A Question For The Creationists
SJAB1958
to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
language.
If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
richardal...@googlemail.com
Tachyglossus
news:1178806646.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I think you'll find that plenty of religious people believe two incompatible
things at the same time, viz:
i) "Our religion is better than all the others, therefore our creation
account is the best";
and
ii) "All religions are 'basically saying the same thing really', so there's
no problem".
In practice, they switch from one formulation to the other as the need
arises: the first is good for shutting others out; the second is good for
bringing others in.
No, I don't know how they do it either.
T.
geo...@hotmail.com
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
To be fair, hostile language and abuse is hardly the domain of
creationists. Most of it on t.o. comes from the pro-evolution side. :)
Tachyglossus
news:1178809951....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The creationist side tends to be *passive-aggressive*: refusing to read;
refusing to understand; refusing to remember; refusing to define terms
clearly; refusing to use terms consistently; refusing to tell the truth,
etc, etc.
T.
SeppoP
Care to provide the source of your statistic study?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
geo...@hotmail.com
Me (2007)? :)
Well, I didn't count, but aside from Ray I can't recall much profanity
from the creationist side, while I and others always calling them
idiots, etc.
geo...@hotmail.com
In fact, just a search for the word fucking gets results from the past
three days. Check for yourself. :)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/search?q=fucking&start=0&scoring=d&
Lorentz
> from the creationist side, while I and others always calling them
> idiots, etc.
the nasty put downs are mostly from the Evolutionist side. I am
ashamed to say that some of it has come from me.
For the particular sin of calling other people idiots and morons,
I think that Evolutionists use the words more. However, Creationist
often present arguments in a very condescending manner. For instance,
the words "it is obvious that" raises the same or more emotional
response as explicitly calling me an idiot. It strongly implies the
same thing, well actually worse, than the word moron. My response on
being told something is obvious has occassionally been to call the
person who says that a liar.
As to people calling each other liars, I think the Creationists
are pretty close to the Evolutionists in using that accusation.
However, it is obvious to the simplest people that most of the true
liars are Creationists.
See what I mean?
Ouachitab...@gmail.com
Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
internet time. It concerns me
that "Atheist" was left off. That's a religion or else Buddhism be
declassified as a religion. There
are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
Evolutionary theory remains
a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
required by Darwin, esp. finding
a true missing link.
The universe had to have a beginning. Life had to have a beginning. We
know that from the rocks.
Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
declare the universe and life had a
finite beginning point. The inescapable implication is there was some
sort of creator, a designer, that
put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life. Order
has not been demonstrated to
emerge from disorder.
It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
wide cling to a super-scientific or
remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
beginning. Men require some explanations.
It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
current atheist can't subscribe to.
I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
them all containing nothing I
consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things. Such thoughts
more easily captivate
aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
longer populate Earth. The one that most closely approaches a super-
science explanation is, for me, biblical creation. I recognize the
modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
science for that.
Jim
Ouachita
> "I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be
> able
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
>
> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?"
>
> everyone that the ToE is about the origin of species, not the origin
> of life or the universe? And how many times have they told us that the
> ToE has nothing to do with religion one way or the other? Quite a few,
> don't you think?>
> So why are posts like the above unchallenged? When a creationist posts
> something about the origin of the universe he gets an abusive swarm
> attack, but SJAB1958 seems to be getting nods of approval. This sort
> of double standard gives the strong (and hopefully mistaken)
> impression that "evolutionists" really do think the ToE is about
> attacking religion, insisting that life rose from non-life, etc.
Because the ToE has failed to address species origination conclusively
it
takes the issue back to a baser origin, that of life itself. The ToE
is a
belief system based on too many unfounded root causes & effects. It
sits
among the many religious beliefs, about as credible as that of the
Eskimos.
By necessity for a disbeliever of evolution it leaves species origins
up against
life origins.
Jim
Mark Nutter
> On May 10, 9:26 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
> internet time. It concerns me
> that "Atheist" was left off. That's a religion or else Buddhism be
> declassified as a religion. There
> are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
> Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
That's true only in the same sense that atheism attempts to achieve
good nutrition by eating healthy foods, or that atheism attempts to
construct durable buildings by using sound engineering principles.
There's nothing inherent in atheism that demands an evolutionary
explanation for life's origins; atheists merely accept evolution on
the grounds that it happens to be the view that is most consistent
with the verifiable facts.
> Evolutionary theory remains
> a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> required by Darwin, esp. finding
> a true missing link.
This boils down to claiming that fossils, DNA, genetics, astronomy,
geology, and physics do not exist. The problem is not that there
exists no evidence which would relate to verifying evolution, the
problem is that creationists do not want to look carefully at this
evidence, because it fails to support their desired conclusions.
Refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not
existing.
m
Ernest Major
Ouachita <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> writes
out what you think it means.
You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
literature on speciation?
And, apart from the ToE evolution not invoking the supernatural and
showing the other markers of religion, the factuality of common descent
with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes is accepted by people of many different religions, as well as
by many people who lack religion, which would seem to weigh against it
being a religious belief.
--
alias Ernest Major
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Because the ToE has failed to address species origination conclusively
> it
> takes the issue back to a baser origin, that of life itself. The ToE
> is a
> belief system based on too many unfounded root causes & effects. It
> sits
> among the many religious beliefs, about as credible as that of the
> Eskimos.
> By necessity for a disbeliever of evolution it leaves species origins
> up against
> life origins.
>
> Jim
Is engaging in incoherent babbling a requirement for being a
Creationist, or just a natural tendency?
Peter Pan
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm
"Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between.
A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the
edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its
endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty
serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept
undisturbed by dreams or motion.
>From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and
spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had
ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel
grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat
Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed.
Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma
remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He
lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma
split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the
heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of
the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers,
trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he
created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds
to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these
creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power
to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the
sounds of Brahma's creation."
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 10, 9:26 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 3:17 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > > language.
>
> > > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> > For a fair selection, see here:http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php
>
> > RF
>
> Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
> internet time.
So what?
> It concerns me
> that "Atheist" was left off.
That's because atheism is not a religion.
> That's a religion or else Buddhism be
> declassified as a religion.
Why? It informs the conscience, which is the function of religion in
society.
> There
> are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
There are? Some (but by no means all) Budhists don't acknowledge a
deity, but other than that I can think of none.
>
> Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
No. Science attempts to interpret the evidence by formulating testable
hypotheses based on that evidence. This is how science works, and
science is carried out in the same way regardless of the religious
convictions of the scientist.
> Evolutionary theory remains
> a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> required by Darwin, esp. finding
> a true missing link.
What utter bullshit!
Firstly, numerous "missing links" have been found. Creationists
refuse to recognize them as such because creationism is fundamentally
dishonest and refuses either to define how a "missing link" might be
identified or give reasons why the numerous transitional forms in the
fossil record are not transitional.
>
> The universe had to have a beginning.
Quite so. It happened about 15 billion years ago.
> Life had to have a beginning.
Quite so. It seems to have happened about 3.7 billion years ago.
> We
> know that from the rocks.
No, we know it from the fossils contained in the rocks.
> Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
> declare the universe and life had a
> finite beginning point.
Who on earth would disagree with that?
> The inescapable implication is there was some
> sort of creator, a designer, that
> put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life.
Why?
> Order
> has not been demonstrated to
> emerge from disorder.
>
Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
shows order arising out of disorder.
> It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> wide cling to a super-scientific or
> remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> beginning. Men require some explanations.
> It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> current atheist can't subscribe to.
It would be amazing if it were true. How on earth can an atheist
subscribe to a myth?
> I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
> them all containing nothing I
> consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things.
So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
> Such thoughts
> more easily captivate
> aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
> longer populate Earth. The one that most closely approaches a super-
> science explanation is, for me, biblical creation.
Well bully for you. However, no scientist who actually knows anything
about the subject and who is not blinded by religious conviction
does.
> I recognize the
> modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
> me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
> satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
> science for that.
>
> Jim
RF
Victor Eijkhout
> It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> wide cling to a super-scientific or
> remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> beginning. Men require some explanations.
That last sentence is true. Our psychological make-up yearns for a
blanket to snuggle up to. Thumb in mouth.
> It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> current atheist can't subscribe to.
Atheists are the ones who recognize that just because we want it, it
ain't necessarily so.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Ouachita
> If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
> religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
> as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
> atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
were
not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist. Those not
interested in considering deity would simply be lumped into the
label of agnostic at best, or non-religious. All religions exist on
the basis
of some belief system. Atheists have a belief there is no deity,
similar to
several major world religions that elevate man instead. Humanism comes
to mind. Keep in mind nobody is required to adopt a label, But if one
adopts
a label such as "atheist" then that person takes on an implied
proactive
position in a coordinated belief system that goes out of its way to
deal
with the concept of deity. Therefore, atheism is about deity, though
taking
a negative position on that.
> > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
> That's true only in the same sense that atheism attempts to achieve
> good nutrition by eating healthy foods, or that atheism attempts to
> construct durable buildings by using sound engineering principles.
> There's nothing inherent in atheism that demands an evolutionary
> explanation for life's origins; atheists merely accept evolution on
> the grounds that it happens to be the view that is most consistent
> with the verifiable facts.
Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists
concerning
origins since that belief excludes deity (creator-designer), and fits
nicely
among the non-deity religious beliefs listed in the top post. I would
venture
to guess most atheists couldn't list 2 verifiable facts yet say they
believe
in evolution. The ones that could do that are active in these forums,
a tiny
minority.
> > Evolutionary theory remains
> > a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> > required by Darwin, esp. finding
> > a true missing link.
>
> This boils down to claiming that fossils, DNA, genetics, astronomy,
> geology, and physics do not exist. The problem is not that there
> exists no evidence which would relate to verifying evolution, the
> problem is that creationists do not want to look carefully at this
> evidence, because it fails to support their desired conclusions.
> Refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not
> existing.
If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
there would be no more argument. Those sciences provide beliefs based
on observations that are used to promote mostly hypothetical
explanations about the unmeasurable, unobservable. There is a proper,
beneficial use of those sciences, and false uses. Evolution has not
attained to true "theory" status by the strictest definition of
theory. I
took a long look at as much "evidence" as I could find. I also brought
problems upon myself in college for daring to question things that
should be subjected to questioning. You accept the widely accepted
belief system or go outside the circle.
Jim
snex
> On May 10, 1:08 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
> > religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
> > as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
> > atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
>
> Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
> were
> not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist. Those not
> interested in considering deity would simply be lumped into the
> label of agnostic at best, or non-religious. All religions exist on
> the basis
> of some belief system. Atheists have a belief there is no deity,
> similar to
> several major world religions that elevate man instead. Humanism comes
> to mind. Keep in mind nobody is required to adopt a label, But if one
> adopts
> a label such as "atheist" then that person takes on an implied
> proactive
> position in a coordinated belief system that goes out of its way to
> deal
> with the concept of deity. Therefore, atheism is about deity, though
> taking
> a negative position on that.
a better analogy would be asserting that not collecting stamps is a
hobby. atheists only go out of their way to take a position on gods
because the vast majority of people publically insist that these gods
are real. you dont see people proactively denying the existence of
santa claus because nobody really believes the guy exists anyway.
you bring up humanism, which actually could be labeled as a religion.
humanism offers precepts to follow. atheism does not. atheism is
simply the lack of theism.
>
> > > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
> > That's true only in the same sense that atheism attempts to achieve
> > good nutrition by eating healthy foods, or that atheism attempts to
> > construct durable buildings by using sound engineering principles.
> > There's nothing inherent in atheism that demands an evolutionary
> > explanation for life's origins; atheists merely accept evolution on
> > the grounds that it happens to be the view that is most consistent
> > with the verifiable facts.
>
> Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists
> concerning
> origins since that belief excludes deity (creator-designer), and fits
> nicely
> among the non-deity religious beliefs listed in the top post. I would
> venture
> to guess most atheists couldn't list 2 verifiable facts yet say they
> believe
> in evolution. The ones that could do that are active in these forums,
> a tiny
> minority.
i bet most atheists couldnt list two verifiable facts about quantum
mechanics either, but they accept quantum mechanics because the
scientific community does so. evolution isnt special among sciences -
all take a naturalistic approach.
>
> > > Evolutionary theory remains
> > > a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> > > required by Darwin, esp. finding
> > > a true missing link.
>
> > This boils down to claiming that fossils, DNA, genetics, astronomy,
> > geology, and physics do not exist. The problem is not that there
> > exists no evidence which would relate to verifying evolution, the
> > problem is that creationists do not want to look carefully at this
> > evidence, because it fails to support their desired conclusions.
> > Refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not
> > existing.
>
> If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
> there would be no more argument. Those sciences provide beliefs based
> on observations that are used to promote mostly hypothetical
> explanations about the unmeasurable, unobservable. There is a proper,
> beneficial use of those sciences, and false uses. Evolution has not
> attained to true "theory" status by the strictest definition of
> theory. I
> took a long look at as much "evidence" as I could find. I also brought
> problems upon myself in college for daring to question things that
> should be subjected to questioning. You accept the widely accepted
> belief system or go outside the circle.
how do you explain shared pseudogenes or shared retroviral insertions
without evolution?
>
> Jim
Ouachita
> You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
> domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
> literature on speciation?
I've read those accounts and believe the projects were undertaken for
the
purpose of "proving" speciation. Notice there was no consideration
given to
other possible explanations for the results cited. Had the
evolutionists been
fair minded and truly scientific in purpose, to discover the truth
instead of
manufacture facts, I would have stuck with it longer. But now I know
what
is going on in the science community.
> And, apart from the ToE evolution not invoking the supernatural and
> showing the other markers of religion, the factuality of common descent
> with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> processes is accepted by people of many different religions, as well as
> by many people who lack religion, which would seem to weigh against it
> being a religious belief.
Lack of religion or a copious religious background alike has nothing
to do
with ability to sort through data. Intelligence does. You state "the
factuality"
of common descent as though it is a statement of natural law. That
belief is
not proved. It is only promoted as the "best available explanation".
But on
my side of the issue is God's law, His perspective, which I will trust
far
beyond the word system of men. You have on your side mere belief based
on prevailing thoughts of primarily atheistic scientists.
Jim
Slimebot McGoo
>On May 10, 9:26 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On May 10, 3:17 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
>> > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
>> > language.
>>
>> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
>> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
>> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>>
>> For a fair selection, see here:http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php
>>
>> RF
>
>Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
>internet time. It concerns me
>that "Atheist" was left off. That's a religion
Common creationist lie #1. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>or else Buddhism be
>declassified as a religion. There
>are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
>
>Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
Common creationist lie #2. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>Evolutionary theory remains
>a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
Common creationist lie #3. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>required by Darwin
Common creationist lie #4. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>, esp. finding
>a true missing link.
Common creationist lie #5. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>The universe had to have a beginning.
Common creationist lie #6. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>Life had to have a beginning. We know that from the rocks.
Common creationist lie #7. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
>declare the universe and life had a finite beginning point.
Common creationist lie #8. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>The inescapable implication is there was some sort of creator,
> a designer, that put order into the spread of physical laws and
>sustainable life.
Common creationist lie #9. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>Order has not been demonstrated to emerge from disorder.
Common creationist lie #10. Can't you come up with any new lies?
[snip remaining nonsense]
Mcgoo
Slimebot McGoo
Well, the posters are ninety-some percent pro-evolution and the tiny
crowd of creationists commits *all* the original sins (lies, willful
stupidity, ad homs, etc., etc.)
McGoo
Ouachita
> On May 10, 6:32 pm, Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 9:26 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 3:17 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > > > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > > > language.
>
> > > > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > > > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > > > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> > > For a fair selection, see here:http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php
>
> > > RF
>
> > Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
> > internet time.
>
> So what?
>
> > It concerns me
> > that "Atheist" was left off.
>
> That's because atheism is not a religion.
>
> > That's a religion or else Buddhism be
> > declassified as a religion.
>
> Why? It informs the conscience, which is the function of religion in
> society.
Actually religion is more of an attempt by man to grasp his thoughts
concerning deity. Atheists simply take the route of rejecting deity.
> > There are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
>
> There are? Some (but by no means all) Budhists don't acknowledge a
> deity, but other than that I can think of none.
Please take time to look up "Buddhism". I accept the notion it is a
non-theistic religion as well as a philosophy. The simple goal is to
acquire an "awakening" unto "true reality". Atheism fits in there
quite well.
>
> > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
>
> No. Science attempts to interpret the evidence by formulating testable
> hypotheses based on that evidence. This is how science works, and
> science is carried out in the same way regardless of the religious
> convictions of the scientist.
The glitch there is the word "testable". Science can't truly assist
in
forming an hypothesis dealing with evolution, neither towards proving
or
disproving it. Science can only be abused by attempts to force science
to support evolution. However, many intelligent people including
scientists
can more easily mix science with creation simply because that makes a
lot more sense and requires a lot less faith to believe.
> > Evolutionary theory remains
> > a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> > required by Darwin, esp. finding
> > a true missing link.
>
> What utter bullshit!
> Firstly, numerous "missing links" have been found. Creationists
> refuse to recognize them as such because creationism is fundamentally
> dishonest and refuses either to define how a "missing link" might be
> identified or give reasons why the numerous transitional forms in the
> fossil record are not transitional.
Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
balanced
manner. If find all such claims are accompanied by an automatic
"scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
any
way linked to creation.
>
> > The universe had to have a beginning.
>
> Quite so. It happened about 15 billion years ago.
>
> > Life had to have a beginning.
>
> Quite so. It seems to have happened about 3.7 billion years ago.
Again, an assumed fact based on the best measuring techniques
available today, but there is no proof those are absolutely
trustworthy.
> > We know that from the rocks.
>
> No, we know it from the fossils contained in the rocks.
Much is made of the presence or absence of certain isotopes.
Fossils are very rare by comparison. Some uncomfortable facts
have driven scientists more toward studying isotopes. One is
the quagmire of explaining how fossils came into existence on a
regular basis marking succeeding epochs. Nobody can explain how
a fossil of a jellyfish happened in inches of mud.
> > Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
> > declare the universe and life had a
> > finite beginning point.
>
> Who on earth would disagree with that?
>
> > The inescapable implication is there was some
> > sort of creator, a designer, that
> > put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life.
>
> Why?
OK, so how can an organ that can't provide sight develop sight
when there is no pattern to follow for that sense? In real life
growths
failing to contribute function are discarded, often the cause of
early death of an organism. There simply is too much belief
complex organisms can improve themselves without direct
external assistance.
> > Order
> > has not been demonstrated to
> > emerge from disorder.
>
> Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
> demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
> shows order arising out of disorder.
I have difficulty wrapping my mind around "Does the Flap of a
Butterfly's
Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" That's the essence of
that
theory.
> > It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> > wide cling to a super-scientific or
> > remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> > beginning. Men require some explanations.
> > It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> > current atheist can't subscribe to.
>
> It would be amazing if it were true. How on earth can an atheist
> subscribe to a myth?
Why can't an atheist accept the possibility believing there is no God
is
a myth?
> > I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
> > them all containing nothing I
> > consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things.
>
> So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
I wouldn't expect to witness that today, but it was reported to have
happened
to Eve. I've heard of talking birds, dogs, chimps and other animals.
In that
Genesis account the snake was used as a tool by Satan who gave the
words
much like men must give words to animals.
> > Such thoughts
> > more easily captivate
> > aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
> > longer populate Earth. The one that most closely approaches a super-
> > science explanation is, for me, biblical creation.
>
> Well bully for you. However, no scientist who actually knows anything
> about the subject and who is not blinded by religious conviction
> does.
There have been many secular scientists who converted to Christianity
and
took up creation science. Their secular peers who might have admired
their
works before then grow to detest their names. Objective?
> > I recognize the
> > modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
> > me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
> > satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
> > science for that.
What? No comment on that?
Jim
Ouachita
> On 10 May 2007 10:32:25 -0700, Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Common creationist lie #1. Can't you come up with any new lies?
Why bother with Mcgoo? Right off he calls a truth a lie. Look up
"Buddhism". You are in over your head.
Why resort to name calling, accusations of lying, in a futile attempt
at debate? It's more genuine to simply yield. Instead, it's an
evolutionist that does exactly what the opening post ascribed as
linked
to creationists. "I have one question for you creationists which I
hope you will be able
to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
language."
Jim
Baron Bodissey
> On May 10, 1:36 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
"Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
balanced manner. If find all such claims are accompanied by an
automatic
"scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
any way linked to creation."
<snip>
I think this paragraph is quite illuminating about Jim's problems with
evolution. He is surprised -- nay,dismayed -- that scientists
interpret transition fossils SCIENTIFICALLY. What a concept! How
unfair it seems!
Jim, if it was linked to creation it WOULD NOT BE SCIENCE. Can you
grasp that?
In some cases. the term "idiot" is not necessarily pejorative; it is
simply a taxonomic classification. Welcome to the clade.
Baron Bodissey
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture.
- Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
Frank J
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
>
> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
Lurkers: Please note how many regular TO creationists step forward to
answer that simple question. And note how many IDers will answer the
only way they can, which is "ID can accommodate any creation account."
Frank J
Which of the mutually contradictory versions?: Flat earthism,
geocentrism, YEC, OEC-day-age, OEC gap, OEC progressive, or the
version currently endorsed my most major Biblical religions, which
includes common descent end evolution, if not your "Darwinism"
caricature?
(snip)
JQ
> On May 10, 9:26 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 3:17 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > > language.
>
> > > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> > For a fair selection, see here:http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php
>
> > RF
>
> Many more religions could have been added in yet another hour of
> internet time. It concerns me
> that "Atheist" was left off. That's a religion or else Buddhism be
> declassified as a religion. There
> are many godless religions, dealing with eternity apart from a deity.
I agree that there are atheist religions, but atheism can't be called
a single religion any more than monotheism is. Many atheists (most
atheists in my country) have no beleif in any true supernatural
effects (That is, it ALL obeys natural laws, we just haven't found
some of them yet). I would definitely call this non-religious, if only
for the sake of clarity. But you call it what you want.
>
> Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
I love that word. Makes us sound like a cult. "Hey-- I'm a Darwinist!"
> Evolutionary theory remains
> a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> required by Darwin, esp. finding
> a true missing link.
Could you explain what you mean please?
>
> The universe had to have a beginning. Life had to have a beginning. We
> know that from the rocks.
> Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
> declare the universe and life had a
> finite beginning point.
I agree with this bit.
The inescapable implication is there was some
> sort of creator, a designer, that
> put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life.
This bit makes no sense. From your later assertion -- order cannot
rise from disorder -- you god must be more complex than the universe.
So where did the god come from? How was it created? (BTW, 'he was
always there' doesn't say anything. It doesn't address the fact that
you have an incredibly complex thing without cause, it just tries to
distract people from this.)
Order
> has not been demonstrated to
> emerge from disorder.
Yes it has. Many, many times. In nature and in the laboratory. There's
a whole branch of science devoted to it, non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. Temporary order has been shown, over and over again,
to arise from chaos when it is more effective at degrading
thermodynamic gradients (which is a fancy way of saying it needs more
energy).
Do some research.
>
> It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> wide cling to a super-scientific or
> remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> beginning. Men require some explanations.
There is nothing scientific about the supernatural. I have heard of no
application of scientific method that points toward a supernatural
creator or anything about its nature.
> It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> current atheist can't subscribe to.
> I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
> them all containing nothing I
> consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things.
Oh, of course, a supernatural humanlike creature is so much more
likely than any other animallike creature.
Why? What tells you about the nature of your 'scientific' creator?
Such thoughts
> more easily captivate
> aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
> longer populate Earth.
As opposed to stories about talking plants, people surviving in whale
bellies and men whose physical strength is dependent on whether they
cut their hair.
The one that most closely approaches a super-
> science explanation is, for me, biblical creation. I recognize the
> modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
> me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
> satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
> science for that.
Psychology is a developing practice, but there are some interesting
thoughts on this.
What is a superscience anyway?
>
> Jim
JQ
Okay. guys. everyone. Nobody cares. Let him call it a religion if he
wants to. It's a badly-defined word with different meanings to
different people. The label doesn't change the facts -- it is more
rational to reach a negative conclusion, based on no evidence and
little reason to ssuppose something exists, than to reach a positive
conclusion far beyond what logic demands and based on no evidence.
This is the point that matters. The rest is just labels.
>
> > > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
>
> > No. Science attempts to interpret the evidence by formulating testable
> > hypotheses based on that evidence. This is how science works, and
> > science is carried out in the same way regardless of the religious
> > convictions of the scientist.
>
> The glitch there is the word "testable". Science can't truly assist
> in
> forming an hypothesis dealing with evolution, neither towards proving
> or
> disproving it.
The fact that you used the word proving supports my hypothesis that
you have no idea about science or scientific method.
Science can only be abused by attempts to force science
> to support evolution. However, many intelligent people including
> scientists
> can more easily mix science with creation simply because that makes a
> lot more sense and requires a lot less faith to believe.
You know that the second half of the last above sentence is an
outright lie.
>
> > > Evolutionary theory remains
> > > a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> > > required by Darwin, esp. finding
> > > a true missing link.
>
> > What utter bullshit!
> > Firstly, numerous "missing links" have been found. Creationists
> > refuse to recognize them as such because creationism is fundamentally
> > dishonest and refuses either to define how a "missing link" might be
> > identified or give reasons why the numerous transitional forms in the
> > fossil record are not transitional.
>
> Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
> balanced
> manner. If find all such claims are accompanied by an automatic
> "scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
> any
> way linked to creation.
Why should they be linked to creation? If they don't support creation
there is no reason to mention it. You know the cool thing about
science? If you've found a flaw, you can go tell people. They'll take
you seriously if you have something to say. Go on -- be the first
person in 100 years to scientifically explain creationism. You'll be
famous.
>
>
>
> > > The universe had to have a beginning.
>
> > Quite so. It happened about 15 billion years ago.
>
> > > Life had to have a beginning.
>
> > Quite so. It seems to have happened about 3.7 billion years ago.
>
> Again, an assumed fact based on the best measuring techniques
> available today, but there is no proof those are absolutely
> trustworthy.
They are more trustworthy than any other method we have available.
What would you suggest?
Your above statement could apply to any science, anywhere. Possibly
gravity doesn't exist and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pushing down
on us all with His Noodly Appendages? Our instruments are just too
unsophisticated to detect Him?
>
> > > We know that from the rocks.
>
> > No, we know it from the fossils contained in the rocks.
>
> Much is made of the presence or absence of certain isotopes.
> Fossils are very rare by comparison. Some uncomfortable facts
> have driven scientists more toward studying isotopes. One is
> the quagmire of explaining how fossils came into existence on a
> regular basis marking succeeding epochs. Nobody can explain how
> a fossil of a jellyfish happened in inches of mud.
>
> > > Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
> > > declare the universe and life had a
> > > finite beginning point.
>
> > Who on earth would disagree with that?
>
> > > The inescapable implication is there was some
> > > sort of creator, a designer, that
> > > put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life.
>
> > Why?
>
> OK, so how can an organ that can't provide sight develop sight
> when there is no pattern to follow for that sense?
The eye thing again. He didn't even bother to use a different organ,
he went for the eye.
The eye, in each case, began as a patch of light-sensetive cells.
There is nothing remarkable about this. Some bacteria even have
eyespots.
It started out as an organ for detecting light, see? Small changes
over successive generations would result in an advantage for the
carrier in every single instance and arrive at something like what we
have today. This has been shown in computer simulations -- it's not
implausible or ever improbable. There are creatures all over the world
with eyes that we would consider less developed than ours, and with
eyes more developed than ours. Put the Paley book down and join the
real world.
In real life
> growths
> failing to contribute function are discarded, often the cause of
> early death of an organism. There simply is too much belief
> complex organisms can improve themselves without direct
> external assistance.
I like the arguments from incredulity. Some people don't even try to
hide them.
>
> > > Order
> > > has not been demonstrated to
> > > emerge from disorder.
>
> > Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
> > demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
> > shows order arising out of disorder.
>
> I have difficulty wrapping my mind around "Does the Flap of a
> Butterfly's
> Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" That's the essence of
> that
> theory.
And people who read trendy junk science, too. Have you ever read about
chaos theory outside a glossy magazine? Do so. Learn something. Then
comment.
>
> > > It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> > > wide cling to a super-scientific or
> > > remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> > > beginning. Men require some explanations.
> > > It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> > > current atheist can't subscribe to.
>
> > It would be amazing if it were true. How on earth can an atheist
> > subscribe to a myth?
>
> Why can't an atheist accept the possibility believing there is no God
> is
> a myth?
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT. None whatsoever. There is no
evidence of the stories taking place, there are no reliable witness
accounts (only stuff that was written down sometimes generations after
the supposed even happened -- except possibly the NT stories -- and
then edited for political reasons).
>
> > > I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
> > > them all containing nothing I
> > > consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things.
>
> > So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
>
> I wouldn't expect to witness that today, but it was reported to have
> happened
> to Eve.
This is the most unreliable story in the whole bible. At least the
talking bush can be explained by heat-induced delirium.
I've heard of talking birds, dogs, chimps and other animals.
> In that
> Genesis account the snake was used as a tool by Satan who gave the
> words
> much like men must give words to animals.
>
> > > Such thoughts
> > > more easily captivate
> > > aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
> > > longer populate Earth. The one that most closely approaches a super-
> > > science explanation is, for me, biblical creation.
>
> > Well bully for you. However, no scientist who actually knows anything
> > about the subject and who is not blinded by religious conviction
> > does.
>
> There have been many secular scientists who converted to Christianity
> and
> took up creation science. Their secular peers who might have admired
> their
> works before then grow to detest their names. Objective?
Yes. The thing about creation science is that it isn't scientific.
Find some actual creation science -- first, go and learn what science
is -- and maybe someone will listen to you.
>
> > > I recognize the
> > > modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
> > > me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
> > > satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
> > > science for that.
>
> What? No comment on that?
It doesn't exactly warrant a reply.
>
> Jim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rich Townsend
In the town I live in, the best place to eat is the Iron Hill Brewery. This is
actually a very good quality restaurant-cum-microbrewery, that serves an
extraordinary strip steak with a gorgeous Roquefort butter and garlic-mashed
Yukon potatoes. Their own brew of beers is pretty good too -- I especially like
the Lodestone larger, which leans toward the hoppy side of things.
For those new to the restaurant, they offer a 'beer sampler'. Basically, they
put a mat in front of you, with 10 labeled circles printed on it. In each circle
they place a small, 4 oz glass of one of their beers, giving a little
description of the beer as they serve it. The beer sampler is a great way to
learn about the different beers brewed by the restaurant, and is excellent value
for money to boot.
Which brings me to my question: when you got your education sampler, weren't you
ever tempted -- even the slightest bit -- to imbibe more than the 4 oz taster of
each topic you were taught? Or do you now prefer to remain an scholastic
tee-totaller, imagining in your aspirations of adequacy that your drops of
knowledge are a sufficient fig leaf for your breathtaking ignorance?
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
>
> Which brings me to my question: when you got your education sampler, weren't you
> ever tempted -- even the slightest bit -- to imbibe more than the 4 oz taster of
> each topic you were taught? Or do you now prefer to remain an scholastic
> tee-totaller, imagining in your aspirations of adequacy that your drops of
> knowledge are a sufficient fig leaf for your breathtaking ignorance?
>
Bravo! Excellently written.
Baron Bodissey
Aside from your stubbornly inaccurate portrayal of science and all
things scientific, do you realize that the general incoherency, poor
grammar, and rotten sentence structure of your writing do nothing to
advance your arguments? To convince people of the rightness of your
position you have to state that position so that it can be clearly
understood. Your writing also casts doubt on your claim of a college
education. You clearly paid as little attention in English class as
you did in biology. Crappy writing = crappy thinking, eh?
Also, quit hitting the Enter key at the end of lines within a
paragraph. The results are annoying.
Rich Townsend
> On May 10, 1:10 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
>> domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
>> literature on speciation?
>
> I've read those accounts and believe the projects were undertaken for
> the
> purpose of "proving" speciation. Notice there was no consideration
> given to
> other possible explanations for the results cited. Had the
> evolutionists been
> fair minded and truly scientific in purpose, to discover the truth
> instead of
> manufacture facts, I would have stuck with it longer. But now I know
> what
> is going on in the science community.
You mean, had they got the result your heart desired, you wouldn't have
dismissed it out of hand.
Cemtech
peterpa...@gmail.com says...
But why your version of creation?
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:35:29 -0700, Ouachita wrote:
> On May 10, 1:08 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
>> religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
>> as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
>> atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
>
> Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
> were
> not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist.
If there were no theists, all would be atheist. We simply wouldn't need a
term for it.
> Those not
> interested in considering deity would simply be lumped into the
> label of agnostic at best, or non-religious.
That's what atheists _are_ - non-religious.
> All religions exist on
> the basis
> of some belief system.
Which proves that atheism cannot be a religion, as it is the _lack_ of
belief that defines atheism.
> Atheists have a belief there is no deity,
No, we don't.
Good screaming goat, why is it that the theists *cannot* grasp this very,
very simple concept? We - atheists - do not, as a group, hold to *any*
belief whatsoever, including the belief there are no gods. Some subset of
atheists might, but that is their problem. There is no more necessity for
an atheist to believe any particular thing than there is for a redhead to
believe any particular thing.
We do NOT "believe there is no deity". This is NOT a class trait of
atheists.
Grok it. Cope with it. Do whatever you want with it, I don't care, as
long as you don't keep promoting the tired old lie about what we, as
atheists, believe in.
> to mind. Keep in mind nobody is required to adopt a label, But if one
> adopts
> a label such as "atheist" then that person takes on an implied proactive
> position in a coordinated belief system
What belief system is implicit in "I have no belief in deities"? Right,
none whatsoever. Not a coordinated one, not an uncoordinated one, none
whatsoever.
> Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists
> concerning origins
No, it's not. First, it's not a belief, it's a cold, hard reality.
Second, it has absolutely nothing to do with origins. Third, it is
understood and accepted by many theists. Three points, and you're wrong
on all three.
> among the non-deity religious beliefs listed in the top post. I would
> venture to guess most atheists couldn't list 2 verifiable facts yet say they
> believe in evolution.
Some perhaps do "believe in" evolution; if so, I'd say they were somewhat
confused, as it makes no more sense than to "believe in" gravity.
>> This boils down to claiming that fossils, DNA, genetics, astronomy,
>> geology, and physics do not exist. The problem is not that there exists
>> no evidence which would relate to verifying evolution, the problem is
>> that creationists do not want to look carefully at this evidence,
>> because it fails to support their desired conclusions. Refusal to look
>> at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not existing.
>
> If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
> there would be no more argument.
Of course there would. The religious folks - well, those whose
creator-concept is restricted to following the dictates of a particular
mode of creation - cannot accept evolution, as it invalidates a literal
reading of their pet book. The more liberal ones realize that if their
god-thing actually is real, it would not be confined to following the
book, rather the book would be, at best, a vastly simplified description
of his creative prowess.
Those types, along with science, have no issue whatsoever with evolution.
It is almost exclusively the fundamentalists and those who simply lack any
relevant education in the matter who cannot accept it, yet they are
sufficiently numerous to keep the discussion going. Of course, the fact
that they keep attempting to have the relevant topic taught in science
classes, where it belongs, doesn't help; it continues to promote the
ignorance that lets someone say "evolution is just a theory" or "it's just
a belief" and similar nonsense.
> Those sciences provide beliefs based on
Sciences do not provide beliefs. They provide facts and theories.
> Evolution has not attained to true
> "theory" status by the strictest definition of theory.
Nor will it ever; processes - facts - do not become theories. Nor the
other way around, for that matter. Theories - such as the theory of
evolution - attempt to explain facts: in this case, the fact of evolution.
> I took a long
> look at as much "evidence" as I could find.
Apparently, you didn't look very hard, as it just isn't hard to find. You
also, in the process, completely failed to discover even the most basic
data, such as what evolution even _is_. That you can refer to it as "a
theory" at all argues that you were not, in fact, examining anything to do
with evolution, as doing that would require at least a vague understanding
of what it is you're attempting to examine.
> I also brought problems upon
> myself in college for daring to question things that should be subjected
> to questioning. You accept the widely accepted belief system or go
> outside the circle.
You may have simply had a bad college, or a bad professor. As to beliefs,
well, whatever beliefs you're talking about aren't clear, as whatever they
are, they have no bearing on the subject at hand - unless you're talking
about the bizarre theistic belief that says evolution isn't a fact.
--
Sacrilege: "Telling an idiot the truth."
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On May 10, 3:29 pm, Slimebot McGoo <oldert...@youth.inc> wrote:
>> On 10 May 2007 10:32:25 -0700, Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Common creationist lie #1. Can't you come up with any new lies?
>
> Why bother with Mcgoo? Right off he calls a truth a lie.
No, he calls a lie a lie. I'll quote:
"It concerns me that "Atheist" was left off. That's a religion".
Since atheism is not a religion, asserting that it is is a falsehood.
Since you claim to have actually examined the subject somewhat, you are
presumed to know that atheism is not a religion, therefore to say that it
is is a *willful* falsehood - a lie.
Happy now?
> Why resort to name calling, accusations of lying
If someone is lying, what should we do instead? Snuggle up and call them
darling?
> at debate? It's more genuine to simply yield.
No, it's more genuine to call a spade a spade. A lie was presented, it
was called such.
> Instead, it's an
> evolutionist
What is "an evolutionist", and what relevance doest that have, as the lie
had nothing to do with evolution, but with the typical theistic falsehood
that atheism is a religion or a belief?
> to creationists. "I have one question for you creationists which I hope
> you will be able
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language."
Yes, that's what he wanted. He didn't get an answer, he got a lie. If
the respondent cannot answer honestly, he's hardly in a position to whine
about being called on it.
--
Ok, name on person that has witnessed a Monkey turn into a man.
- Chris Vetter
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:16:59 -0700, Ouachita wrote:
>> No. Science attempts to interpret the evidence by formulating testable
>> hypotheses based on that evidence. This is how science works, and
>> science is carried out in the same way regardless of the religious
>> convictions of the scientist.
>
> The glitch there is the word "testable". Science can't truly assist
> in
> forming an hypothesis dealing with evolution, neither towards proving
> or
> disproving it.
Nor need it.
You persist in your incorrect view that evolution is a theory or a
hypothesis; it isn't. It is a fact. It is self-demonstrating, though
I'll admit one actually needs some education in the subject to actually
understand what to look for in the first place.
Science need not concern itself about "proving" facts; they simply are.
What science does, however, is attempt to _explain_ those facts. How does
X work? What does it tell us about the universe in which we live?
> Science can only be abused by attempts to force science
> to support evolution.
Science needs no forcing to support evolution; it simply needs education
to understand evolution.
> However, many intelligent people including
> scientists
> can more easily mix science with creation simply because that makes a
> lot more sense and requires a lot less faith to believe.
No, it doesn't. Evolution is, in its basics, nothing more than the
observation that life changes over time, a thing which is readily
observable.
Creation, by contrast, requires the positing of a creator - a thing wholly
unevidenced by any creationist I've ever heard of. It further requires
that said creator have certain attributes - if nothing else, the ability
to create. It invariably ends up requiring some affirmation of magic, to
explain why the creator is not accessible for examination today.
To say that *this* requires less faith than simply observing the real
world is, to be mild, a little bizarre.
>> What utter bullshit!
>> Firstly, numerous "missing links" have been found. Creationists
>> refuse to recognize them as such because creationism is fundamentally
>> dishonest and refuses either to define how a "missing link" might be
>> identified or give reasons why the numerous transitional forms in the
>> fossil record are not transitional.
>
> Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
> balanced
> manner. If find all such claims are accompanied by an automatic
> "scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
> any
> way linked to creation.
Any scientific reference is *not* going to reference creation whatsoever,
for a very simple reason: science deals with the real world, creationism
doesn't.
If you disagree, feel free to trot out the supposed creator. Demonstrate
the process of creation. At the very least, describe it well enough that
one can go examine the evidence - the fossils, genetics, living
populations - to see the effects of this creation. Be sure to include the
predictions on what we'll find such that, if not found, they falsify the
notion - i.e. do science.
You can't. The closest you'll come is fiat of assertion: "Is too, cuz I
said so", or perhaps fiat of second-hand assertion: "Is too, cuz some old
book says so."
Doesn't cut it. Show us the creator. Show us the process of creation.
Show us the observable effects of creation, the ones which can be
differentiated from the simpler explanation of evolution.
>> > Life had to have a beginning.
>>
>> Quite so. It seems to have happened about 3.7 billion years ago.
>
> Again, an assumed fact based on the best measuring techniques
> available today, but there is no proof those are absolutely
> trustworthy.
Nothing is _absolutely_ trustworthy. However, the dating techniques
involved are multiple, each agreeing on similar ages. It is certainly
conceivable that there will be some fine tuning - say 3.8 bya rather than
3.7 bya - but to expect that to change significantly, such as changing to
3.7 *million* years ago - is simply failing to cope with reality.
>> > We know that from the rocks.
>>
>> No, we know it from the fossils contained in the rocks.
>
> Much is made of the presence or absence of certain isotopes.
For very good reason; we know such isotopes exist, we know their decay
rates, we know their relative prevalence in the earth's crust, we know how
to spot and account for inclusions and exclusions which would otherwise
skew the results.
Yes, and?
I might point out that those techniques are *not* a product - nor even
by-product - of evolution; they are not properly in the field of biology
at all, but in the field of physics. They simply confirm what our
existing explanations already told us - that the time scales involved are
vast - and allowed us a more fine-grained an accurate time scale.
> Fossils are very rare by comparison.
So's osmium; doesn't mean we don't find any.
> Some uncomfortable facts have
> driven scientists more toward studying isotopes.
Yeah, uncomfortable facts like how decay rates work, what they imply.
Naughty physicists, evil physicists.
> One is the quagmire of
> explaining how fossils came into existence on a regular basis marking
> succeeding epochs. Nobody can explain how a fossil of a jellyfish
> happened in inches of mud.
Umm... er... they can't? News to me.
> OK, so how can an organ that can't provide sight develop sight when
> there is no pattern to follow for that sense?
It is unclear what you're asking, but it appears to be "How is half an eye
useful, particularly with no neural pathway to transmit the information?"
Interesting question. Of course, it presumes a lot of things, such as the
notion that the neural pathway has to exist _precisely_ and _solely_ for
purposes of sight. This, of course, is putting the cart before the horse.
In fact, all that's required initially is a mechanism to respond to
stimulus: eg a neural pathway used to respond to touch. If the wiring is
already there for this purpose, the only novelty to be involved to start
on the path to true sight is that the sensing cell become slightly light
sensitive.
Maybe I'm missing something in your question, but this simply does not
seem to pose any actual problem.
> In real life growths
> failing to contribute function are discarded,
Only if there is a net survival cost to maintaining the organ. One might
note the eyes of certain cave-dwelling creatures as an example of this:
they don't use them, but eyes are exposed, delicate, susceptible to harm.
That does not equate to a universal requirement that all unused organs be
removed from the population as soon as is possible.
It further assumes that such an organ would be useless, yet as noted, all
that's required to be useful is for an existing sensory apparatus to
become remotely light sensitive. That would, for example, lead to many
new possibilities, such as organisms which hide during daylight hours to
avoid predators... those which detect possible attacks by responding to
light changes cast by shadows and so forth. Just as possibilities, mind
you, but they're quite sufficient to argue that such an organ is not, of
necessity, of no use.
> death of an organism. There simply is too much belief complex organisms
> can improve themselves without direct external assistance.
Belief that complex organisms can improve themselves? Who has *that*
belief? Must be a theist thing, it certainly has nothing to do with
evolution. For one thing, evolution deals in populations, not individuals
as the statement seems to imply, and it says nothing about the populations
"improving themselves"; simply that pro-survival traits are generally
retained, contra-survival traits are generally weeded out, over time, in
the population.
>> Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
>> demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
>> shows order arising out of disorder.
>
> I have difficulty wrapping my mind around "Does the Flap of a
> Butterfly's
> Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" That's the essence of that
> theory.
No, it's not, actually, it's simply an easy to grasp summarization of a
relatively difficult body of study. However, I'll make it a little simpler
for you, hopefully clear it up a little.
Drop a snowflake on a mountain, what happens? Nothing much. Drop
another, what happens? Again, nothing much. Do this a million times, you
have a bit of snow accumulating.
Keep doing this, keep piling on snow, you get a snowbank. Keep doing it,
every now and then you'll get a small cascade, as the snow rearranges
itself on the side of the mountain. Keep doing it, at some point you may
end up with an avalanche.
Quick: why did *that* snowflake, such a tiny little thing, set off an
avalanche, which is billions of times larger scale?
That's the basic idea: some systems - such as weather - are such that even
a tiny effect, like the falling of a snowflake, can trigger much larger
effects, such as an avalanche.
In the case of weather, the idea is a little less drastic; the idea is
that a tiny change in one place - a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil
- can affect slightly larger changes, which in turn can affect slightly
larger changes, subtly altering the dynamics of air flow, causing just a
_hair_ more flow here, a touch less there, which goes on to impact further
flows, more air patterns, until that initial effect has impacted on
thousands of separate air currents, causing a systemic reaction which
results in a hurricane, or some other large-scale result.
It is, in fact, precisely this that makes weather forecasting so damnably
difficult - you cannot account for all the effects of all the minor
changes - all the butterflies. Yet those small changes can accumulate,
can alter conditions ever so subtly, that the end result is wildly
different than what you expected.
>> It would be amazing if it were true. How on earth can an atheist
>> subscribe to a myth?
>
> Why can't an atheist accept the possibility believing there is no God is
> a myth?
If atheists believed any such thing, you might have a point. As an
atheist, I get just a *little* cheesed off whenever some theist comes
along trying to dictate to me what I believe.
Get this straight: atheism is a _lack_ of a belief.
Got it? Good. Cope.
>> So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
>
> I wouldn't expect to witness that today
Why not? If snakes talked then, why not now? Did they evolve to lose the
unnecessary ability? Wait, I thought that the creationists maintained
that life forms were created in basically static forms - so snakes
*couldn't* lose this ability. Hmm. Oh, well, expecting creationism to be
consistent is a little silly, I guess.
> , but it was reported to have happened
> to Eve.
"Jotted down by unknown people, in a book of dubious reliability and much
demonstrable error, discussing people for whom no case has been made that
they even existed" is not quite the same as "reported".
> I've heard of talking birds, dogs, chimps and other animals.
Yes; animals with structures capable of forming the requisite sounds.
You'll note, for example, that while a parrot _can_ do this, most birds
cannot, as they lack the structures to perform the feat. This doesn't
even begin to address snakes, which are a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
> In
> that
> Genesis account the snake was used as a tool by Satan who gave the words
> much like men must give words to animals.
Men do not "give words to animals" unless they're performing a bizarre
ventriloquist act. They can, of course, in some cases teach certain words
or phrases to the animals - "Polly wanna cracker" - but that does
necessitate that the animal have the capacity to form such sounds. I've
never heard anyone, outside some seriously questionable bible-thumpers,
argue that snakes even possess the ability to mimic such sounds.
>> Well bully for you. However, no scientist who actually knows anything
>> about the subject and who is not blinded by religious conviction does.
>
> There have been many secular scientists who converted to Christianity
> and
> took up creation science.
You're coming close to an argument from authority: "These guys believe it,
so..."
We don't *care* who believes it. What we care about is very simple: can
it be supported with *evidence*. So far, the answer to that is a
resounding no.
>> > I recognize the
>> > modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
>> > me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
>> > satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call
>> > on science for that.
>
> What? No comment on that?
What's to comment on? No such thing as "after life experiences". You're
alive, you're dead. If you *are* dead, you don't come back.
I know, some yipyo is going to trot out heart transplants and the like. I
would point out that if the patient *were* in fact dead during such a
procedure, they would not require bypass machines and breathing machines
and so forth: dead people do not need such things.
There are many cases of people "seeing lights", even "seeing themselves"
and other such phenomena during cases of near-death. Explanations for
such events are many and varied, and I'm not certain that a final
determination of actual cause has been found, but that at most gives us an
"I don't know", not a "God dunnit".
What I do know is this: there is not, on record anywhere, a single case of
a person who has actually died - experienced total brain death - and
recovered. If there are no cases of people coming back from death, then
there can really be no cases of "after life" anything; pretty much by
definition, if they're around to report *anything* it is not an "after
life" experience, but a "during life" experience.
--
Fundamentalist motto: "A mind is a terrible thing to use."
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:33:52 -0700, JQ wrote:
> Okay. guys. everyone. Nobody cares. Let him call it a religion if he
> wants to. It's a badly-defined word with different meanings to
> different people.
True, but the only ones with an arguable right to define it are the ones
to whom it applies. Since there is no other appropriate term, and since
this one does, in fact, correctly describe their views - apart from its
abuses as inflicted by the fundies - it is the correct term to use, but
that largely requires that it be applied correctly.
A nit, perhaps, but I note it is invariably the theists who want to define
atheism as a belief or a religion. This suggests at least the possibility
of a willful intent to do so - an actual desire to misrepresent it,
perhaps to discredit it as simply another belief, or alternatively, to
take an adoptive position - if it's okay for you to believe there aren't
gods, why isn't it okay for us to believe there are?
> The label doesn't change the facts -- it is more
> rational to reach a negative conclusion,
If by that one means "We just can't tell", sure. Not quite justification
for "is not!" though. :)
> Yes. The thing about creation science is that it isn't scientific. Find
> some actual creation science -- first, go and learn what science is --
> and maybe someone will listen to you.
The whole post was actually almost amusing.
--
But NOTHING beats the taste of vanilla communion-wafers, baked by
Nabisco! - Steve Rose
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:53:03 -0700, Ouachita wrote:
> Because the ToE
Which one?
> has failed to address species origination conclusively
"Conclusively" suggests an absolutism which is not a hallmark of science.
Science observes facts and offers tentative explanations, which are then
refined - or rejected - as new evidence becomes available. It is a
process of weeding out falsehood, not of finding absolute truths. Thus it
could explain something so well that to seriously question it would be a
strong indication of either a complete misunderstanding or willful
dishonesty, but that does not equate to "conclusively" in any sort of
absolutist sense.
> it
> takes the issue back to a baser origin, that of life itself.
If you're going there, then you're not discussing evolution, at least, not
biological evolution which is the meaning associated without modifiers -
one can speak of, say, stellar evolution, but if one simply uses
"evolution" the implication is the biological sort.
That sort does not *do* origins of life. That sort *requires* life - or
at the very least, self-replication with variable inheritance - to already
exist. Thus if one is going to examine the origins of those things,
that's a perfectly valid thing to examine, but it is *not* evolution.
> The ToE
> is a
> belief system
It's a theory, not a belief system. Try again. Oh, and while you're at
it, while the theory of evolution is, indeed, a theory, I'm assuming you
are correctly differentiating it from the fact of evolution, right?
> based on too many unfounded root causes & effects.
Well, yes, of course. Observing that offspring are rarely genetic clones
of their parents is completely unfounded. Observing that such changes
result in differentiated traits is completely unfounded. Observing that
differing traits lead to different survival probabilities in differing
environments is completely unfounded. Observing that the accumulated
effect of differing survival rates of members of a population with various
traits can actually result in an average change in trait frequency in a
population, well, that is just wildly unfounded.
Do not, of course, let the little fact that we can observe all of these
phenomena in any way dissuade you from your belief that it is all
unfounded.
> It sits among the many religious beliefs
You mean the ones which simply posit magic beings, for which there is no
evidence offered? Yes, well, obviously a body of knowledge based on
observation is on a completely equivalent foundation as a belief which is
founded on "is too".
> By necessity for a disbeliever of evolution it leaves species origins up
> against life origins.
If one is examining electricity, it does not pay to read books on
plumbing. If you're looking at life origins you are _not_ examining
evolution.
--
Studying for exams out performs prayers by 100%. - George Rudzinski
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:26:47 -0700, Ouachita wrote:
> On May 10, 1:10 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
>> domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
>> literature on speciation?
>
> I've read those accounts and believe the projects were undertaken for
> the
> purpose of "proving" speciation.
Wait.. you mean... science was actually out doing *science*? How horrible.
> Notice there was no consideration
> given to
> other possible explanations for the results cited.
And what such explanations are there?
Before you jump in with "creationism", allow me to point out the obvious:
that before such a notion will be accepted, it must of course be based on
some actual evidence. So we'll need, for starters, the described
mechanisms of creation. That way, when we examine a population, we'll be
able to *test* whether it was created or not. So do tell, what is the
mechanism? What tests support and falsify it?
> Had the
> evolutionists been
> fair minded and truly scientific in purpose, to discover the truth
Science doesn't _do_ "discovering truth". That's not its purpose. That
job is left to other fields - philosophy, religion, that sort of thing.
Science's job is descriptive: here's a thing, how does it work? Here's a
phenomenon, what causes it?
One thing the theists never seem to grasp is a very, very simple little
notion: if gods are involved in a manner we can actually determine by
objective testing, then science *can* test for those predictions.
The problem there is the "if". So far, none of the creationists have ever
come up with a proper theory, one which is testable.
That's really the rub. The creationists persist in blaming science for
not entertaining their views, yet science would be happy to do so, if the
creationists would ever get off their duffs and come up with an actual,
testable theory with actual testable predictions.
Don't blame science because your side can't come up with anything useful,
that's *your side's* problem.
> That
> belief is
> not proved.
Proved? Science doesn't do proof. I thought you said - I must be
mistaken - that you'd actually done some research in this area. If so,
you'd know, at the very least, what the tools used in that research
actually are.
> It is only promoted as the "best available explanation".
That is, indeed, what a theory is in science: after examining all the
available relevant evidence, after testing the hypothesis against that
evidence to see if it holds up, you have - assuming it does hold up - a
theory. Since that theory is, by design, an explanation of the process,
event or thing in question, since that theory is testable, since it has
been tested, it is, therefore, both capable of explaining the thing *and*
of standing up to repeated tests - hence, it is a viable explanation.
> But on
> my side of the issue is God's law
You'll have to provide some good, solid evidence that gods exist before
we're going to take this too seriously. Once you've done that, you can
demonstrate that a _specific_ god exists. Then you can demonstrate that
he/she/it actually has specific attributes, such as the ability to create
such laws. Then you'll have to demonstrate that such laws actually were
written - and then demonstrate that they were actually written by that god.
That's about what, six distinct steps, and you haven't achieved the first
yet, as far as I can see. So on exactly what basis do you assert that
"God's law" is a meaningful term?
> His perspective, which I will trust
> far
> beyond the word system of men.
I see. Unevidenced magic superfriends are to be trusted over the real
world. Well, that's fine, nobody is going to stop you from believing as
you will, but if you want anyone to take your views seriously - and if
you're going to criticize others for not taking those views into account -
you're going to have to provide some actual _reason_ for us to take them
seriously.
> You have on your side mere belief based
> on prevailing thoughts of primarily atheistic scientists.
We have, on our side, observation, testing, refinement and a process which
is designed to weed out falsehood. You have, based on what you've offered
thus far, a belief without any validation whatsoever.
--
They did not evolve. They were artifically genetically
altered. - Ronald Stringfellow
bi...@juno.com
> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Lurkers: Please note how many regular TO creationists step forward to
> answer that simple question. And note how many IDers will answer the
> only way they can, which is "ID can accommodate any creation account."
Fine, I'll have a go.
First of all, ID itself cannot, and should not, commit itself to any
particular God. It is simply "going beyond the evidence" of
biochemical complexity to single out one particular God. Biochemical
complexity points to only a non-specific, generic God. This because
the Designer did not sign his name to his handiwork. However, having
said that, we have other sciences to consider beside biochemistry. To
be specific, SOCIOLOGY.
Sociology, which studies the "prevalence and world-dominance" of the
various religions, gives us a clue. The more prevalent and world-
dominant a religion currently is, the more likely it is to have been
assisted by God in its march to world-dominance, and therefore the
more likely that it is true.
The argument goes like this. We know that God exists due to
biochemical complexity. Therefore, we need to ask whether if God
exists, would he assist the true religion to survive, and yes, thrive
upon planet Earth?
The answer is, if God cares about his handiwork, like all artisans do,
then God would assist the true religion. Therefore, only the giant
living religions are worthy of our attention and careful analysis.
Thus, our task is much simpler than it appeared at first. We don't
have to carefully study the myriads of "dead," or "tiny," or "recently
fabricated," religions. We have merely to decide between the very
ancient, giant living religions. This is doable.
bi...@juno.com
> The eye thing again. He didn't even bother to use a different organ,
> he went for the eye.
> The eye, in each case, began as a patch of light-sensetive cells.
> There is nothing remarkable about this. Some bacteria even have
> eyespots.
Unfortunately, it is the "patch of light-sensitive cells" that is
already Irreducibly Complex. If you ever bother to read about the
shocking complexity of even a single light-sensitive cell, you will
realize that evolution dies right there.
I encourage you to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroder.
It is one of the books that convinced Antony Flew to switch to Deism.
>
> It started out as an organ for detecting light, see?
And that is precisely what requires an Intelligent Designer. An "organ
for detecting light." Do you have even the remotest clue what is
involved in such a supposedly simple thing as that? I encourage you to
study up on it.
> over successive generations would result in an advantage for the
> carrier in every single instance and arrive at something like what we
> have today. This has been shown in computer simulations -- it's not
> implausible or ever improbable. There are creatures all over the world
> with eyes that we would consider less developed than ours, and with
> eyes more developed than ours. Put the Paley book down and join the
> real world.
How about you stop using Darwin's bogus argument which is what, over a
century out of date? Darwin's argument to account for the eye simply
did not know the complexity of a single photo-sensitive cell. If he
had known, he never would have proposed his so-called "solution."
>
> I like the arguments from incredulity. Some people don't even try to
> hide them.
If something is truly incredible, (not just in appearance, but in
reality) that means it does not deserve our belief. If something is
truly in-credible, we ought not do give it our credence. We ought not
to say, "Credo."
>
> > > Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
> > > demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
> > > shows order arising out of disorder.
Don't make me gag.
Chaos theory does not "demonstrate" that order comes out of chaos. For
any type of order to emerge from chaos, there needs to already be an
organizing non-chaotic principle, such as a pre-existing scientific
law. If you have a scientific law operating upon "chaos" then you
don't really have "chaos" in any absolute sense of the word. You only
have a "relative" type of chaos, not the real thing.
Thus, in our entire universe, there is no such thing as actual
"chaos." The only way we could have a true "chaos" is if all the
scientific laws of the universe, suddenly ceased to operate. You let
me know when that happens in your neck of the woods, okay?
>
> And people who read trendy junk science, too. Have you ever read about
> chaos theory outside a glossy magazine? Do so. Learn something. Then
> comment.
Oh, brother.
>
> THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT. None whatsoever. There is no
> evidence of the stories taking place, there are no reliable witness
> accounts (only stuff that was written down sometimes generations after
> the supposed even happened -- except possibly the NT stories -- and
> then edited for political reasons).
You apparently, know zilch about NT criticism.
>
> > > So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
>
Taking snakes is child's play for an Omnipotent God.
What I find much more absurd is the idea that non-living atoms
supposedly sprang to life for no reason in the case of the first
living cell......
But Jesus Christ is not allowed to do the exact same thing.
> > I wouldn't expect to witness that today, but it was reported to have
> > happened
> > to Eve.
>
> This is the most unreliable story in the whole bible. At least the
> talking bush can be explained by heat-induced delirium.
Don't you understand that if God is omnipotent, then EVERY Biblical
miracle is like child's play for Him? He can cause them without a
moments effort?
>
> Yes. The thing about creation science is that it isn't scientific.
> Find some actual creation science -- first, go and learn what science
> is -- and maybe someone will listen to you.
>
You are rather closed-minded.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:16:09 -0700, bimms wrote:
> Unfortunately, it is the "patch of light-sensitive cells" that is
> already Irreducibly Complex. If you ever bother to read about the
> shocking complexity of even a single light-sensitive cell, you will
> realize that evolution dies right there.
Of course, this must also apply to other cells, as well. For example, it
would not be possible to have a touch-sensitive cell, either, because if
that were possible, then everything but some comparatively simple
chemistry is in place for photosensitivity; thus we must eliminate touch,
as well.
Mind you, the same would, presumably, negate any possibility of _any_ cell
arising, by any means, as we're stuck in the mire that considerably more
complex cells - complete organisms - would have to arise before the whole
notion of light sensitivity begins to have any possible relevance.
Funny thing, though... it only seems to be the creationists who have a
problem with this.
> I encourage you to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroder.
> It is one of the books that convinced Antony Flew to switch to Deism.
"Last December the news was made public that Prof Antony Flew, the world's
most famous philosopher of atheism..." Hmm. How compelling. How
wonderfully pointless.
Hey, excerpts. Let's see...
"So puzzling is the intricacy of the biochemistry that powers life that at
times it seems as if wisdom must be an inherent characteristic of the
universe waiting to be expressed in various forms. It would be as if a
metaphysical substrate was impressed upon the physical. It may come as a
surprise that the Bible suggests this to be true.
Before dismissing such a suggestion as rubbish, or accepting it as the
absolute and obvious truth, let's look at the text. Much of our
understanding of the Bible..."
Excuse me? "The Bible"? Where the hell did *that* come in? Wasn't this
supposed to be a nice, impartial, non-denominational search for truth? So
where the hell did the Bible come into play? Why did *any* religious
work? If he must include one, why _that_ one, and not any of thousands of
others, from hundreds or more other religions?
Oh, wait, right, I forgot... he's a freakin' fundy who adopted his
conclusions then simply treated them as true.
Yes, well, very convincing.
> And that is precisely what requires an Intelligent Designer. An "organ
> for detecting light." Do you have even the remotest clue what is
> involved in such a supposedly simple thing as that? I encourage you to
> study up on it.
Using your preferred materials, the ones that start by assuming their
conclusions, such as "God dunnit"? No, thanks, I'll pass.
--
Thank you for providing another duck-billed platitude. -- Don Martin
richardal...@googlemail.com
believe in a deity or deities. It's a very flexible religion.
>
> > > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
>
> > No. Science attempts to interpret the evidence by formulating testable
> > hypotheses based on that evidence. This is how science works, and
> > science is carried out in the same way regardless of the religious
> > convictions of the scientist.
>
> The glitch there is the word "testable". Science can't truly assist
> in
> forming an hypothesis dealing with evolution, neither towards proving
> or
> disproving it. Science can only be abused by attempts to force science
> to support evolution. However, many intelligent people including
> scientists
> can more easily mix science with creation simply because that makes a
> lot more sense and requires a lot less faith to believe.
>
There are very few scientists who do not think that science supports
evolution, and all those whow don't are motivated by religious
conviction, not science. Evolutionary theory provides testable
hypotheses just as does any other theory in science. Creationism
doesn't.
> > > Evolutionary theory remains
> > > a pseudo science since it can't be supported with empirical proofs
> > > required by Darwin, esp. finding
> > > a true missing link.
>
> > What utter bullshit!
> > Firstly, numerous "missing links" have been found. Creationists
> > refuse to recognize them as such because creationism is fundamentally
> > dishonest and refuses either to define how a "missing link" might be
> > identified or give reasons why the numerous transitional forms in the
> > fossil record are not transitional.
>
> Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
> balanced
> manner.
Tiktaalik.
> If find all such claims are accompanied by an automatic
> "scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
> any
> way linked to creation.
>
How on earth can anything *not* be "linked to creation"? There is no
phenomenon which cannot be "explained" in terms of "creation", which
is why it is utterly useless in science. Can you give me an example of
something which can NOT be "explained" by creation?
>
>
> > > The universe had to have a beginning.
>
> > Quite so. It happened about 15 billion years ago.
>
> > > Life had to have a beginning.
>
> > Quite so. It seems to have happened about 3.7 billion years ago.
>
> Again, an assumed fact based on the best measuring techniques
> available today, but there is no proof those are absolutely
> trustworthy.
No, but there is no proof for anything in science. The fact is that
several different dating techniques give us the same dates within the
margins of error of those techniques, so the evidence is very strong
indeed. If you have a better explanation for the evidence feel free to
offer it.
>
> > > We know that from the rocks.
>
> > No, we know it from the fossils contained in the rocks.
>
> Much is made of the presence or absence of certain isotopes.
Do you have a better explanation for the isotopic ratios? If so, feel
free to offer it.
> Fossils are very rare by comparison.
So? It's the fossils which tell us about the history of life, not the
rocks they are found in.
> Some uncomfortable facts
> have driven scientists more toward studying isotopes. One is
> the quagmire of explaining how fossils came into existence on a
> regular basis marking succeeding epochs. Nobody can explain how
> a fossil of a jellyfish happened in inches of mud.
Yes they can. It's the presence of micobial mats. Here's a link to a
conference I attended recently which went into the taphonomy of such
mats in great detail.
http://www.charnia.org.uk/saturday_school_2007.htm
>
> > > Life sprang forth. It's logical, reasonable, and super scientific to
> > > declare the universe and life had a
> > > finite beginning point.
>
> > Who on earth would disagree with that?
>
> > > The inescapable implication is there was some
> > > sort of creator, a designer, that
> > > put order into the spread of physical laws and sustainable life.
>
> > Why?
>
> OK, so how can an organ that can't provide sight develop sight
> when there is no pattern to follow for that sense?
By building incrementally on simple organs. There is a very good
sequence in existing organism of eyes ranging from a few light-
sensitive cells to a fully developed camera-type eye. Darwin
described this 150 years ago.
> In real life
> growths
> failing to contribute function are discarded, often the cause of
> early death of an organism.
They do? Have your earlobes fallen off recently? Or the muscles which
move your ears?
> There simply is too much belief
> complex organisms can improve themselves without direct
> external assistance.
>
And you say this with such confidence because you have studied the
subject in great detail? No?
The people who have done so disagree with you.
What do you know that they don't?
> > > Order
> > > has not been demonstrated to
> > > emerge from disorder.
>
> > Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
> > demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
> > shows order arising out of disorder.
>
> I have difficulty wrapping my mind around "Does the Flap of a
> Butterfly's
> Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" That's the essence of
> that
> theory.
Your lack of comprehension does not invalidate the theory.
>
> > > It's amazing to me that virtually all tribes from all history world-
> > > wide cling to a super-scientific or
> > > remarkably religious based belief of a creator/designer at the
> > > beginning. Men require some explanations.
> > > It's even more amazing to me that there isn't one of those beliefs a
> > > current atheist can't subscribe to.
>
> > It would be amazing if it were true. How on earth can an atheist
> > subscribe to a myth?
>
> Why can't an atheist accept the possibility believing there is no God
> is
> a myth?
>
Because not believing in something for which there is no evidence does
not require a leap of faith.
> > > I'm a Christian who takes the Bible account as most convincing among
> > > them all containing nothing I
> > > consider absurd such as ravens and dogs creating things.
>
> > So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
>
> I wouldn't expect to witness that today, but it was reported to have
> happened
> to Eve. I've heard of talking birds, dogs, chimps and other animals.
> In that
> Genesis account the snake was used as a tool by Satan who gave the
> words
> much like men must give words to animals.
So talking snakes is not absurd but ravens and dogs are. Rather
confused standards, don't you think?
>
> > > Such thoughts
> > > more easily captivate
> > > aboriginal minds and people tending to worship cats, most of whom no
> > > longer populate Earth. The one that most closely approaches a super-
> > > science explanation is, for me, biblical creation.
>
> > Well bully for you. However, no scientist who actually knows anything
> > about the subject and who is not blinded by religious conviction
> > does.
>
> There have been many secular scientists who converted to Christianity
> and
> took up creation science.
Very few compared with the number of scientists in the world, and very
few compared to the number of scientists who are Christians.
> Their secular peers who might have admired
> their
> works before then grow to detest their names. Objective?
>
The detestation comes from the fact that the creationist movement
bases its arguments on distortion, misrepresentation and outright
falsehoods. That is the reason why I am opposed to creationism, and I
have documented this distortion, misrepresentation and outright
falsehood here:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
If you think I am incorrect in any of the statements I have identified
as false, please provide evidence that this is the case. And if you
think that "evolutionist" web sites are equally dishonest, analyse any
such site and identify the falsehoods.
> > > I recognize the
> > > modern concept of science is not equipped to satisfactorily convince
> > > me there is a better explanation. Has science explained human death
> > > satisfactorily in dealing with after life experiences? I don't call on
> > > science for that.
>
> What? No comment on that?
>
Why should I? There is no objective evidence for "after life
experiences", so science cannot investigate it. Science does not claim
to know everything.
RF
> Jim
Ernest Major
Ouachita <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> writes
>On May 10, 1:10 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
>> domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
>> literature on speciation?
>
>I've read those accounts and believe the projects were undertaken for
>the
>purpose of "proving" speciation. Notice there was no consideration
>given to
>other possible explanations for the results cited. Had the
>evolutionists been
>fair minded and truly scientific in purpose, to discover the truth
>instead of
>manufacture facts, I would have stuck with it longer. But now I know
>what
>is going on in the science community.
Strangely enough I've read some of those accounts. I don't recognise
your description in them. For example the replicated speciations in
Triticum and Brassica were not performed for the purpose of proving
speciatiom, but for the economic motive of improving crop performance.
Why accounts have you read?
>
>> And, apart from the ToE evolution not invoking the supernatural and
>> showing the other markers of religion, the factuality of common descent
>> with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>> processes is accepted by people of many different religions, as well as
>> by many people who lack religion, which would seem to weigh against it
>> being a religious belief.
>
>Lack of religion or a copious religious background alike has nothing
>to do
>with ability to sort through data. Intelligence does. You state "the
>factuality"
>of common descent as though it is a statement of natural law. That
>belief is
>not proved. It is only promoted as the "best available explanation".
>But on
>my side of the issue is God's law, His perspective, which I will trust
>far
>beyond the word system of men. You have on your side mere belief based
>on prevailing thoughts of primarily atheistic scientists.
>
>Jim
>
I think you'll find that you are in error in describing the people who
have worked on evolutionary biology over the last 150 years as primarily
atheistic.
As a Christian you are supposed to believe that God created the world.
You don't specify what you mean by God's Law (which seems to be a
strange thing to be relevant to the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes), but if you are referring to the Bible, or more precisely to
an interpretation thereof, as a Christian you ought to privilege the
works of God (the world) over the words of men (the Bible and the
opinions of its interpreters.)
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 10, 1:10 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You are aware the speciation has been observed in the wild, under
> > domestication and in the laboratory, and that there is a considerable
> > literature on speciation?
>
> I've read those accounts and believe the projects were undertaken for
> the
> purpose of "proving" speciation.
I don't believe you.
> Notice there was no consideration
> given to
> other possible explanations for the results cited.
I've read several of the papers. You are factually incorrect.
Evidently, and contrary to your previous statement, you haven't read
any of the papers.
> Had the
> evolutionists been
> fair minded and truly scientific in purpose, to discover the truth
> instead of
> manufacture facts, I would have stuck with it longer.
So which of the papers describing speciation events have you read?
> But now I know
> what
> is going on in the science community.
So what is going on in the scientific community?
I'm part of that community, so I'd be interested to know how you can
decide what is happening in that community by pretending to have read
scientific papers.
>
> > And, apart from the ToE evolution not invoking the supernatural and
> > showing the other markers of religion, the factuality of common descent
> > with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> > processes is accepted by people of many different religions, as well as
> > by many people who lack religion, which would seem to weigh against it
> > being a religious belief.
>
> Lack of religion or a copious religious background alike has nothing
> to do
> with ability to sort through data. Intelligence does. You state "the
> factuality"
> of common descent as though it is a statement of natural law. That
> belief is
> not proved. It is only promoted as the "best available explanation".
> But on
> my side of the issue is God's law, His perspective, which I will trust
> far
> beyond the word system of men. You have on your side mere belief based
> on prevailing thoughts of primarily atheistic scientists.
>
> Jim
Science tries to find out which interpretation is correct by testing
those interpretations against evidence, and is always prepared to
accept a different interpretation if that is what the evidence shows.
You have your particular interpretation of "God's Law" which differs
from the interpretation of "God's Law" not only of adherents of other
religions, but of most of the world's Christians.
On which basis can you determine which of those interpretations is
correct?
Bear in mind that personal conviction is not a good reason - after
all, personal conviction leads to such exceesses as flying aircraft
into skyscrapers, and invading Iraq.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > The eye thing again. He didn't even bother to use a different organ,
> > he went for the eye.
> > The eye, in each case, began as a patch of light-sensetive cells.
> > There is nothing remarkable about this. Some bacteria even have
> > eyespots.
>
> Unfortunately, it is the "patch of light-sensitive cells" that is
> already Irreducibly Complex.
And irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory over
80 years ago.
Your point?
> If you ever bother to read about the
> shocking complexity of even a single light-sensitive cell, you will
> realize that evolution dies right there.
>
I've read rather more about the subject that you evidently have, and
do not find that there is a problem for evolutionary theory.
> I encourage you to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroder.
> It is one of the books that convinced Antony Flew to switch to Deism.
>
Was that before or after he realised he had been misinformed by
creationists?
So freaking what.
>
>
> > It started out as an organ for detecting light, see?
>
> And that is precisely what requires an Intelligent Designer. An "organ
> for detecting light." Do you have even the remotest clue what is
> involved in such a supposedly simple thing as that? I encourage you to
> study up on it.
I've done so, and rather more than you have. Arguments from
incredulity have no place in science.
>
> > over successive generations would result in an advantage for the
> > carrier in every single instance and arrive at something like what we
> > have today. This has been shown in computer simulations -- it's not
> > implausible or ever improbable. There are creatures all over the world
> > with eyes that we would consider less developed than ours, and with
> > eyes more developed than ours. Put the Paley book down and join the
> > real world.
>
> How about you stop using Darwin's bogus argument which is what, over a
> century out of date? Darwin's argument to account for the eye simply
> did not know the complexity of a single photo-sensitive cell. If he
> had known, he never would have proposed his so-called "solution."
How about you stop using the eye argument when it was something
satisfactorily addressed by Darwin 150 years ago?
>
>
>
> > I like the arguments from incredulity. Some people don't even try to
> > hide them.
>
> If something is truly incredible, (not just in appearance, but in
> reality) that means it does not deserve our belief. If something is
> truly in-credible, we ought not do give it our credence. We ought not
> to say, "Credo."
>
So you have nothing to offer except arguments from incredulity.
Fine, but don't pretend that this is science.
>
>
> > > > Yes it has. There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory which
> > > > demonstrates exactly that. Moreover, every time a snowflake forms it
> > > > shows order arising out of disorder.
>
> Don't make me gag.
>
> Chaos theory does not "demonstrate" that order comes out of chaos.
If you think that all I can do is to recommend some reading on the
subject. Try James Gliek's book "Chaos".
> For
> any type of order to emerge from chaos, there needs to already be an
> organizing non-chaotic principle, such as a pre-existing scientific
> law.
Nope. You are factually incorrect, as any reading of the subject will
tell you. If you prefer to remain ignorant it's up to you, but making
statements which are factually incorrect does not add to the weight of
your argument.
> If you have a scientific law operating upon "chaos" then you
> don't really have "chaos" in any absolute sense of the word. You only
> have a "relative" type of chaos, not the real thing.
Try learing about the subject rather than making things up as you go
along. It's a more honest approach.
>
> Thus, in our entire universe, there is no such thing as actual
> "chaos." The only way we could have a true "chaos" is if all the
> scientific laws of the universe, suddenly ceased to operate. You let
> me know when that happens in your neck of the woods, okay?
>
Try learing about the subject rather than making things up as you go
along. It's a more honest approach.
>
>
> > And people who read trendy junk science, too. Have you ever read about
> > chaos theory outside a glossy magazine? Do so. Learn something. Then
> > comment.
>
> Oh, brother.
Does this mean that you refuse to learn about it?
Figures.
>
>
>
> > THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT. None whatsoever. There is no
> > evidence of the stories taking place, there are no reliable witness
> > accounts (only stuff that was written down sometimes generations after
> > the supposed even happened -- except possibly the NT stories -- and
> > then edited for political reasons).
>
> You apparently, know zilch about NT criticism.
>
Apparently neither do you, or your sources are very, very selective.
>
>
> > > > So you don't think that talking snakes is absurd?
>
> Taking snakes is child's play for an Omnipotent God.
Quite so.
So is creating the entire Universe ten seconds ago with all the
appearance of a great age.
That is why such a belief is absolutely useless as a scientific
proposition.
>
> What I find much more absurd is the idea that non-living atoms
> supposedly sprang to life for no reason in the case of the first
> living cell......
Perhaps you can tell us how a "non-living" atom differs from a
"living" atom.
Arguments from incredulity have no place in science.
>
> But Jesus Christ is not allowed to do the exact same thing.
>
> > > I wouldn't expect to witness that today, but it was reported to have
> > > happened
> > > to Eve.
>
> > This is the most unreliable story in the whole bible. At least the
> > talking bush can be explained by heat-induced delirium.
>
> Don't you understand that if God is omnipotent, then EVERY Biblical
> miracle is like child's play for Him? He can cause them without a
> moments effort?
>
Which is what makes such a belief completely useless as a scientific
proposition. If you want to believe in talking snakes, fine. It's up
to you. But don't deceive yourself that such a belief has any validity
as science.
>
>
> > Yes. The thing about creation science is that it isn't scientific.
> > Find some actual creation science -- first, go and learn what science
> > is -- and maybe someone will listen to you.
>
> You are rather closed-minded.
That is a complete non-sequitur.
There is nothing scientific about "creation science", as your post
here shows. Untestable assertions and arguments from incredulity have
no place in science, and that is all you have to offer other than
inventions which do little except expose your ignorance.
RF
Mark Nutter
On May 10, 3:35 pm, Ouachita <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 1:08 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
> > religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
> > as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
> > atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
>
> Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
> were not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist.
That's irrelevant. Theist and atheist are simply labels for one's view
on the existence of god(s), they are not the names of religions.
Atheist is not a religion for the same reason that theist is not a
religion. If I tell you someone is a theist, does that mean they are a
Christian? A Mormon? A Muslim? A Hindu? A worshipper of Zeus, Thor,
Astarte, Baal, Cthulu, etc? Theism/atheism simply describes one's
attitude towards one idea. That's not enough to constitute a full-
blown religion.
> > > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called "Darwinism".
> > That's true only in the same sense that atheism attempts to achieve
> > good nutrition by eating healthy foods, or that atheism attempts to
> > construct durable buildings by using sound engineering principles.
> > There's nothing inherent in atheism that demands an evolutionary
> > explanation for life's origins; atheists merely accept evolution on
> > the grounds that it happens to be the view that is most consistent
> > with the verifiable facts.
>
> Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists
So? The theory of gravity is also very compatible with atheism, as are
the theory that sex has something to do with pregnancy, the theory
that lightning is caused by accumulation of electrical charges in the
atmosphere, and the theory that germs and viruses cause diseases.
Granted, there are theistic alternatives to each of the above, such as
the belief that a fertility god(dess) grants or withholds pregnancy,
the belief that lightning is a weapon of divine retribution, and the
belief that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have
displeased Him. That doesn't mean that because atheism is compatible
with the scientific explanations, therefore the scientific
explanations are somehow promoting atheism. It's not reality's fault
if it happens to be consistent with what atheists believe!
> I would venture
> to guess most atheists couldn't list 2 verifiable facts yet say they
> believe in evolution.
Ok, since you want me to keep it under two, I'll only give you one. ;)
Quick review: Science is based on the principle that truth is
consistent with itself. Knowing some facts (i.e. the individual pieces
of truth) allows you to discover other facts that are consistent with
what you already know.
In practice, you can discover new truth as follows: describe a process
in enough detail that you can reliably predict what real-world
consequences would result from that process actually operating, then
look in the real world to see if those consequences are actually
present. If they are, then your explanation is consistent with the
evidence; if they're not, then your explanation is inconsistent with
the evidence. Note that if your explanation is not consistent with the
evidence, you can always invent new unsubstantiated claims in order to
try and excuse the inconsistency, but this is called
"rationalization," and is merely a sign that your original theory was
not consistent with the facts.
Now, Darwin's theory states that new species arise by descent with
variations from a common ancestor. If this process were to take place
in the real world, there are some real-world consequences which would
result. For example, the descendant species would receive a copy of
the DNA of the ancestral species, plus or minus a few variations. This
means that different descendant species would share large chunks of
DNA in common, including genetic defects and nonfunctional segments,
above and beyond the commonality that would be required merely to
produce similarities in form and function.
When we look at the gene sequences in different species, we find
exactly that: large areas of common DNA, in nested hierarchies such as
would be produced by common descent with variation. Thus we say that
evolution is consistent with the evidence provided by DNA.
Let's try the scientific process with creationism. Assume that the
creationist interpretation of Genesis is literally true. What real
world consequences would this have? Several:
C1. All species that ever existed would have come into existence in
the same 6 day period at the beginning of life on earth.
C2. All fossils would have been created during the 1-year global
Flood.
C3. Only one species of each created "kind" would exist today, since
the others all died in the flood.
Do we see this pattern in the real world today? Is there only one
species of the "cat" kind, and one species of the "pig" kind, and one
species of the "canine" kind? No, we don't. Creationism is not
consistent with the evidence. Of course, as I mentioned before, we can
always invent new, unsubstantiated rationalizations for why the
evidence is not consistent with creationism. We could suppose, for
example, that God created a whole new bunch of species after the
flood--species that for some strange reason had the shared genetic
defects, in exactly the same pattern of inheritance, as would have
resulted from common descent. This, of course, would contradict C1,
above, since it would mean most species alive today had been created
in defective form after the Flood instead of during Creation.
Or we could suppose that God allowed the kinds to evolve new species
(*very* rapidly!) immediately after the Flood in order to replace the
species that were lost. But if that's the case, then Darwin was right
and new species *do* arise by descent with modification from common
ancestors. Or we could suppose that each species is its own "kind," in
which case the ark would have needed to be much bigger. And so on. But
in any case, the evolutionary explanation is going to be superior to
the creationist explanation, because the creationist explanation needs
to invent rationalizations to explain its inconsistency with the
evidence, whereas evolution is consistent with the evidence "out of
the box," so to speak.
> > Refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not
> > existing.
>
> If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
> there would be no more argument.
That's an interesting argument, especially considering how much more
cogent it is to Christianity than to evolution. Evolution is a
scientific topic, and many people lack the interest and educational
background to fully appreciate the nature and value of the evidence.
Not so with Christianity, however.
Christianity claims that there exists a God so loving and so powerful
that He was willing and able to become one of us, dwell among us, and
give His life for us, in order that He and we might share a personal,
face-to-face relationship together for all eternity. The most
fundamental and obvious consequence of such a thing being true would
be that God would show up on at least a regular basis to participate
in that relationship with each of us which He worked so hard to make
possible. If that were true, however, then atheism could not exist,
because God's constant appearances in the real world and in direct,
personal, face-to-face relationships with each of us, would make
denying His existence as silly as denying the existence of the planet
Earth.
The existence of atheism, and the existence of any debate about the
existence of the Christian God, are themselves evidence of this God's
non-existence, since no such debate would be possible if such a God
really existed and was willing and able to behave as though He
believed what Christians claim about Him.
Likewise, creationism is evidence of God's non-existence in the real
world, since if God showed up in the real world today, as though He
really loved us and wanted genuine, personal, two-way interaction with
us, then believers would have no need to turn to the ancient past
looking for some technical ambiguity they could exploit as "evidence"
for God's existence. The whole talk.origins group would be a moot
point if God would simply show up and behave as though He believed the
Gospel. Thus, the creation-evolution debate is proof of the absence of
any real-world evidence for the Christian God.
> I
> took a long look at as much "evidence" as I could find. I also brought
> problems upon myself in college for daring to question things that
> should be subjected to questioning. You accept the widely accepted
> belief system or go outside the circle.
Yeah, been there, done that. I learned evolution in high school, then
accepted Christ and went to a conservative, evangelical Christian
college and "discovered" creationism (Henry Morris, John C. Whitcomb,
Duane Gish, etc). I studied everything the creationists were saying
about evolution, and all the quotes they quoted from evolutionists,
and concluded that evolution was a religion, a belief system, rooted
in godlessness and contrary to sound science. But I took it a step
further. I went to the first-hand sources and learned what the
evolutionists were actually saying.
The evolutionists (including the theistic evolutionists) are telling
the truth about evolution. You would do well to pay attention to them,
and to not let yourself be led astray by narrow-minded creationists.
Giving species the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a wise
and well-engineered design; a Creator would have to be fairly stupid
(for a creator) to handicap His creatures with an inflexible genetic
system that would guarantee their extinction as soon as the climate
changed or the competition heated up. So how smart is your God really?
m
Mark Nutter
> The answer is, if God cares about his handiwork, like all artisans do,
> then God would assist the true religion. Therefore, only the giant
> living religions are worthy of our attention and careful analysis.
>
> Thus, our task is much simpler than it appeared at first. We don't
> have to carefully study the myriads of "dead," or "tiny," or "recently
> fabricated," religions. We have merely to decide between the very
> ancient, giant living religions. This is doable.
In fact, it's even simpler than that. Men tell us stories about a God
who loves us so much He's willing to die just so that we can be
together with Him in an open, personal, intimate relationship. All we
have to do to assess this story is to check whether or not any such
God actually cares enough about us to show up in the real world and
participate in the kind of relationship He allegedly worked so hard to
make possible. We don't need to go all the way back to ancient history
or ancient religions. A God who believed what Christians claim about
Him would be here now, in person, face-to-face.
m
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
Problem: Science needs to observe and/or document God, as science is the
study of natural phenomena. How can this be done?
--
Creationists support genocide.
"God is like Shakespeare, he can do whatever he wishes with his
characters upon the stage of planet Earth, including sending evil,
plague, famine, pestilence, and anything else. Such things improve the
story in both Shakespeare and God's dramatic creations."
- bi...@juno.com
Ouachita
> On May 10, 5:16 pm, Ouachita <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 10, 1:36 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> "Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
> automatic
> "scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
> any way linked to creation."
>
>
> I think this paragraph is quite illuminating about Jim's problems with
> evolution. He is surprised -- nay,dismayed -- that scientists
> interpret transition fossils SCIENTIFICALLY. What a concept! How
> unfair it seems!
No link? I figure the reason is there is none not skewed by a starting
conclusion that pollutes a final conclusion about a fossil.
> Jim, if it was linked to creation it WOULD NOT BE SCIENCE. Can you
> grasp that?
What you are admitting is secular science is inferior to creation
science
because your science can't comprehend or acknowledge the higher.
Because you cannot compete with that greater science you must attempt
to degrade it. That attitude is all over most evolutionists who resort
to
degrading conversation. I suppose when backed to a wall one feels one
must do what must be done to survive. EVOLUTIONISTS claim (falsely)
creation cannot be considered within science, yet it is combined by
"creation scientists". Your side lost a lot of credibility when terms
such
as "science" and "species" were redefined to accommodate ToErs
occupying the ruling party of science leaders.
Jim
Tom McDonald
You funny man.
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
> >
> > The eye thing again. He didn't even bother to use a different organ,
> > he went for the eye.
> > The eye, in each case, began as a patch of light-sensetive cells.
> > There is nothing remarkable about this. Some bacteria even have
> > eyespots.
>
> Unfortunately, it is the "patch of light-sensitive cells" that is
> already Irreducibly Complex. If you ever bother to read about the
> shocking complexity of even a single light-sensitive cell, you will
> realize that evolution dies right there.
Evolution accounts for Irreducibly Complex organisms for over 100 years.
wf3h
> >
> >
> First of all, ID itself cannot, and should not, commit itself to any
> particular God. It is simply "going beyond the evidence" of
> biochemical complexity to single out one particular God.
since ID can't answer questions evolution can, it's useless
and if you've ever talked to behe or read his works, you know he
thinks the ID'er is jesus.
Biochemical
> complexity points to only a non-specific, generic God. T
and those of us who are chemists are...ahem...amazed at this nonsense
because no science points to god at all.if it DID only christians
could be scientists. and that aint the case.
his because
> the Designer did not sign his name to his handiwork. However, having
> said that, we have other sciences to consider beside biochemistry. To
> be specific, SOCIOLOGY.
meaningless...
>
> Sociology, which studies the "prevalence and world-dominance" of the
> various religions, gives us a clue. The more prevalent and world-
> dominant a religion currently is, the more likely it is to have been
> assisted by God in its march to world-dominance, and therefore the
> more likely that it is true.
hmmm...500 years ago islam wiped out christianity in the middle east
and northern africa....seems god likes islam...
no chemist...none...agrees chemistry proves god exists...sorry.
SeppoP
Don't forget Greenburg tornado: All churches leveled, one bar left standing up... Seems like god
prefers bars to churches.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
wf3h
SeppoP wrote:
>
> Don't forget Greenburg tornado: All churches leveled, one bar left standing up... Seems like god
> prefers bars to churches.
>
now THAT'S proof of god's existence!
Mark Nutter
> On May 10, 6:27 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 5:16 pm, Ouachita <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 10, 1:36 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > "Please link us to one of those that are interpreted in a fair and
> > balanced manner. If find all such claims are accompanied by an
> > automatic
> > "scientific" conclusion the evidence supports evolution and not in
> > any way linked to creation."
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I think this paragraph is quite illuminating about Jim's problems with
> > evolution. He is surprised -- nay,dismayed -- that scientists
> > interpret transition fossils SCIENTIFICALLY. What a concept! How
> > unfair it seems!
>
> No link? I figure the reason is there is none not skewed by a starting
> conclusion that pollutes a final conclusion about a fossil.
Let's take it a step at a time. Darwin proposed the hypothesis that
existing species today arose by descent with modifications from a
common ancestor. The scientific approach to evaluating this hypothesis
is to figure out what measurable consequences would result if new
species (plural) descended, with slight variations, from existing
species.
The situation is similar to the preservation of the New Testament
text. Because the printing press was not invented until the middle of
the second millennium, people had to copy each book by hand. This
occasionally introduce errors, paraphrases, notes, and other errata
into the text of the Bible itself.
What textual scholars do is to try and identify when and where each
transition occurred, by mapping the inheritance of the different
texts, based on shared wordings. If you have a manuscript in Syria,
for instance, that has "I am the lamp of the world" where other texts
have "I am the light of the world," and you notice that subsequent
copies made in Syria have "I am the lamp of the world," you can
reliably conclude that they "inherited" their wording from the
original Syrian text that first showed this variation.
When you arrange all these manuscripts according to their shared
characteristics, you find that it creates a nested hierarchy of
variations, even if many or most of the manuscripts ever made have
since disappeared into history. Despite the gaps in the historical
records, you can still re-create the inheritance chain based on the
shared characteristics of the manuscripts that do survive, and thus
biblical scholars can have at least *some* idea of what the original
manuscripts said.
Scientists reconstruct the chain of inheritance among species the same
way Biblical scholars reconstruct the chain of inheritance between
different biblical texts. Darwinian theory predicts that we will find
a nested hierarchy of shared variations among the different fossils in
the fossil record, and that is precisely what we do find.
All a fossil form has to do to qualify as "transitional" is to fit
into the nested hierarchy predicted by Darwin, in a spot between an
ancestral species (whose qualities are largely shared by a number of
descendant species) and one or more descendant species, who share many
of the the transitional form's characteristics, with slight
variations. Thus, if you really want to find a transitional fossil,
all you need to do is find a fossil, because they all fall into the
nested hierarchy predicted by Darwin.
> > Jim, if it was linked to creation it WOULD NOT BE SCIENCE. Can you
> > grasp that?
>
> What you are admitting is secular science is inferior to creation
> science
> because your science can't comprehend or acknowledge the higher.
What science cannot "comprehend or acknowledge" is the unverifiable.
There's a good reason for this: ideas that are flat-out wrong are also
unverifiable. They can't be verified because, obviously, they're
wrong. So if science has to start accepting unverifiable ideas, oops,
we can't do science any more, because it can no longer distinguish
between an idea that's unverifiable because it's supernatural, and an
idea that's unverifiable because it's wrong. Of course, if creation
science *does* introduce unverifiable things into its list of
"scientific" explanations, that means creation scientists can't do
science either. Do you suppose they've noticed?
> Because you cannot compete with that greater science you must attempt
> to degrade it.
Now you're just trying to get me to say something about pots and
kettles.
>That attitude is all over most evolutionists who resort
> to
> degrading conversation. I suppose when backed to a wall one feels one
> must do what must be done to survive. EVOLUTIONISTS claim (falsely)
> creation cannot be considered within science, yet it is combined by
> "creation scientists".
That's because creation science introduces the unverifiable into their
explanation, which means they no longer have any way to distinguish
between an explanation that's unverifiable because it is supernatural,
and one that is unverifiable because it is incorrect. All they've
effectively managed to accomplish is to set up a situation in which
their religious beliefs are indistinguishable from factual error. Is
that really what they want to do?
> Your side lost a lot of credibility when terms such
> as "science" and "species" were redefined to accommodate ToErs
> occupying the ruling party of science leaders.
It would be interesting to hear your interpretation of what the "old"
and "new" definitions were. The definition of species would be
particularly interesting, since one of the consequences of Darwinian
evolution is that it would be difficult to come up with a definition
of species that would work well in all situations, since some species
would be partway through the process of evolving into distinct
species. And so it proves to be.
m
Ray Martinez
> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
>
> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized; in response theist
scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures. Social
evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
religion had evolved - a natural product of the minds of superstitious
men. Sure enough they uncovered evidence of ancient civilizations
bound by idolatrous customs. Theist archaeologists predicted that they
would find evidence predating their evidence showing that before
idolatry overtook the ancients that the same worshipped one Deity who
was known by many different names (just like the Pentateuch portrays
God). Of course they were successful.
External to the Pentateuch creation accounts are known as General or
Secondary revelations. Some predate Hebraic history some do not. A lot
of persons mistakenly think that older automatically renders said
account to have priority - not true. The claim of the Pentateuch is
that it is the official account of the universal Deity before Satan
corrupted the world with idolatry. God gave the Special revelation
(protected version) to Shem, Abraham and Moses. This explains
similarities and provides irrefutable corroborating evidence that the
correct version of events is in the Pentateuch. This is why we want
other versions known. Any component of any account which differs from
the Pentateuch is error caused by its unprotected by God secondary
status.
Where are the disciples of the other accounts today?
Where are the disciples of the Pentateuch account today (Jews and
Christians - ruling the world)?
God told Abraham that no weapon formed against you or your descendants
will prosper and that he will possess the gates of his enemies.
Ray
Tom McDonald
> On May 10, 7:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
>> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
>> language.
>>
>> If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
>> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
>> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
> creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
>
> Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized; in response theist
> scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures. Social
> evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
> Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
> worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
> religion had evolved - a natural product of the minds of superstitious
> men. Sure enough they uncovered evidence of ancient civilizations
> bound by idolatrous customs. Theist archaeologists predicted that they
> would find evidence predating their evidence showing that before
> idolatry overtook the ancients that the same worshipped one Deity who
> was known by many different names (just like the Pentateuch portrays
> God). Of course they were successful.
I have a background in archaeology. I would be interested to read
where theist archaeologists have shown an Ur-religion that
involved the worship of one deity.
Will you give me some references to get me started?
<snip>
Ken Rode
> On May 10, 7:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > language.
>
> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
> creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
>
> Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized;
Much earlier than that, Ray. The Enlightenment began in the 16th or
17th century.
"rationalization, standardization and the search for fundamental
unities occupied much of the Enlightenment and its arguments over
proper methodology and nature of understanding. The culminating
efforts of the Enlightenment: for example the economics of Adam Smith,
the physical chemistry of Antoine Lavoisier, the idea of evolution
pursued by Johann Wolfgang Goethe, the declaration by Jefferson of
inalienable rights, in the end overshadowed the idea of divine right
and direct alteration of the world by the hand of God."
<snip>
SJAB1958
> On May 10, 7:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > language.
>
> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
> creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
Unlikely, since all creationists that I have encountered in here claim
that the universe was created by the biblical god, and lets not forget
that this same god in the ten commandments declares 'thou shalt have
no other gods before me'. That somewhat cripples your opening
statement doesnt it?
>
> Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized; in response theist
> scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures. Social
> evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
> Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
> worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
> religion had evolved - a natural product of the minds of superstitious
> men. Sure enough they uncovered evidence of ancient civilizations
> bound by idolatrous customs. Theist archaeologists predicted that they
> would find evidence predating their evidence showing that before
> idolatry overtook the ancients that the same worshipped one Deity who
> was known by many different names (just like the Pentateuch portrays
> God). Of course they were successful.
Can you provide a citation for this claim?
>
> External to the Pentateuch creation accounts are known as General or
> Secondary revelations. Some predate Hebraic history some do not. A lot
> of persons mistakenly think that older automatically renders said
> account to have priority - not true. The claim of the Pentateuch is
> that it is the official account of the universal Deity before Satan
> corrupted the world with idolatry. God gave the Special revelation
> (protected version) to Shem, Abraham and Moses. This explains
> similarities and provides irrefutable corroborating evidence that the
> correct version of events is in the Pentateuch. This is why we want
> other versions known. Any component of any account which differs from
> the Pentateuch is error caused by its unprotected by God secondary
> status.
I was not referring to early judaic beliefs, I was referring to all
the other beliefs around the world, not just in one tiny patch of
desert land.
>
> Where are the disciples of the other accounts today?
>
> Where are the disciples of the Pentateuch account today (Jews and
> Christians - ruling the world)?
>
> God told Abraham that no weapon formed against you or your descendants
> will prosper and that he will possess the gates of his enemies.
>
Are you forgetting something? I was referring to all other religions
and mythologies that contain creation accounts, not just your judeo-
christian one.
> Ray
Martin Kaletsch
> On May 10, 7:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
>> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
>> language.
>>
>> If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
>> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
>> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
> creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
Who is "the Biblical worldview"?
> Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized;
The Bible has been "mythologized" some time before Darwin - I think you had
Augistinus quoted to you often enough.
> in response theist
> scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures.
Not to me nor to most modern theologists.
> Social
> evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
> Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
> worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
> religion had evolved - a natural product of the minds of superstitious
> men.
a) What are "Social evolutionists"?
b) Where and when did Darwin write about the development of religion?
> Sure enough they uncovered evidence of ancient civilizations
> bound by idolatrous customs.
Yes, lots of it dating back to neolithic times and in all parts of the
world.
> Theist archaeologists predicted that they
> would find evidence predating their evidence showing that before
> idolatry overtook the ancients that the same worshipped one Deity who
> was known by many different names (just like the Pentateuch portrays
> God). Of course they were successful.
Where and when?
> External to the Pentateuch creation accounts are known as General or
> Secondary revelations. Some predate Hebraic history some do not.
Known by whom?
> A lot
> of persons mistakenly think that older automatically renders said
> account to have priority - not true.
Older myths are ... older than newer myths! If you find different versions
of stories in the same general region or in regions who had echanged
cultural elements it's easy to assume that later versions developed from
earlier ones. I don't know what this has to do with priority.
> The claim of the Pentateuch is
> that it is the official account of the universal Deity before Satan
> corrupted the world with idolatry.
Satan in the old testament is among gods sons and tempts Job with gods
consent.
> God gave the Special revelation
> (protected version) to Shem, Abraham and Moses. This explains
> similarities and provides irrefutable corroborating evidence that the
> correct version of events is in the Pentateuch.
Does anybody understand what Ray is trying to say here?
> This is why we want
> other versions known. Any component of any account which differs from
> the Pentateuch is error caused by its unprotected by God secondary
> status.
So, because other creation accounts wildly disagree with the biblical one,
the bible is right?
Sorry, that doesn't really make sense.
> Where are the disciples of the other accounts today?
Several Billions of them live in India and China. Another great number was
killed by the loving Christians.
> Where are the disciples of the Pentateuch account today (Jews and
> Christians - ruling the world)?
Why do you exclude Moslems?
> God told Abraham that no weapon formed against you or your descendants
> will prosper and that he will possess the gates of his enemies.
Considering the fate of the Jewish people during history, I would not
consider the source trustwothy?
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On May 10, 7:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
>> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
>> language.
>>
>> If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
>> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
>> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
>Contrary to popular belief, the Biblical worldview wants the other
>creation accounts to be known. Here is why:
>
>Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized;
It started LONG before Darwin.
>in response theist
>scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures.
Only in your dreams Dishonest Ray.
>Social
>evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
>Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
>worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
>religion had evolved - a natural product of the minds of superstitious
>men.
That last part is true, then mention of Darwin is just your invention
Dishonest Ray.
> Sure enough they uncovered evidence of ancient civilizations
>bound by idolatrous customs. Theist archaeologists predicted that they
>would find evidence predating their evidence showing that before
>idolatry overtook the ancients that the same worshipped one Deity who
>was known by many different names (just like the Pentateuch portrays
>God). Of course they were successful.
Were they?
>
>External to the Pentateuch creation accounts are known as General or
>Secondary revelations. Some predate Hebraic history some do not. A lot
>of persons mistakenly think that older automatically renders said
>account to have priority - not true. The claim of the Pentateuch is
>that it is the official account of the universal Deity before Satan
>corrupted the world with idolatry. God gave the Special revelation
>(protected version) to Shem, Abraham and Moses.
There is no evidence any of those existed.
> This explains
>similarities and provides irrefutable corroborating evidence that the
>correct version of events is in the Pentateuch.
Fairy tales supporting fairy tales is not "irrefutable corroborating
evidence" Dishonest Ray.
>This is why we want
>other versions known. Any component of any account which differs from
>the Pentateuch is error caused by its unprotected by God secondary
>status.
>
>Where are the disciples of the other accounts today?
>
>Where are the disciples of the Pentateuch account today (Jews and
>Christians - ruling the world)?
>
>God told Abraham that no weapon formed against you or your descendants
>will prosper and that he will possess the gates of his enemies.
>
>Ray
>
Any chance of a sensible post from you this year Dishonest Ray?
--
Bob.
GsusCsus
> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
>
> If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
The attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are the ones that you would
infer to the Creator. For instance, He would exist in and out of the
space-time continuum which would make him Infinite. Since the universe
is highly ordered you would infer Intelligent engineering which would
infer a personality. Since it would take a great amount of power you
would infer all powerful within the context of the creation. With all
the precision of planning an intricate life support system you could
infer a plan for the inhabitants. It would not be irrational for an
infinite-personal-creator to communicate with the creation in what so
ever way seems fitting with His plan. The God of the Bible best fits
all these attributes and more.
Many of the other cultural creation stories do not fit that which
corresponds with what we know scientifically or logically and that is
why we are more confident that the Judeo-Christian belief system fits
best with the context of reality.
Tom McDonald
> On May 10, 6:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
>> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
>> language.
>>
>> If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
>> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
>> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> The attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are the ones that you would
> infer to the Creator. For instance, He would exist in and out of the
> space-time continuum which would make him Infinite. Since the universe
> is highly ordered you would infer Intelligent engineering which would
> infer a personality.
Not necessarily. I know some engineers.
> Since it would take a great amount of power you
> would infer all powerful within the context of the creation. With all
> the precision of planning an intricate life support system you could
> infer a plan for the inhabitants. It would not be irrational for an
> infinite-personal-creator to communicate with the creation in what so
> ever way seems fitting with His plan. The God of the Bible best fits
> all these attributes and more.
> Many of the other cultural creation stories do not fit that which
> corresponds with what we know scientifically or logically and that is
> why we are more confident that the
...Hindu...
<snip>
> belief system fits
> best with the context of reality.
Corrected it for you. Now get right with Brahma, and toot sweet.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830738371/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-4272170-3836739#reader-link
While the book and its content does not deal with Chaldea, it is a
good start nontheless.
Ray
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
> Since Darwin, the Bible has been mythologized;
biblical criticism started ALOT earlier than that. textual analysis
started in 17th century italy. so, questions about the bible's
authenticity have been around longer than darwin.
in response theist
> scholars have successfully demythologized the Scriptures. Social
> evolutionists (and their archaeologists) armed with the "facts" of
> Darwinism postulated that the Pentateuchal claim of an early world
> worshipping one universal Deity was false since Darwin proved that
> religion had evolved -
evolution has zip to do with religion...ALOT to do with sex and
death...which religion does as well...but evolution has nothing to say
about religion, per se.
a natural product of the minds of superstitious
> men.
the term 'superstitious' doesn't arise in accounts of the development
of religion since it's useless. all religions have superstitious
elements. it's like saying a tire is round.
Free Lunch
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1179010528.6...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
You do understand that religious apologetics isn't really scientific
research.
>While the book and its content does not deal with Chaldea, it is a
>good start nontheless.
That may be the wrong 'Ur'.
Tom McDonald
The book appears to be for the general public, and looks to have
been changed in the second edition from a description of how he
found a way to evangelize some tribes in Irian Jaya (including
his use of an exchange of children between tribes as a metaphor
for the sacrifice of Jesus) into a broad claim that all folks
have been prepared by their own religious traditions for
understanding Christianity.
I daresay most religions could make the same sort of claim about
how their god(s) prepared everyone for understanding the Truth
(i.e.: their own religion). Without more scholarship, I am not
impressed by this argument. Do you have any more rigorous
treatments of this?
There is also the fact that most of the old religions of the
world (going back many thousands of years before the Hebrews) are
polytheistic, only made to look amenable to monotheism by Western
interpreters.
I am familiar with the argument that the original religion of
Adam and Eve was the worship of the god that has come down to us
via Judaic and Christian and Islamic traditions, with the
observed differences being due to devolution due to original sin.
Do you hold that view?
Tom McDonald
> On 12 May 2007 15:55:28 -0700, in talk.origins
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <1179010528.6...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>> On May 12, 10:59 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> I have a background in archaeology. I would be interested to read
>>> where theist archaeologists have shown an Ur-religion that
>>> involved the worship of one deity.
>>>
>>> Will you give me some references to get me started?
>>>
>>> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830738371/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-4272170-3836739#reader-link
>
> You do understand that religious apologetics isn't really scientific
> research.
>
>> While the book and its content does not deal with Chaldea, it is a
>> good start nontheless.
>
> That may be the wrong 'Ur'.
Ah. I didn't catch that.
Yes, Ray, I am using 'Ur' in the broader, more technical sense of
'formative' or 'original'.
Tiny Bulcher
To Ur is human.
Frank J
> > > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> > answer that simple question. And note how many IDers will answer the
> > only way they can, which is "ID can accommodate any creation account."
>
> Fine, I'll have a go.
>
> particular God. It is simply "going beyond the evidence" of
> complexity points to only a non-specific, generic God. This because
> the Designer did not sign his name to his handiwork. However, having
> said that, we have other sciences to consider beside biochemistry. To
> be specific, SOCIOLOGY.
>
> various religions, gives us a clue. The more prevalent and world-
> dominant a religion currently is, the more likely it is to have been
> assisted by God in its march to world-dominance, and therefore the
> more likely that it is true.
>
> biochemical complexity. Therefore, we need to ask whether if God
> exists, would he assist the true religion to survive, and yes, thrive
> upon planet Earth?
>
> The answer is, if God cares about his handiwork, like all artisans do,
> then God would assist the true religion. Therefore, only the giant
> living religions are worthy of our attention and careful analysis.
>
> Thus, our task is much simpler than it appeared at first. We don't
> have to carefully study the myriads of "dead," or "tiny," or "recently
> fabricated," religions. We have merely to decide between the very
> ancient, giant living religions. This is doable.
That doesn't answer the question, so perhaps I need to rephrase it. I
am not interested in who/what the designer is, or how ID slickly
defers to other disciplies for that. I am interested in *what* the
designer did, *when* and *how*, and what makes *your* version better
than all the other ones. If I interpret your hints correctly, you are
referring to Judeo-Christian religions (BTW I'm sure that the
"evolutionists" will enjoy that at the next "teach the controversy"
trial), then you still have several *mutually contradictory* versions
to contend with. Why is yours the correct one, and why and how are all
the other Biblical ones falsified?
wf3h
GsusCsus wrote:
> >
> The attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are the ones that you would
> infer to the Creator. For instance, He would exist in and out of the
> space-time continuum which would make him Infinite.
the space time continuum was not known to those who wrote the bible,
and infinity was known to cultures other than jews and christians.
there are other 'infinite' gods. and the attribution of being 'in and
out' of the space time continuum is a latter day attribution, based on
the works of scientists...scientists that creationists so desperately
wish to prove wrong.
Since the universe
> is highly ordered you would infer Intelligent engineering which would
> infer a personality.
uh, no you wouldn't. another example of culture bound syndrome. you
would logically infer laws of nature operating. that's what's seen.
that's what's testable.
Since it would take a great amount of power you
> would infer all powerful within the context of the creation. With all
> the precision of planning an intricate life support system you could
> infer a plan for the inhabitants. It would not be irrational for an
> infinite-personal-creator to communicate with the creation in what so
> ever way seems fitting with His plan. The God of the Bible best fits
> all these attributes and more.
communicate? the bible is a damn poor way of communicating. written
in bits and pieces...changed and modified...contradictory and
excessively bound to what was once a fringe culture...
this is the best god can do?
> Many of the other cultural creation stories do not fit that which
> corresponds with what we know scientifically or logically and that is
> why we are more confident that the Judeo-Christian belief system fits
> best with the context of reality.
nope. it only seems that way to you since your culture is the one that
enables you to construct this circular argument.
and the creation story of the bible is meaningless within a scientific
framework, which is why creationists are so hell bent on wrecking
science to preserve their medieval view of culture.
Martin Hutton
knowledge of the "concerns" of the average creationist.
On 11-May-2007, Mark Nutter <manut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd, my earlier reply does not seem to have appeared. Let's try again.
>
> On May 10, 3:35 pm, Ouachita <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:08 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
> > > religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
> > > as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
> > > atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
> >
> > Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
> > were not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist.
>
> That's irrelevant. Theist and atheist are simply labels for one's view
> on the existence of god(s), they are not the names of religions.
> Atheist is not a religion for the same reason that theist is not a
> religion. If I tell you someone is a theist, does that mean they are a
> Christian? A Mormon? A Muslim? A Hindu? A worshipper of Zeus, Thor,
> Astarte, Baal, Cthulu, etc? Theism/atheism simply describes one's
> attitude towards one idea. That's not enough to constitute a full-
> blown religion.
>
> > > > Atheism attempts to explain origins via "science" called
> > > > "Darwinism".
> > > That's true only in the same sense that atheism attempts to achieve
> > > good nutrition by eating healthy foods, or that atheism attempts to
> > > construct durable buildings by using sound engineering principles.
> > > There's nothing inherent in atheism that demands an evolutionary
> > > explanation for life's origins; atheists merely accept evolution on
> > > the grounds that it happens to be the view that is most consistent
> > > with the verifiable facts.
> >
> > Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists
>
> So? The theory of gravity is also very compatible with atheism, as are
> the theory that sex has something to do with pregnancy, the theory
> that lightning is caused by accumulation of electrical charges in the
> atmosphere, and the theory that germs and viruses cause diseases.
> Granted, there are theistic alternatives to each of the above, such as
> the belief that a fertility god(dess) grants or withholds pregnancy,
> the belief that lightning is a weapon of divine retribution, and the
> belief that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have
> displeased Him. That doesn't mean that because atheism is compatible
> with the scientific explanations, therefore the scientific
> explanations are somehow promoting atheism. It's not reality's fault
> if it happens to be consistent with what atheists believe!
>
> > I would venture
> > to guess most atheists couldn't list 2 verifiable facts yet say they
> > believe in evolution.
>
> Ok, since you want me to keep it under two, I'll only give you one. ;)
>
> Quick review: Science is based on the principle that truth is
> consistent with itself. Knowing some facts (i.e. the individual pieces
> of truth) allows you to discover other facts that are consistent with
> what you already know.
>
> In practice, you can discover new truth as follows: describe a process
> in enough detail that you can reliably predict what real-world
> consequences would result from that process actually operating, then
> look in the real world to see if those consequences are actually
> present. If they are, then your explanation is consistent with the
> evidence; if they're not, then your explanation is inconsistent with
> the evidence. Note that if your explanation is not consistent with the
> evidence, you can always invent new unsubstantiated claims in order to
> try and excuse the inconsistency, but this is called
> "rationalization," and is merely a sign that your original theory was
> not consistent with the facts.
>
> Now, Darwin's theory states that new species arise by descent with
> variations from a common ancestor. If this process were to take place
> in the real world, there are some real-world consequences which would
> result. For example, the descendant species would receive a copy of
> the DNA of the ancestral species, plus or minus a few variations. This
> means that different descendant species would share large chunks of
> DNA in common, including genetic defects and nonfunctional segments,
> above and beyond the commonality that would be required merely to
> produce similarities in form and function.
>
> When we look at the gene sequences in different species, we find
> exactly that: large areas of common DNA, in nested hierarchies such as
> would be produced by common descent with variation. Thus we say that
> evolution is consistent with the evidence provided by DNA.
>
> Let's try the scientific process with creationism. Assume that the
> creationist interpretation of Genesis is literally true. What real
> world consequences would this have? Several:
>
> C1. All species that ever existed would have come into existence in
> the same 6 day period at the beginning of life on earth.
> C2. All fossils would have been created during the 1-year global
> Flood.
> C3. Only one species of each created "kind" would exist today, since
> the others all died in the flood.
>
> Do we see this pattern in the real world today? Is there only one
> species of the "cat" kind, and one species of the "pig" kind, and one
> species of the "canine" kind? No, we don't. Creationism is not
> consistent with the evidence. Of course, as I mentioned before, we can
> always invent new, unsubstantiated rationalizations for why the
> evidence is not consistent with creationism. We could suppose, for
> example, that God created a whole new bunch of species after the
> flood--species that for some strange reason had the shared genetic
> defects, in exactly the same pattern of inheritance, as would have
> resulted from common descent. This, of course, would contradict C1,
> above, since it would mean most species alive today had been created
> in defective form after the Flood instead of during Creation.
>
> Or we could suppose that God allowed the kinds to evolve new species
> (*very* rapidly!) immediately after the Flood in order to replace the
> species that were lost. But if that's the case, then Darwin was right
> and new species *do* arise by descent with modification from common
> ancestors. Or we could suppose that each species is its own "kind," in
> which case the ark would have needed to be much bigger. And so on. But
> in any case, the evolutionary explanation is going to be superior to
> the creationist explanation, because the creationist explanation needs
> to invent rationalizations to explain its inconsistency with the
> evidence, whereas evolution is consistent with the evidence "out of
> the box," so to speak.
>
>
> > > Refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as the evidence not
> > > existing.
> >
> > If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
> > there would be no more argument.
>
> That's an interesting argument, especially considering how much more
> cogent it is to Christianity than to evolution. Evolution is a
> scientific topic, and many people lack the interest and educational
> background to fully appreciate the nature and value of the evidence.
> Not so with Christianity, however.
>
> Christianity claims that there exists a God so loving and so powerful
> that He was willing and able to become one of us, dwell among us, and
> give His life for us, in order that He and we might share a personal,
> face-to-face relationship together for all eternity. The most
> fundamental and obvious consequence of such a thing being true would
> be that God would show up on at least a regular basis to participate
> in that relationship with each of us which He worked so hard to make
> possible. If that were true, however, then atheism could not exist,
> because God's constant appearances in the real world and in direct,
> personal, face-to-face relationships with each of us, would make
> denying His existence as silly as denying the existence of the planet
> Earth.
>
> The existence of atheism, and the existence of any debate about the
> existence of the Christian God, are themselves evidence of this God's
> non-existence, since no such debate would be possible if such a God
> really existed and was willing and able to behave as though He
> believed what Christians claim about Him.
>
> Likewise, creationism is evidence of God's non-existence in the real
> world, since if God showed up in the real world today, as though He
> really loved us and wanted genuine, personal, two-way interaction with
> us, then believers would have no need to turn to the ancient past
> looking for some technical ambiguity they could exploit as "evidence"
> for God's existence. The whole talk.origins group would be a moot
> point if God would simply show up and behave as though He believed the
> Gospel. Thus, the creation-evolution debate is proof of the absence of
> any real-world evidence for the Christian God.
>
> > I
> > took a long look at as much "evidence" as I could find. I also brought
> > problems upon myself in college for daring to question things that
> > should be subjected to questioning. You accept the widely accepted
> > belief system or go outside the circle.
>
> Yeah, been there, done that. I learned evolution in high school, then
> accepted Christ and went to a conservative, evangelical Christian
> college and "discovered" creationism (Henry Morris, John C. Whitcomb,
> Duane Gish, etc). I studied everything the creationists were saying
> about evolution, and all the quotes they quoted from evolutionists,
> and concluded that evolution was a religion, a belief system, rooted
> in godlessness and contrary to sound science. But I took it a step
> further. I went to the first-hand sources and learned what the
> evolutionists were actually saying.
>
> The evolutionists (including the theistic evolutionists) are telling
> the truth about evolution. You would do well to pay attention to them,
> and to not let yourself be led astray by narrow-minded creationists.
> Giving species the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a wise
> and well-engineered design; a Creator would have to be fairly stupid
> (for a creator) to handicap His creatures with an inflexible genetic
> system that would guarantee their extinction as soon as the climate
> changed or the competition heated up. So how smart is your God really?
>
> m
--
Martin Hutton
Martin Hutton
Who wouldn't? Doesn't matter how good the church is or how
crappy the bar is you can only get a drink of beer in the bar.
--
Martin Hutton
Noelie S. Alito
> Nice post...which appears to have been written with the
> knowledge of the "concerns" of the average creationist.
>
> On 11-May-2007, Mark Nutter <manut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Odd, my earlier reply does not seem to have appeared. Let's try again.
>>
>> On May 10, 3:35 pm, Ouachita <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 10, 1:08 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If atheism (absence of belief in God) is to be classified as a
>>>> religion, then good health (absence of disease) should be classified
>>>> as a disease. Buddhism is not made religious by the fact that it is
>>>> atheistic; it's religiosity is determined by its other qualities.
>>> Not a logical comparison there. If a rejection of the concept of deity
>>> were not at issue there would be no such thing as an atheist.
<chop-a-doodle-doo>
Seconded.
Lorentz
> A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the
> edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its
> endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu.
Vishnu and Brahma haven't created animals yet. However, he is
sleeping on a giant cobra.
>The night had
> ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel
> grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat
> Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu and Brahma haven't created vegetation yet. However, a lotus
flower grows from Vishnu's navel.
>
> Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed.
> Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
When did Vishnu create Brahma?
>
> >Then Brahma
> split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the
> heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of
> the flower he created the skies.
What is the difference between the skies and the heavens?
NASA says that there is a lot more space than earth. Was
earth created from the smaller part of the flower?
>
> The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers,
> trees and plants of all kinds.
Including lotus flowers?
>To these he gave feeling.
Why didn't he give feelings to animals? See the following
passage.
>Next he
> created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds
> to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea.
Including cobras?
Wow! All of a sudden feel alot better about Genesis!
backspace
> I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> language.
>
> entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
Because only the Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh the very
personification of language itself, provided a falsification test.
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
snex
you really think that idiots spouting gibberish is proof of a god?
LOL!
i prefer the falsification test about drinking poison. perhaps youd
care to put it to the test?
Mark Nutter
>From the site: "If God is really God, then would he not give some sort
of "language like" sign for his existance?"
Answer: If the Christian God really existed, and believed what
Christians say about Him, the most fundamental and obvious result
would be that He would spend so much time showing up in person to
participate in the personal relationship which Christians say He
wanted badly enough to die for, that no obscure, ambiguous "language
like" signs would be necessary. If you really love someone, you don't
mess with their heads sending them off on contrived and complicated
"hints" that you might actually exist. True love shows up to spend
time with the person loved, face-to-face in two-way interaction.
"Signs" are a waste of time. If you really want to know whether
Christians are telling the truth about God and God's love, just pray
and ask God to show up in person to confirm what men say about Him. If
He arrives, visibly, audibly and tangibly, and tells you (in a voice
that other people can hear and that will register on a tape recorder)
that He really does love you like the Christians say, then the Gospel
is true. A God who loves you enough to suffer and die for you isn't
going to suddenly balk if you ask Him whether or not He's really
there. And if He doesn't show up, well, it's not the first time men
have said unreliable things about God.
m
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> >
> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> Because only the Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh the very
> personification of language itself, provided a falsification test.
> See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
in one simple paragraph he reveals why western civilization was
intellectually moribund for a thousand years...due to religion.
Cemtech
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
You are proof of why religious injection into politics or science,
stunts either.
--
Advice when in a crowd of creationists:
"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as an equal"
J.R."Bob" Dobbs
gregwrld
> On May 10, 6:17 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have one question for you creationists which I hope you will be able
> > to answer constructively and without resorting to abusive and hostile
> > language.
>
> > If as you claim the entire univsere was created by some supernatural
> > entity, why should only your version of this story be considered, how
> > about all the other creation accounts from all around the world?
>
> The attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are the ones that you would
> infer to the Creator. For instance, He would exist in and out of the
> space-time continuum which would make him Infinite. Since the universe
> is highly ordered you would infer Intelligent engineering which would
> infer a personality. Since it would take a great amount of power you
> would infer all powerful within the context of the creation. With all
> the precision of planning an intricate life support system you could
> infer a plan for the inhabitants. It would not be irrational for an
> infinite-personal-creator to communicate with the creation in what so
> ever way seems fitting with His plan. The God of the Bible best fits
> all these attributes and more.
You know God's plan? Sum it up for us!
And also point out where the Bible mentions QM.
> Many of the other cultural creation stories do not fit that which
> corresponds with what we know scientifically or logically and that is
> why we are more confident that the Judeo-Christian belief system fits
> best with the context of reality.
You ought consider the possibility this "god" loved his creation so
much
he gave each culture a religion that would work for he and them.
gregwrld
Mark Nutter
The OP was specifically inquiring about why one supernatural scenario
(e.g. young earth interpretation of Genesis, old earth spiritualized
interpretation of Genesis, day=age interpretation of Genesis, Gap
Theory interpretation of Genesis) ought to be preferred above the
alternatives. Your inferences above don't appear to favor any of these
above another, except that the part about intelligent engineering,
which implies that the Creator would not be so clumsy as to omit
evolution from His design. That would tend to favor one of the old-
earth interpretations, but which one?
m