Darwin’s theory of evolution. One of the guys just risked his academic career by “walking away” from Darwinism. All 4 gentleman seem to conclude that the evidence in the fossil record, emerging biological science and mathematics completely contradicts the Darwinian approach to origins and evolution. If you want the core of the discussion, fast forward to about 26 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=noj4phMT9OE
WATCH THIS.......A great discussion by those much smarter than anyone on this forum, on the major shortcomings of Darwin’s theory of evolution. One of the guys just risked his academic career by “walking away” from Darwinism. All 4 gentleman seem to conclude that the evidence in the fossil record, emerging biological science and mathematics completely contradicts the Darwinian approach to origins and evolution. If you want the core of the discussion, fast forward to about 26 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=noj4phMT9OE
Why would you think those guys are smart? I stopped watching when I found out one of them was the same old quackdoodle from the Discovery Institute.
I would believe thousands of real scientists, not three quackdoodles. You would have to ignore tens of thousands of fossils to believe such drivel.
WATCH THIS.......A great discussion by those much smarter than anyone on this forum, on the major shortcomings of Darwin’s theory of evolution. One of the guys just risked his academic career by “walking away” from Darwinism. All 4 gentleman seem to conclude that the evidence in the fossil record, emerging biological science and mathematics completely contradicts the Darwinian approach to origins and evolution. If you want the core of the discussion, fast forward to about 26 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=noj4phMT9OE
Why would you think those guys are smart? I stopped watching when I found out one of them was the same old quackdoodle from the Discovery Institute.
I would believe thousands of real scientists, not three quackdoodles. You would have to ignore tens of thousands of fossils to believe such drivel.
"When scientists take positions and color research for economic or ideological gains, they risk embarrassment, failure and a resulting loss of trust. The impact of “fake science” is that it results in all science being questioned by a dubious public."
Should we trust “scientists?”
Well, do we trust politicians? Do we trust big pharma? Do we trust our elected... officials? Do we trust Hollywood celebrities? Do we trust the university “researchers” that now tell us that gender is a matter of choice… well or not maybe of choice or…?
Do we trust Larry Krauss?
Bad science is simply bad science and there seems to be a suspicion that there is a lot of it going around.
The latest example surrounds the subject global warming… have we caused it and is there anything that we can do about it? What are the “scientists” telling us?
“Trust me, I am a scientist and you’re not.”
What a concept……..
PT Barnum was right.
A quote from an article about scientific “credibility” ….
“Ravetz emphasises the loss of this essential ethical element. In later works he notes that the new social and ethical conditions of science are reflected in a set of “emerging contradictions”. These concern the cognitive dissonance between the official image of science as enlightened, egalitarian, protective and virtuous, against the current realities of scientific dogmatism, elitism and corruption; of science serving corporate interests and practices; of science used as an ersatz religion.”
Nah, we should trust internet heros that bang away incessantly on their keyboards about stuff that is far beyond their comprehension but for which they know the answer to every question. So many of them right here on this thread.
Nah, we should trust internet heros that bang away incessantly on their keyboards about stuff that is far beyond their comprehension but for which they know the answer to every question. So many of them right here on this thread.
So, Leroy..... would you like to explain your comment regarding me..... you know, the one where you say “converses with....”. What was it that supposedly conversed with?
Nah, we should trust internet heros that bang away incessantly on their keyboards about stuff that is far beyond their comprehension but for which they know the answer to every question. So many of them right here on this thread.
So, Leroy..... would you like to explain your comment regarding me..... you know, the one where you say “converses with....”. What was it that supposedly conversed with?
Was it satan or ?
Was it satan or ? I don't know. Why don't you tell us? After all, you are the one that chats with them. Or maybe Thunderstick or some one else that has faith in talking snakes can tell us.
Nah, we should trust internet heros that bang away incessantly on their keyboards about stuff that is far beyond their comprehension but for which they know the answer to every question. So many of them right here on this thread.
WATCH THIS.......A great discussion by those much smarter than anyone on this forum, on the major shortcomings of Darwin’s theory of evolution. One of the guys just risked his academic career by “walking away” from Darwinism. All 4 gentleman seem to conclude that the evidence in the fossil record, emerging biological science and mathematics completely contradicts the Darwinian approach to origins and evolution. If you want the core of the discussion, fast forward to about 26 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=noj4phMT9OE
Yes. All are brilliant men with the highest academic credentials. David Galerntner is a highly regarded computer scientist at Yale. As an interesting side note, Galerntner was badly injured in a bomb sent to him by the Unabomber who apparently did not like his cutting edge work in computer science and information theory.
WATCH THIS.......A great discussion by those much smarter than anyone on this forum, on the major shortcomings of Darwin’s theory of evolution. One of the guys just risked his academic career by “walking away” from Darwinism. All 4 gentleman seem to conclude that the evidence in the fossil record, emerging biological science and mathematics completely contradicts the Darwinian approach to origins and evolution. If you want the core of the discussion, fast forward to about 26 minutes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=noj4phMT9OE
Why would you think those guys are smart? I stopped watching when I found out one of them was the same old quackdoodle from the Discovery Institute.
I would believe thousands of real scientists, not three quackdoodles. You would have to ignore tens of thousands of fossils to believe such drivel.
The quackdoodle is the guy (you) who has to resort to a logical fallacy to attack the highly regarded academics on the video yet is apparently too stupid to even realize he doesn't grasp elementary logic.
Nah, we should trust internet heros that bang away incessantly on their keyboards about stuff that is far beyond their comprehension but for which they know the answer to every question. So many of them right here on this thread.
So, Leroy..... would you like to explain your comment regarding me..... you know, the one where you say “converses with....”. What was it that supposedly conversed with?
Was it satan or ?
Was it satan or ? I don't know. Why don't you tell us? After all, you are the one that chats with them. Or maybe Thunderstick or some one else that has faith in talking snakes can tell us.
Well, you implied that I converse with snakes. Actually, you were pretty clear about it.
Now you say I am the one who chats with them.
But, I see you cannot respond and can only bob and dodge.
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
Soldier on.
In thinking further--this is a very interesting postulation--because in order for it to be true a person would need a perfect knowledge of the entire internet. Obviously lacking the substance of that knowledge we are left with a speculative emotional outburst. But setting that aside, do I get some form of an honorary degree for achieving this status?
Look what showed up! Of course no supporting data came to give it credibility--but I don't suppose that is needed for emotional outbursts.
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
Soldier on.
In thinking further--this is a very interesting postulation--because in order for it to be true a person would need a perfect knowledge of the entire internet. Obviously lacking the substance of that knowledge we are left with a speculative emotional outburst. But setting that aside, do I get some form of an honorary degree for achieving this status?
Look what showed up! Of course no supporting data came to give it credibility--but I don't suppose that is needed for emotional outbursts.
You can't get me out of your head, can you? Sorry about that, but I'm lovin' this whole thread. So much creativity, so much drama. Thunderstruck, you really should write TV sitcoms or something like that - maybe you do.
Meanwhile, Soldier on. Your Crusade awaits, and I can't wait for the next chapter.
This approach is certainly not helping the cause for the intellectual viability of the theory of evolution--in fact it is demonstrating how unscientific it is. Atheistic/materialistic evolution as a standalone principle, is similar to the theory of Communism which rests upon this fundamental premise, which in its demise and failure, has proven itself to be guilty of the charge of the "opiate of the masses."
And yet, this is the dumbest post of all time. Not just in this thread - which is saying something in itself, but for of time, all threads, all forums, throughout the internet. Just stunning.
But that's what makes this place so frikkin' funny.
Soldier on.
In thinking further--this is a very interesting postulation--because in order for it to be true a person would need a perfect knowledge of the entire internet. Obviously lacking the substance of that knowledge we are left with a speculative emotional outburst. But setting that aside, do I get some form of an honorary degree for achieving this status?
Look what showed up! Of course no supporting data came to give it credibility--but I don't suppose that is needed for emotional outbursts.
You can't get me out of your head, can you? Sorry about that, but I'm lovin' this whole thread. So much creativity, so much drama. Thunderstruck, you really should write TV sitcoms or something like that - maybe you do.
Meanwhile, Soldier on. Your Crusade awaits, and I can't wait for the next chapter.
Beans, your post was ad hominem and nothing but, which means you can't respond on the merits, which means you've conceded the argument. Nice work!
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/Pf3SFwzb/images.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/bvmnNQv3/images.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/NFmkdp6p/56291b6c782c1-Human-Evolution-of-Warfare1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/Kj0pP9xw/science-vs-religion.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Platypus_%28Ornithorhynchus_anatinus%29._First_Description_1799.jpg/330px-Platypus_%28Ornithorhynchus_anatinus%29._First_Description_1799.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.ntu.edu.sg/dist/a/853/files/2017/03/Pic-15-1xlg2ut.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve.svg/250px-Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve.svg.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.dogster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/dew-claw-dewclaw-01.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/W47XF6wm/images-43.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/732/409/25c.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/nVGLHVKP/images-44.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/PrvFWJ66/images-45.jpg)
Core requirements included 15 hours of Philosophy and 6 hours of Theology (theology in a wide scope, nor religion) Being Accounting majors we thought it a drudge. Looking back those were the most valuable courses. First it teaches you to order your thoughts, to think in a rational manner which affects all of your life, whatever you're doing. Secondly it helps you find your place in the cosmos allowing you to live a fulfilling life. So yes, I think students should pursue these courses, hopefully with more enthusiasm than I did.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/76mRQrQ7/46837f95-378b-4d43-bfba-952e74b5ffcf.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/9FjxtMfS/source.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://cdn.britannica.com/s:300x500/94/152294-131-DC3E25DB.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://afs.okstate.edu/breeds/other/llama/llama1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/phorusrhacos_to_scale588.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://s2r.iucnredlist.org/sis2_images/458970483.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/et6lyaKSP8TT3IuL1JTpquBy9W8=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3395076/brassica-oleracea.0.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://foodinjars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/four-kohlrabi-bulbs.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71kJ8duCqQL._SL1500_.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/0/04/Cook-Brussels-Sprouts-Step-4-Version-4.jpg/aid1358870-v4-728px-Cook-Brussels-Sprouts-Step-4-Version-4.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Broccoli_and_cross_section_edit.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.rebanando.com/media/coliflor_crop.jpg/rh/coliflor-esparragada.jpg)
The scientists makes perfect sense to the person who thinks logically.
![[Linked Image]](https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/claudiosaurus2ichthyosaurs3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.locolobo.org/files/emukids.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.locolobo.org/files/emuarm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://ncse.com/files/images/Tetrapod_transition.img_assist_custom.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/aetiocetus_nostrils.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/BfBYD7z.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/nm52a52510.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0151/8127/products/088C81D1-F698-4A98-8E0A-6D16F5649B6D_1024x1024.jpeg)
![[Linked Image]](https://78.media.tumblr.com/87c43279b442bdea42442462dee472e6/tumblr_mldd35MzvY1r46foao1_1280.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2017-09/herschel-molecular-clouds-W3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg){kind=icon}
![[Linked Image]](https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/2762/865034_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingwith/images/e/e1/DimetrodonInfobox.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.jurassicworld.com/sites/default/files/2018-06/1440x651_0001_trex.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/126F0/production/_84440557_martill2hr.jpg)
