NOVA Judgement Day-Intelligent Design on Trial HDTV XviD-MiRAGETV
Intelligent design makes people stupid, Kevin Padian of UC Berkely says. The war on evolution, is the ever encroaching backwards thought method of the intelligent design conspiracy theorists, a grandiose mega-scale conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory behind creationism is that a magical man in the sky created everything. The goal of intelligent design is to re-Christianize American society, as Eugenie C Scott Nat’l Ctr for Science Education says. This special two-part NOVA series professionally re-creates the showdown between intelligent design and evolution in a courtroom in Dover, Pennsylvania with complete transcripts from the court case.
It all started when, in 2004, the Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board’s actions filed a lawsuit in federal court. Then followed a six week trial, and this two-part NOVA documentary tries to cover it as completely and both-sided as possible. Check the NOVA ID homepage for lots more about the show. Many thanks to cool group MiRAGETV for ripping in great quality. Go ahead, disagree or agree in the comments, just keep it under control hopefully 
. It would also help to shape your response if you download and watch the show first, and then you would be able to make a much more intelligent response.
624×352 29.97, mp3 48Hz 16BiT STEREO, 2×700MB
Samples: #1 , #2 , #3
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD1 | Torrent
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD2 | Torrent
Comments(347)
i got pole position on this one
1st pic is from future weapons, wrong link?
Definitely worth a download if you haven’t watched this documentary.
Though as an American I’m pretty embarrassed that this kind of debate had to happen in the first place. The Christian Right is destroying my country.
i saw the last half of this, was great. i also cant believe how people can ignore such clear evidence. all to justify their life in a godless world, or have they not heard, god is dead.
prase jeebus
go ahead, revel in the masochistic pleasure of believing in a non-existent entity and trembling in its fear.
Nature takes its own course, and it will……no prayers, no masses can change it idiots
well they are all rights and all wrongs
scientifically Darwin’s theory of evolution is in crisis,with modern molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics knowledge that support different evidences
and on the other hand whatever religion or cult you are running,you do it
by firm belief and not scientific facts,otherwise you are trying to explain the
unexplainable
I believe the attempt to teach the flawed ID theory in schools and therefore gain acceptance in the wider public domain is an attack on Christianity itself.
I see the debate as a cynical attempt to deny ones ability to reason and sow the seeds of division and hate while wearing GOD on their sleeve (instead of in their hearts)
The very core and strength of the Christian faith is the ability to see the world as it is and still believe in our lord GOD.
It’s unfortunate that some people who call themselves Christian can’t do just that.
You know we can all be in a hot debate over who is right or who is wrong OR we can all just leave people up to their own decisions about what they want to believe.
If you’re right, good for you; if you’re wrong, well that sucks.
Whatever man.
i dont get this one,there are so many debates at the same time in the same
documentary
like showing a picture of so many guns against the wall,,,wrong picture i guess
or is it about non democratic involvement in the school system
or to separate clergy from the state
or to separate the clergy from the law system if not from the state
it is my believe that in the usa,they are not dissociable,therefore they need
one another,unless there is a major structural changes in the code of law
fondation,these things will always happen
When did Christianity become more about questioning science and less about learning about empathy and compassion? Has anyone ever considered that maybe God doesnt really care if we think we evolved from monkeys or not, he gave us the freedom of thought for a reason.
Your going down a dangerous path if religion dictates whats being thought in schools.
robespierre, actually not all religions deny science over their chosen faith. The Dalai Lama for example shows a good example of being a practicing buddhist believes that if science can conclusively demonstrate certain Buddhist claims to be false, it would be acceptable to abandon those claims in favor of science. I think thats a healthy perspective on religon and perhaps we really should abandon religious values that no longer are valid due to science, democracy and human rights.
Tracker sending invalid data o.O?
anyone knows whats going on with thepiratebay tracker? getting redirected to moviex.info???
A man walks into a room holding a rock and shows some people the rock. He walks back out and comes back in with a women beside him. He tells the people in the room, “that rock has turned into this woman.” The people hiss and boo him out of the room as a moron.
He walks into another room filled with some evolutionists scholars who’se whole career is based on this theory, he does the same routine but says “that rock is now a woman after billions of years”. The evolutionists applaud him!
Why woudl a rock ever change? The fossil record shows no trans species records. And in fact it shows the opposite, that all things are as they are and ever were – and dont change or mutate. This is not science its a fanciful story, the evolutionist has already said ‘There is no God’, and will seek to prove himself correct. Science should not start with an outcome “there is no God”, but it shoudl look at the evidence alone. Anything else is lies, you are being taught by people that think they are ‘intellectual’. Do the research dont be lazy!
Wow, sure are some bright bulbs around here. Maybe some of us out here like to believe that one day we will be held accountable for our actions. I would much rather have someone who believed in a loving God running this country, expecting each American to actually work and earn a living and contribute to a civilized law abiding society, than a bunch of pillow-biting, ass-eating, butthole bandits, and freak liberals who think that the government is here to give free living to the lazy people who think they are owed something. For the freedom to say stupid things, everyone owes America and its founding fathers, who besides giving us the power of electricity, and every modern thing we have, whom all also believed in a loving God enough to leave their dictatorship, venture to a new place, and start the greatest country in the world. Back in their time, people who didn’t believe in their God were left in jolly ole England. Famous atheist and British philosopher Antony Flew stated in a phone interview just recently “A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature” and acknowledges that “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause God is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”
. Galileo, Descartes, Isaac Newton , Robert Boyle, William Thomson Kelvin, and to read about what Albert Einstein believed go here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Me personally, I think I will side with some of the greatest minds in the worlds history than with the liberals and anti-social freaks who blast their puke and idiocy from their porn laced computers, weak minded,feeble, selfish ideologies, and emotional closedmindedness that will only lead to a hopelessness that, I am thankful to the God I believe in, will never happen to me!!! Science has been helping to prove Intelligent Design for decades. In the 1800’s it was not known as Int. Des. but as ‘The argument from design’. Thoughts quotes from letters from Darwin to many people can be found here http://www.creator-creation.com/darwin.htm
as well as the controversial Lady Hope “story” here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm.
Wow, even someone as depraved as Jeffrey Dahmer, who had always believed that there was no moral authority, that whatever you do is fine and when you die you go back to nothingness, came to a personal belief in Jesus Christ. Do you know why he was killed? Because, after his professing a belief in JC on national television, some inmates could not bear to think that someone that did the horrible things he did could believe that he could be saved and go to heaven, and what about the people he murdered? What a sad, nothing to look forward to life it must be to not have something to believe in. No, that isn’t the wind on your face, it is your imagination. Since you can’t see it, it must not be there, but you can see it sway a tree or bush. If you can believe that the wind is there by the effects of that wind, then the possibility exists that a God that you can’t see does exist because of the effects that He has. You can’t put God in a test tube and say “This is God” any more than you can put a mother’s love in a test tube and say “This is a mother’s love.” Use your brains for something else, please, other than to bash people or a God you choose not to know!!! Life – God = a whole lot of chaos and hell!!!
well the world was flat not round and the earth was in the middle
of the universe,and spain was eliminating a whole continent
in the name of god,while the king of england changed religion
in order to change wife.
god was always in the hands of the wrong people..
but modern society have their laws based on a mix of religious
belief and human values at the time the code was written
call it the amendment or the equivalent elsewhere..
so they are handtight into it,and have to follow their own
set of rules,unless major amendments are made,,
no judgement of value made here,these are facts
I believe we were intelligently designed to evolve like we did.
@17 some people should ask for a refund
I find it absolutely adorable you believe whatever you hear. As far as I know, there has never been absolute proof that any religion, which btw includes evolution, is true.
What I find amusing is that people come on here and see, “The evil creationists are destroying my country!” I think that every evolutionist that didnt agree with the ruling that required confirmation that there were other beliefs than your own are simple minded idiots…why? Well, you see it as Christians forcing their belief down your throat. However, intelligent people, who just so happen to have a mind, would see it as giving a choice. The thing that boggles my mind is that even though the teachers were “forced” to declare there are alternate beliefs, they still taught their own belief…Wait, that doesnt sound right…your mad that you need to admit there are other people that believe other things than you, yet you STILL get unilateral authority to teach what you believe and nothing else…that is…stupidity at its worst!
YES, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT YOU DONT! It would be better for the entire country if you selfish pricks understood that fact…
All I ever see in the news is people saying intelligent design is being evil…Ive never understood that. They didnt force you to teach their side! They just wanted you to confirm they existed!
Time for personal responses:
@3
Why would you be embarrassed that you live in a country with many different people that believe many different things? Does it upset you that there might be a disagreement? Do you even have a brain? The reason America is great is because it gives everybody a chance to think whatever they want to think. Sorry to break it to you, but this is America. Why dont you go move to China…youll be happier there…
@4
What your saying is that this gives all the evidence to prove your opinion…hmm…opinion != fact…or did I miss something?
@8
Wow, I dont think I have ever read anything quite like that before. Lemme just rephrase EXACTLY what you just said, so us dummies can understand it better…”Dont teach everything, just teach one thing. That way, it will be easier for us to decide what is right!” Just gotta say again…wow…wow……hmm…personally I think that is too easy to criticize…
@9
That is a very intelligent thing to say. Yet, somehow it doesnt fit…What am I debating about? I saw a bunch of idiots blowing something way out of reality, so I came in to correct the mistake. Am I trying to debate on whether ID or evolution is true…no. Im trying to preserve the right for you to decide. So yeah, your pretty smart, but just saying that wont help…
@10
While what you say is, IMO, quite true, I dont think that is going to help your cause…
@11
You are very mistaken. In fact, I take offense to that. Why? Well, what your saying is that these people read something and then instantaneously go on a religious crusade to force what they read on other people. You treat Christians as mindless animals who do what their told. You have no idea how much science has gone into the ID theory. As far as I can see, it is you who believes whatever your told. Im going to go out on a limb here and say you need to be a little more informed before making such claims…
Yes, I have said many mean things, and called a lot of people idiots. Im not trying to be mean, but this kind of thing just aggravates me and puts me in a bad mood. It doesnt matter how much science you put into it, your NEVER going to prove one theory over another, hence the reason Im still typing. What is the moral of this rather long explanation? Give people a chance. After all, the people who believe in ID are just as capable as you are to form a conclusion with evidence to support it…
As a great scholar once said,
“Stupid is as stupid does”.
I was taught we came from AMOEBIA not rocks..
the pic in the article is taken from Future Weapons..
tmsgabber, you lost me after the third sentence. Save the speeches for your bathroom mirror. Who preaches on the comments section of a piracy website? How many contradictions is that? You’re lame, we think your lame, Jesus thinks your lame, accept it.
what i don’t understand is this site’s staffs fears about open debate, even if it gets out of hand. note the schoolmarm comment from mr x
“just keep it under control hopefully 8)”
along with grandmotherly ’smile’
and now they censor us so we don’t write ‘bad’ words. just try writing some ordinary words…
why such a timid and lame attitude towards free speech?
@14 Science never takes the position that there is no god, it is just a byproduct of knowing more about nature.
Fans of intelligent design on the other hand take the position that there is a god (and I bet it’s not Thor, Zeus or Baal). They twist the facts and search for “evidence” that play in the favor and fit into their belief system.
Just look at the history of so called “intelligent design”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3PnKswZtPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924Nz5WPxcQ
@17 Who is the designer and who designed him?
What do you expect ? whe are talking about U.S. where lives the most stupid people ever found. Just look at the laws, at america for americans, look at bush duh…
There is no culture in U.S. and this americans whant to make history for the wrong reasons…
“I find it absolutely adorable you believe whatever you hear. As far as I know, there has never been absolute proof that any religion, which btw includes evolution, is true.”
The theory of evolution is not a religion, it never has been nor was it ever meant to be a instrument of faith. It’s part of something called scientific method, a way of observing and understand the natural world that we are part of.
As for moving to China, I’ll go over there whenever you decide to move to Iran and see how life is in an oppressive theocracy that looks to control freewill and independent thought.
@26 Just because Bush is stupid it doesn’t mean all Americans are stupid. Remember that in the 2000 election 52.2% of America voted for someone other than Bush.
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you’re and idiot.
http://www.darwinistsneverrealize.com/
interesting videos:
THE COLLAPSE OF ATHEISM
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1244
THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245
THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1132
more videos:
http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_video_index.htm
I lol’d at this thread.
“believe” as the word said has not much to do with reality. You believe in something, thats the point. Is there a God? Its not important, the point is that you believe that it exists.
Evolution or ID? Many scientists worked on discovering the world we live in and the conclusion of thousand’s work is the evolution theory. Its not perfect, its not complete but it works. Or you can “believe” in ID.
I think the most important is not to “believe” what somebody says but making your own research, your own “religion” = your own point of view.
Of course its always easier to get a well made religion, ready to use…with Gods and rules and few space for your own ideas…
If the US americans want to believe that ID is true, let them. It will give the rest of the world a scientific advantage and something to laugh about.
What would life be like if Christ had not come and Christianity had not spread throughout the world? It would most likely be much different, of which we all can agree. Although Greece gave western civilization much art, philosophy and literature, and Rome provided law and government, it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments. The God of order and beauty provided for the view that nature was predictable and orderly. The Christian belief that all humanity is a creation of God gave a foundation to the self-evident truth of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Since people are made in the image of God they are valuable apart from their station of life, amount of wealth, or utility to society. People are helped, educated, and protected simply because they are made in God’s image. Loss of these Christian ideals would undoubtedly be a tragic loss to the well-being of humanity.
blah frikin blah thats all i hear..
Believe in something, thats all i ask, just believe in something… even nothing is something!… yes it is!
the next guy believes in something
couldnt tell ya what i believe, but it is something
does it matter if my something is different to your something?… nope!
but at least its something
Do ya get my point yet?
oh and my respect to your something.
I never suggested that only one version of events should be taught in schools (@19), on the contrary, I strongly believe that people should be provided with the skills/tools to think logically, understand things from a position of knowledge and therefore be able to determine what is right from wrong for themselves.
The definition of “insanity” is someone who has a deranged state of mind, a lack of understanding or can’t distinguish right from wrong.
What I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t associate people who are Christians with those who are technically insane and standing under a Christian banner because this simply isn’t so.
Instead what I was suggesting is that someone who would call themselves a Christian and who feel that their faith in GOD is somehow threatened by the prevailing point of view in the community (scientific conclusions) and therefore feels the need to attack and undermine those conclusion with poorly conceived ideas are poor Christians at best.
General theory of evolution is not a theory – it is a fact.
Darvin theory of evolution – is different matter. He got few points wrong, but general theory is sound. Very impressive for pre-DNA era. It is not for science to prove that theory is correct but try to disprove it. So far darvin theory stands. And go ahead Christians tell us that laws of “natural” (sexual) selection is wrong. Been 16 too
If you think that world is 6000 years old when every evidence tells 600 million you need to have your head examined.
If you think that science should except creationist dogma as foundation with no facts to prove it, no bases – you are obviously have no idea what science is.
Man evolved – that is the fact.
It’s the year 2007 and the world is still at war over who has the most powerful invisible friend.
I don’t care about people’s beliefs until they try to force it on me or on my children, or making me or my children adjust to the ways of Bronze Age myths.
Now they are, by calling creationism science they try to get the popular vote, getting in to classrooms, building museums witch show man and dinosaurs side by side. The fossil records being described as results of the great flood.
The ridicules claim that the world is 6000 years old (why do we see stars tens of thousands light-years from here, anyone? ) is being supported by the president of the united states and 54% of the population. If you ask me, religion is causing way more harm than it is doing good and it’s time to grow up and stop having invisible friends.
I’m so glad I live in the most non-religious country in the world.
Come on, everyone should just give up, you can’t find or even know how we were created, if you do, well, it becomes false since the the answer is instantly changed, just because the magical man in the sky was very evil. So just give it up and figure out how to mess with it and alter the design yourself…. you are (well most of you) are intelligent….
ADULDTS shouldn’t have INVISIBLE friends.
Isn’t that the same thing as “I’m first”?… was kinda funny!
@jonnyBoy,
That’s what most of Christians do. In U.S. Christianity is something else… different. Andrew, pointed it well, above your comment.
LOL at the stone-woman analogy. *shakeshishead*
That is EXACTLY why science needs to step up and tell those guys how stupid they are. If a guy would do that in front of a group of scientists, he would most certainly get laughed at. But maybe a group of “normal” people would actually believe an eloquent talker (=preacher) that humans came from rocks.
Humans didn’t come from rocks, though living things may fossilize over a long period of time.
And no, even though we make scientific progress all the time, the question of whether or not Evolution is a fact is NEVER ever seriously doubted by any scientist.
just a little question for those on the evolution side of the debate.
why is water the only substance on earth that expands and becomes less dense when it freezes ( 0 – 4 degrees Celsius)?
water cannot evolve so the theory of evolution does not play any role here so think of a reason why water expands when it freezes. The reason it expands is so that it floats on top of the water because, as i said earlier, it becomes less dense. if it didn’t become less dense then any life in the water would die.
just thought i would make a points for the intelligent creator side of this debate.
BTW i am open to all sides of this dilemma and am not close minded
i am a dinosaur, which way to the ark guys?
@43,
So if I freeze a fish in a block of ice or a frozen solid pond, it would live?
Your little question is lame, at best.
Elements have not evolved, life evolves. If we all came from Adam as Eve, why do pygmies look different than Eskimos. Perhaps they evolved to their respective lifestyle, climate, and surroundings.
Not everyone has evolved at the same rate. It is obvious by some of the posts here.
@43
You are confusing the words reason and result.
The reason is:
When liquid water is cooled, it contracts like one would expect until a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius is reached. After that, it expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and then when it freezes it expands by approximately 9%.
This unusual behavior has its origin in the structure of the water molecule. There is a strong tendency to form a network of hydrogen bonds, where each hydrogen atom is in a line between two oxygen atoms. This hydrogen bonding tendency gets stronger as the temperature gets lower (because there is less thermal energy to shake the hydrogen bonds out of position). The ice structure is completely hydrogen bonded, and these bonds force the crystalline structure to be very “open”.
The result:
The result is that ice floats, and yes we would not see life as we know it if it didnt, if any. Whats your point?
@ 34 wah
“it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments.”
What a fallacious statement: the take-over of Christianity given us over a thousand years of total obscurantism, where philosophers writings were forbidden/banished/censored by the pope while Galileo Galilei -heliocentrism- was an heretic for over 300 years -until the late 20° century and John-paul 2- lol!
Persecutions, forced conversions, witch-hunts, Inquisition, massacres, religious wars, crusades, obscurantism.
That were revolutions against the nobles and the clergy, partners in crime for oppressing the poor, that enshrined equality and liberty in the documents of many governments (cf. France); universal education? lol…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy
You can believe what you want. But there is only one way to salvation, through Jesus. If you wan’t more scientific information against the evolution or are just interested in the debate. Take a look at this movie…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814048597272982882
@12
Thats GOD blocking your ports!
@48
I disagree, the pink unicorn is the only way to salvation!
Or was it the tooth fairy… hmmm
BTW, piracy (i.e. stealing) is not… so you’re going to hell to burn forever throughout eternity with indescribable pain… just total torture increasing with every second, butraped with a pitchfork with your head buried in a pile of glowing coal. Oh, But god loves you… remember that!
Rightous christian proselytizers on a piracy weblog. That’s what I call an evolutionary bloomer
Kevin Padian is clearly not aware of “The Pyramid of Complexity” this theory is backed by the scientific community.It explains that the world is too complex to have evolved out of thin air, and that it needs a creator.
The theory is not some Christian hoax or whatever, it’s scientific, just like the theory of evolution.
Check out this documentary:
part1
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=6aCClfmSsw0
part2
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKVtt0CQWk
part3
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=H841_rIMv7k
part4
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=B-DhTEJI7Ks
part5
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=S5T2vVTRjrI
part6
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=gNoHnbz3BGg
part7
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=3zrY_8YAwdM
That’s it enjoy!
I agree with #51. If you all would just READ the comments in this thread… then you all would see how incompetent children you all are.
I for one am glad that I am a thinker (open minded- but not so open minded that my brain fell out). I am glad I separated myself from closed minded religious brainwashing and I still don’t believe in no “gassy” Ggod(s).
Oh, and that goes for masonry, free or not, also. Their craft is deception and it wouldn’t surprise me none that they started this whole mess to begin with.
Let me give you a key to something. The cross that “christianity” claims it to be symbolizing their “saviour”, IS nothing but the mark of Cain. It isn’t the skin color of African people and its descendants and whatever they say now-a-days, but the cross is a sign that survived wayyyyyyy even before Babylon’s time. Just look, it’s everywhere.
The sad thing here is that intelligent design actually has good philosophical basis and the concept of a “necessary being” is the theory opposite that of quantum mechanics. These idiots were too bloody stupid to read the proper metaphysical lit and have instead pulled some asinine attempt out of their asses to justify their little crusade into the science class.
Pathetic appeals to confirmation bias do not a documentary, or trial, make. Moore should get the chair — or a Nobel, but preferably the chair — for convincing so many stupid people otherwise.
And, for God’s sake (irony intended), what is it about anti-religionists that makes them just have to be even bigger idiots than religionists? I mean, who would have even thought that possible?!? How has it escaped so many of you that you can’t be mad at (the) God(s) if you don’t believe in (the) God(s), your clear anger gives lie to you claims to lack of belief.
Not Stupid it’s not a question of believing in God or being a Christian or not. It’s a fact that Atheism has no real hardcore scientific proof that God does not exist. It has a theory, the theory of evolution. Yes a theory just like the theory based around “The pyramid of complexity” which explains that there has to be a creator.
Do i believe that God is a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud? No of course not, i’m not stupid. Did Jesus exist and was he a great man with powers? Why not? What if we have been deprived of our powers by society and it’s structure? What if we once had such powers? We only use 5% of our brains anyway, so why close out any possibility?
To dismiss God or Atheism is both quite stupid, the truth is that we all create our own reality. That’s what i think free will means, you accept your own reality. Mine is with God, and yours is without. Respect that as you would respect somebody who has a different world view then your world view.
I always hear that Religion is the root of all evil? That’s stupid and naive to say. People are aggressive creatures, who join tribes and ideologies. People have been killing each other for as long as humans exist. So is religion to blame?
NO!
Culture is the root of all evil; It is what divides us even more then ideologies or religion.
Of course religion is to blame. It would have the suggestive power to summon people to do good.
However:
Does the Vatican tell the people in Africa to use condoms. Do the Mullahs of Nigeria support the vaccination of the people against Polio? Do evangelicals provide proper sex education in order to protect against STDs?
Organized religions may have a good core, but they always spiral out of control and turn into the dogmatic and gruesome cults we see everday
@17 This is the only inteligent comment yet.
Little story: My Stepmom devout christian was having a discussion with my wife who is a microbiologist. My wife brought in a comment out of the “dead sea scrolls” stepmom said she didnt want to hear it “if its not in the bible its not true.” The very next week her pastor brought up the dead sea scrolls and said if you have not had a chance to review these to do so. Now stepmom is asking all kinds of questions about these.
That looks pretty mindless to me. Unable or unwilling to have a discussion unless its oked from the church!
Most christians don’t have a clue to their religion besides what their told from the church. E.G. The trinity, I bet most didnt know this was never thought untill 350AD when Constantine decreed it to be so, just to help save his empire from fighting.
Not saying the bible is all wrong (if you can read Aramaic and veiw the original transcripts) Throughout the years it’s been rewritten translated and modified by man to serve mans purpose.
Compare DNA to a computer program and intelligent design makes sense, just not a all omnipotent being saying poof let it be.
Be careful not to label people as christian or atheist there is also the agnostic view of there being more to the story then the human mind can comprehend (or at least not yet).
Get this, God is a human invention not the other way around.
Life is a mystery and so is the universe. Time is a rubberband
and we will never reach the end of universe and see the light.
All you ID lovers hug a C4-loaded fundamentalist and die happy.
@56.
“We only use 5% of our brains anyway, so why close out any possibility?”
If you used only 5% of your brains you wouldnt even be able to breath properly, you whole brain is in use whole time, tho, most of it handles your bodies motoric functions and such
and atheism is writtin in lowercase, unlike religions
“To dismiss God or Atheism is both quite stupid, the truth is that we all create our own reality. That’s what i think free will means, you accept your own reality. Mine is with God, and yours is without. Respect that as you would respect somebody who has a different world view then your world view.”
If it only was that simple, then id be ok with anyone believeing in elves/unicorns/fairies, but it isnt, atleast as long as people are blowing themselves up, torching abortion clinics, or forcing their narrow-minded view of the world on others
if anyone came up to me with real evidence of existance of the christian god, ID REALLY LIKE THAT, even if i would be proven wrong being atheist, id really like the idea of eternal life, but the thing is, there are still active religions in the world been around much longer than the abrahamic ones, in my mind, id rather rank them higher with possibility of being the *true* religion, just because theyve been around much longer
best shot is to trust science and see what comes up following decades with the advancing progress of technology
Culture may be the root Blackeyedbearhawk, but religion IS its associate. Religion with its many sects (yes, this includes the word “denomination”) divides the people. Different looks at the scriptures created different “groups”. Why is it that they can not be under 1 “entity” but still have their individual thoughts and opinions until they are convinced otherwise? I personally do not want a One World Order but I disagree with religion in its way of how to achieve peace the way they are going about it. They themselves were infiltrated with members of secret societies and are now leading the worlds flocks blind.
Food for thought. Your saviour whom you call “Jesus” suffered a massive character assassination. Jesus is a name meaning “Healing Zeus”. And the way they portray him as single and almost “homosexual” like, is just the opposite. You are told to search the truth out, so do it. I did and what I see is that we commoners (non-secret society) are in for the fight of our lives. Earth’s governments is truly run by demons with Lucifer on the throne.
First point, the rock-woman analogy is just plain stupid.
Seriously, hang your head in shame for that one.
Lying makes baby jeebus cry ya know D=<
Have you ever really read anything about evolution that wasn’t creationist propaganda? Because from what you’ve written it seems not. Nor have you read anything on debating ethics apparantly. Strawmen are bad, not least because you look like a fool when you’re caught using them.
What you have described is NOT the theory of evolution, it just bares a passing similarity to the evolutionary story if you squint and lean your head to the side…
The science, and the scientists, are clear. We evolved. Sorry if this contradicts your cherished little mythology, but that’s life.
Someone else said they would rpefer a religious person in office to one who was non-religious. Why? You would prefer someone who ultimately held themselves accountable to a being they only believed existed, but couldn;t prove, instead of one who held themselves accountable to the electorate?
That way lies madness and decent dystopian fiction.
Then there was some crappy appeal to authorities, and quote mining. Especially the einstein crap.
Guess what, he was not a creationist. He was a scientist, and soundly rejected all of your religious ideas. Many times. Over and over and over.
Then some random insults, then some claims about science proving intelligent design… care to elaborate? This would be quite the surprise to the scientific community…
Then darwin quote mining and the good old creationist claim of a death bed retraction. Always a classic that one.
Nothing new here then, just the same tired, vitriolic rhetoric.
Simple fact is you have nothing new, nor have you have for hundreds of years.
@60
Check facts a large majority of the brain shows no activity, shown by a cat scan on what would be refered to as super genius shows much elevated activity in otherwise unused portions of the brain. It’s in this organ may lie the answer since it’s the only area of the human body we still no nothing about.
As far as I am concerned this thread is over for me. I got movies and games to watch/ play/ download. I do not want to feed the incompetence here.
as soon as i saw this pre the other day i knew mrx would post it
Great, so while muslim fundamentalists are trying to blow half the world up, christian fundamentalists are trying to make the other half stupid.
There is a lot of people out there that believe in god and believe in evolution. Frankly anyone who thinks that god created the world in 6 days and then had to rest is bonkers. If the person who created the universe is god, why would he need to rest ? An all powerful being needs to rest ? There is a lot of people who take the religious books as litteral word – which makes for some rather horrid reading. In the bible it’s said that one of Adams sons went off and married someone from another tribe – hello – how is that possible if there is only adam/eve + family ? gah .
Nothing wrong with being with your sister as long as ya love each other right?
@56
Why should atheists be asked to prove that there is no god(s)? It is you who claim that there is one, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Everyone is born atheist, what belief you get is purely based upon where you are born, into what religious surrounding. What makes the Abraham god more probable then Thor, Baal, Zeus, Vishnu, Venus, fray etc?
If everyone is equally sure that their religion is right and you agree with that you are, say a Christian because you were born in a Christian country and not a Muslim one. Does it not become childish to still claim to the notion that you god is more probable then gods of any other religion? And why can’t the designer be Zeus?
The fact that there are and have been thousands of religions practiced through mankind’s history (witch is by all scientific ways of measuring and according all the archeology findings more than 6000 years) makes it hard to believe in any god for any sane person. (Yes people who worship invisible all powerful beings with no evidence for its existence are mentally ill in a way). In fact that is what religion is, a mental illness. If one person thinks the moon talks to him, they call it insanity, if a million thinks the same way it’s called religion.
And another thing, one cannot prove a negative.
You can’t prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, or Zeus, or that a blue naked invisible fat guy who lives under my bed does not exist.
And finally, I do not agree that ALL evil come from religion. Religion is dangerous because it is easily used as a tool to do evil, and making it seem just.
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
~ Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662
i love the comments here. fundamentalism without killing each other…thanx to the internet.
BTW: those here that mention “The Pyramid of Complexity” should state where they stand! Agnostics i hope. Coz the pyramid just says it is too complex…exactly what the agnostics say.
Still you can and cannot believe in a god.
question:
Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?
No matter what you answer: the god cannot be almighty.
Either that god is too lame to create such a heavy rock or the god is weak not to be able to carry the heaviest stone.
A paradox which in general proves the inexistence of an almighty god. Maybe some god (islam?christian?budhism?) is pretty good in what he/she/it does…but it cannot be almighty and therefor is no god.
@70
just a quick correction.
budhism is an athestitc religion, they dont believe in any gods.
Living in the bible-belt we have a religion museum (christian museum) 5mi away is the Gray Fossil Museum. People from the religious museum will tell your children that the world is only 6,000 yrs old. Go to the gray site and they say the world is 4.5 billion years. This alone shows the huge divide between christianity and science.
haha … My comment was editted out and all the other ones were left in. I find this quite funny. Perhaps this website is run by Muslim Extremists.
” It’s a fact that Atheism has no real hardcore scientific proof that God does not exist.”
Bravooo…
That must take humpty dumpty stupidity award… Yeah and theist have no “hardcore scientific proof” (must be in a Jenna Jameson movie or something…) that Peter Pan doesn’t exist.
The nerve of asking for proof when someone believes the most incredible nonsense out of “faith” just goes to demonstrate that rationality in not a species defining trait for humans.
Tell you what, do you have the same level of demand with the people that brainwashed you into believing in “god”? If you don’t may i ask why not?
I don’t live in the States and I´m atheist, so shoot me
Don’ t really, I was joking, you guys don’t really well do with that turn the other cheek stuff and all, religous stuff. Interesting documentary, will show to friends.
velo, actually Buddha never explicitly ruled out the existence of a God. Many branches of buddhism also have various god deities that are worshipped in various ways, there is however an universal principle in buddhism that there is no eternal creator god (like those described in Christianity, Islam and Judaism’s).
@76
Thanks for the info, i need to look it up now
Bananas prove the existence of God:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5118280612477465290&q=banana+proves+god&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
If I was God, I would nuke the world then reformat.
But then if I was God I would have had the foresight to install a better o/s in the first place.
The thing about religion that gets me is that it’s so often hypocritical yet people don’t seem to question that. For example:
God loves me. Yet apparently he is willing to send me to live with Satan for the rest of eternity (sic) if I don’t quite live up to his standards. Oh wait, the bible says that God is going to forgive me for my sins. Or will he?
The bible also says that God is perfect and we are created in his image. If that is so, then is humanity so pharct up? And why are my teeth crooked?
My big question is: why did God even create in the first place?
It’s nice to see discussions like this, it appears rlslog has banned most of the immature children. Nice to see some thought process put into the discussions people, thanks
.
@78
That banana stuff is sooo cool. The “atheists nightmare”… LOL
Guess god forgot to make the pineapple ergonomic… I can’t believe people have such limited reasoning skills… That dumb person doesn’t even know that the banana he is holding is a man made artificial selection. The wild banana resembles little to the agricultural human grown banana.
When will you jerkoffs stop naming programs HDTV when they’re even not close to being HDTV? 624×352 resolution isn’t even SDTV, which is 720×576 for PAL and 704×480 for NTSC. For God’s sake stop naming your low resolution crap HDTV!
@27
Heheh, you made me laugh. It is, again, adorable you believe whatever your told. You are told evolution is correct and you believe it. Sure you may have some evidence to back it, but do you not realize that Christians have scientific evidence to prove that they are right, too? No, you were never told that…As for your attempt to separate evolution from religion: I know what the dictionary says about religion, but as far as Im concerned, a religion is a specific belief system. Evolution falls into that. Believe it or not, but evolution take just as much, if not more, faith than believing in ID does. I see these pictures of a fish slowly growing legs and lungs in these biology books, and I cant help but to wonder where that came from. Thats not science, that is speculation. Why would you put speculation into a school text book side-by-side with scientific fact? Because that is the only way to justify your belief system…
@36
Well, if you want to ask me not to mix insane people with Christians (which honestly isnt what I got out of your comment), maybe you shouldnt generalize Christians as being zealous, mindless pawns to some higher world order…You call these people “poor Christians” because they have the nerve to stand against an overall intelligence lacking society? That doesnt make sense to me at all. By my logic, you just called yourself an idiot since you yourself are trying to get me to acknowledge that you are right…So I guess that makes you a “poor atheist”…As for your first comment, it doesnt matter what your intention was, you made it very clear that you wanted one thing taught in schools, which, again by my logic, would generally create a bias in students alone…a bias toward your belief…
@37
Wow…another one of those “wow” comments…It is people like you that lead me to believe insanity exists. As before, Im going rephrase what you just said so that us dummies are capable of contemplating your words: “Evolution is pure fact, anybody that doesnt believe that is stupid. After all, we have so much evidence…those other people who believe in other things are dumb and do not want to accept science!” By my logic, you just called millions of people idiots because the only reason they dont believe you is because they are unwilling to accept your “mind-blowing” amount of evidence. You, sir, are a fool and an idiot. You have no idea how much science has gone into proving ID to be true, and how much evidence they have to back it.
@38
Ya know what, pal? It is your kind of narrow minded idiocy that got us into this mess in the first place. Sure, there are religious zealots that do nothing but shove their belief down your throat. However, your kind of generalization is very foolish. Dont forget, there are zealots on both sides of this debate. Do I generalize all evolutionists as people like #37? No, I dont. I have a brain. You, however, do not…
@53
You are open minded…that statement has just as much common sense as saying pigs fly…Ya, you separated from the evil religion, but who did you side with alternatively? Evolution has got to be the most closed minded belief I have ever known. You stubbornly refuse to entertain the possibility of a greater being simply because it doesnt fit into your belief system. Sounds pretty closed minded to me…
@57
So by your logic, it is left up to religion to protect people from idiocy? I try my best, but the idiots keep coming! Is religion to blame because people screw their own lives up? Are you kidding me?! Dont blame creationists because STD’s exist, or because people in Africa dont use condoms…You can try as hard as you want to try and prove your logic. Whether people believe you or not is still up to the people.
@58
You are but one of millions of people that seem to generalize all creationists with religious zealots whose primary goal in life is to convert you. Please dont do that, it is a common mistake that is easily remedied…
@60
Funny, since ID’s have been trying to get you to acknowledge the evidence they have found for years. Pretty solid evidence to me. No, Im not going to list it all. Honestly, Im really not so concerned with trying to convert you to ID. My goal is to make you acknowledge that your evolutionist theory is not as all powerful as you make it out to be.
@69
I agree, you are absoultely right. There is no possible way to prove something doesnt exist. Then again, that isnt what they are asking you to do. They arnt trying to get you to prove there is no God. What they are trying to do is make you prove that the evidence they have collected backing ID is false. At the end of the day, that is what we are all here to do. Because of mixed up logical thinking, we have come to see many different beliefs, all looking at the same evidence in a different way. No, dont try proving God doesnt exist, that is too easy for you. Simply saying He doesnt exist is proof enough for you, right? Obviously, since that is what you have done. Grow a brain and stop twisting peoples words…
@70
What your saying is proof of only one thing, your incompetence. What you are asking is whether a being with absolutely no limitations can create a limitation on itself, right? Thats like saying, the wind doesnt exist because it cant make a wall to block itself, thereby, giving limitation to an otherwise limitless power…pretty dumb sounding to me…
There are many other points I would love to address, but honestly I dont feel like typing for the next 3 hours…believe me when I say I can probably refute anything you can come up with…Ill be back later to see if I can…
If humans evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?
I believe in God, and I also believe in a fundamental evolution, not the evolution “theory”. Talk about ramming religion down everyone’s throat, why is it that “theory”, not the fact of evolution, but the “theory” of evolution is the only thing being “rammed” down our childrens throats in schools. Factual evolution is taking, say myself, out of America and moving myself and my wife to the North Pole. After centuries, my ancestors would have thicker hair, skin would be lighter, blood might be a bit thicker, which only means that my and my wife’s ancestral DNA slowly adapted to compensate for the extreme conditions that changed. Adaptation is true, factual evolution. The “theory” of evolution, on the other hand came from Charles Darwin, yes, but from a Charles Darwin that had a childish “I’m mad, so I’ll just show you” idea. He was an Orthodox Christian into his twenty’s. After his exploits, and scientific findings, mixed with his extreme emotional distaste for the “preselection and preordination” that Orthodox christians believed at the time, stupid idea I might add that God preordained me to write this instead of because I have some intelligence and a open-minded brain, that explosive mixture bred the evolution “theory”. Actually, his findings don’t prove anything decisively, thus the “theory” stamp. Some of his findings, however, prove two possibilities. When he made his first stop ashore at St Jago, part of the Galopagos Islands, Darwin found that a white band high in the volcanic rock cliffs consisted of baked coral fragments and shells. He believed that this matched Charles Lyell’s concept of land slowly rising or falling, giving Darwin a new insight into the geological history of the island which inspired him to think of writing a book on geology. This could be 1)from earthquakes causing the land mass to rise, OR 2)proof that an historical account in the Torah as well as the Old Testament, the Great Flood and Noah’s family, is fact. These are 2 different possibilities. It comes down to belief and what you want to believe this proves. There is scientific proof that there was a Great Flood sometime in History, thousands of years ago. And since the Torah is a history book of sorts, just as our learning material in school teaches us the history of our country, this would prove that historical account to be accurate. But some of you hate “organized religion” so much, that I will be called stupid and blah, blah, blah just to say that you “believe” number 1), not 2). I do think organized religion has caused alot of pain in the name of God, but only because MEN have said so. How many men lie to get what they want? If a man, or woman, can speak, it is so!!! God doesn’t ever ask any of His believers to kill in his name, or hurt anyone. This is man’s doing. Some people have psychotic or sociopathic predisposition to brutality, and when you mix that with a belief in God, and scriptures taken out of context, we get what so many people have pointed out in the crusades, or Vlad Tepes’s campaigns against Islamic extremists (a bad thing?), etc. People back then with an extreme drive for power, the only place to be able to excercise that power in the shortest amount of time was the Church. Mix that with these predispositions, and we have the dark ages. Its cause and effect. One man will get out his need by bombing an abortion clinic to fulfill his need to kill and need a reason, “God”, to help him fulfill his cause, and another, like Richard Ramirez killed to fulfill his need and used the “Devil” to ease his mind about it. Don’t lay at God’s feet what psychotic or sociopathic people do of their own accord. Hitler didn’t use God as the crutch that helped him walk him through the Third Reich and his “Final Solution”. The list is long of evil dictators who killed, in total,hundreds of millions of people not in “God’s” name, but because of a LIBERAL ideology and if you didn’t think and speak in favor of the current Political Incumbent, and didn’t speak in this “Politically Correct” fashion, you would be killed:
Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Ayatollah Kohmeni, Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin Dada, Sultan mehmed II, Napoleon(who did come to a personal revelation and belief in Jesus Christ AFTER he was in exile on St Helena Island), as well as Nero, Caligula and most of the nutjob Caesars that served Rome. They spewed their hate and death because of the same liberal ideas and beliefs that some of you reading hold. Yes Christians who have a personal relationship with God can also believe in a factual, scientific evolution, but are some of you that small and closed minded enough to only believe in a “theory” of evolution, and not the POSSIBILITY of the existence of our “theory” of a Divine Creator? Shall we dance?
@84
Whoever said we come from modern day apes?
All the great aped (that’s including humans) share a common ancestor. That’s quite different.
To say humans came from chimpanzees is like saying chimpanzees come from humans.
Read a book on evolution before you comment something you truly don’t have any knowledge of.
@ #86 velo
You fool…watch the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and you’ll see.
@83
For your reply @69
So far all evidence supporting ID (creationism) has been ripped to shreds by real science and the theory of evolution is still the best explanation for how life evolved.
For what reason would one believe in a god with no evidence for it existents? A God among hundreds of Gods.
A religion among hundreds of religions.
What makes your god true? You don’t really need proof do you, simply saying he exist is proof enough for you, right?
And don’t question your faith, that will get you a ticket to hell.
All I want, all it takes, is PROOF. I’m waiting…
@87
I hope your kidding ;P
Actors in monkey suites jumping around a big black cube-thing with sticks proves what now?
@47 God
Oh my bad. I forget to mention the ‘darkside’ of the whole situation. it seems my comment was only emphasizing the positive effects. People always throw up the Catholic card on this one because we all know Roman Catholicism, among others, abused Christianity once it arrived in Europe to control people’s ideology in order to gain power. But the fact doesn’t negate my point whatsoever. Yes, Christianity left a trail of devastation behind it, but only when you consider the above to be true and the fact that Jesus said He came to bring division and peace to the world. Contradictory only if you’re not reading his words in context. Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. And what usually happens when religious conflicts arise? People start escalating it to a physical and emotional level, defying logic and reason to their violent acts. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving. But it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously. Will there are always be the “extremist fundamentalists” of any religion, group or creed? You betcha. And the effects of that will leave a trail of death. But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.
@53 Not Stupid
“The cross that “christianity” claims it to be symbolizing their “saviour”, IS nothing but the mark of Cain. It isn’t the skin color of African people and its descendants and whatever they say now-a-days, but the cross is a sign that survived wayyyyyyy even before Babylon’s time. Just look, it’s everywhere.”
ah. the Christian/Pagan myth card. For hundreds of years, the Romans crucified criminals on a ‘wooden cross’ made by two perpendicular sticks. Maybe the Romans got their idea from an ancient pagan religious symbol for novelty purposes or maybe it was the ideal method to quicken an effective punishment. Either way, that’s what the Christian cross symbol is based on; if jesus was crucified on an x-shaped sticks then that would have been the Christian symbol. The fact that a ‘cross’ symbol have existed years before jessus’ death doesn’t mean they are related. it would only mean that a common universal symbol is given new meaning by an event. That is on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.”
@90
I just have to say that a tool of torture is quite fitting the Christian faith. You would agree of course but in a whole different way.
But I agree though, the cross has been used before as religious or symbolic signs, they don’t however have anything to do with the Christian cross. Although one could argue, if the cross was a common symbol used, that it was easily picked up and spread by the people of that time, helping to spread the religion. But that’s just me brainstorming
@60, @69
You should read, “God? A debate between a christian and an atheist” (William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong). While it isn’t about ID, it is highly recommended. Not biased at all. The debate has very good points on both sides. I would say they are both tied. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/God-between-Christian-Atheist-Counterpoint/dp/0195166000/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195426039&sr=1-2"]here.[/URL]
@92
will check it out
@90
@93
post 94 was directed to 91-velo
Man I’m suprised no one brought this up and I cant even find all 3 in torrents but it’s Southpark S11E10-12. 3 part series moot point is “So what if Jesus wasnt the person the bible makes him to be he’s done more to make the world a better place than any of us. And he’ll be around long after we’re gone.” Slight bit off topic but leaning this way anyway.
@83
I for one actually have a degree in Biology and it is clear you don’t squat about what you’re saying. “christians have evidence too”??? Where is it? 99% of Biology professionals support evolution, 0,5% believe we came from outer space and the other 0,5% are too damn religious to know what they are doing. Personally i’d rather go with the outer space crazy people than with “creationism”. And you have a lot of nerve talking about believing what you were told to believe… Ever seen someone be a christian without having another christian around to brainwash him?
About proving ID false in a scietific way, have you seen this documentary? Your ID heroes got completely owned in court and out of it. Every single stupid argument was destroyed and Behe even said Astrology was a science. That’s right, the main ID heroe thinks Astrology is a science! How ridiculous can you get?
And about your atitude towards poster number 70, i think you should take some lessons in logic. An Omnipotent being IS a logical impossibility by the reasons he pointed out. It is not his fault that you fail to grasp the scope of what he was saying. A being that has, by definition, no limitations cannot create/cause something that limits it and so, if your logical abilities can follow, is not unlimited. Its a logical blunder. Now, in your world of magical thinking (you should have gonne through this phase before 10 years old) this may not seem a problem, but in the real world this actually means that your omnipotent god cannot exist. If there is such a thing, it is not omnipotent.
@85
“There is scientific proof that there was a Great Flood sometime in History, thousands of years ago.”
There is no such thing and i personally challenge anyone to point this “scientific proof” out to me using the adequate geological data.
And for the love of your god, don’t use magical data from creationist websites. Use a proper scientific reference, an article that has gone through some sort of peer review and not something one of my highschool student could tear down without braking a sweat.
While many here may not adhere to a belief in GOD or to the theory of “intelligent design” I’m sure that few here would have a problem with the core values of the New Testament: The world isn’t what you wish or want it to be but rather what you make of it and the best world to live in is one of peace, love and understanding.
It’s unfortunate that there are people in this world (past and present) who have endeavoured to create a world of violence, hate and ignorance while maliciously using the Christian faith as a justification for their actions.
For the record Darth @83 I’m Anglican (Protestant) and I’m not saying that I’m right and you are wrong I was only suggesting that you consider looking critically at the debate from a different perspective.
Would teaching ID theory in the classroom result in peace, love and understanding or violence, hate and ignorance? I believe the latter and therefore suggest that those who espouse the ID theory are poor Christians at best and insane at worst.
@99
You’re Anglican (=not a raving fanatic zealot) so you probably gonna get “you’re not a real christian…” and stuff!
And about me, i don’t mind most of the New Testament core calues (quite nice most of them, in fact). But as soon has you start talking about miracles left and right you gonna lose me
I’ve heard it all before.
Was once told by an Evangelist that because I’ve never truly suffered in my life (been to prison, addicted to drugs or otherwise lost in a living hell) and was born again through Jesus Christ I wasn’t a true Christian.
Just so you know. The real person who was sacrificed in this pagan “ritual sacrifice” was not done on a cross (as in “T”). But was sacrificed on a stake (as in “straight” up pole without ANY arms). The myth is to perpetuate the legend of Tammuz.
Who is Tammuz? Read up on it.
Oh. And I use words like “incompetence” to jar some people into mental “shock”.
I’ve heard many a creationist make claims about “scientific evidence for creation” or something similar..
I’ve yet to see them actually produce any.
Any of the creationists here care to go so far as to support their claims?
Or shall we just declare this “debate” a win for real science?
@88
I am really getting sick of you. Accusing me of having no proof that “my” belief is true. Continue reading, Im going to address you and another person at the same time…
@98
Ive got nerve…IVE GOT NERVE! Standing up for what I believe in. You have got to be kidding me! Trying to impress me with shiny titles, yeah…Ya know what, buddy? You use these thinly coated attacks like all Christians are brainwashed, and I have no scientific proof that what I believe is true. It is rather pathetic…
Ill tell you the truth, your post shook me up a bit at first. It took me a few minutes to see through the thin attack to what the actual issue was. You are pretty good at what you do. I respect that, but Ill be damned before I let you continue the way you have.
Toward poster 70, your quite amusing. You see my reply and instantly overlook the logic because it doesnt agree with what you believe, which seems to be evolution. The unlimited being isnt limited because it cant limit iself, that doesnt make sense. You think that since such an action is impossible for the unlimited being, that it limits it in some way…By your logic, that is true. But when you look at it in the sense the being is perfect, such a limitation is non-existent. What does this mean? Well, in the sense of Christianity, God is perfect. That alone suggests that God has limits, since God is incapable of doing evil, but that doesnt mean He is limited in that right…You cant be perfect and not have some kind of limitation. When you look at it from a Christian perspective, within the limitations of being perfect, God is limitless. Yet, you seem to miss that point…convenient…You cant just take things out of context and say it must be wrong…Dont take me for a fool.
Oh, and here we go again with you saying I have no proof…that is hysterical. Why? If I even begin to explain the proof I have, you would hammer me down saying that Im preaching…ironic. I have been forced into a position where it matters not what I say, you refuse to believe it. Therefore, lets turn the attack off of me and put it on you for a moment. Humor me, what proof do you have that your precious evolution is true?
@98 in response to 85
AFIK, science can only prove something that can be repeatedly tested. Science can prove the existence of comets because it can be repeatedly tested by observing falling comets everyday, thus proving the theory that a comet exists but if there were only one such comet event in all of history then there would be no way for science to confirm or validate the theory that it did happen, only theorize or speculation, but not any undeniable confirmed fact. In light of that, only the reliability of the historical document could be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested by.
Is there irrefutable proof in the science department? IMO, no. But it looks to me that there are enough geologic evidence that suggests a global flood is certainly within the realm of possibility in the span of thousands of years.
The filling of the Black Sea by a breach of the Med. through the Bosporus Strait? As far as I know, this has got to be about the worst natural disaster ever witnessed by western man. And at ca. 5500 BC, would have been documented by the Sumerians (whom some claim the story was copied from), and a number of other peoples. There is also physical evidence to back this up, as opposed to the lack of for a global flood. As far as more worldly flood stories are concerned, a few other things were going on. As little as 3000 BC, sea levels were still much lower than today. Florida Bay (as well as a lot more of the gulf coastal plain) was still dry land. There are indian middens off the west coast of Florida in 20-30 ft. of water. Areas such as the Grand Banks and George’s Banks off New England and the Maritime Provinces were islands (if not peninsulas) hosting critters like mastodons (personal obs.). Same goes with the North Sea. Mammoth parts as well as other material is commonly dredged up. Australia was colonized ca. 40,000 ybp. How many may had gone on to islands (that are now guyots) in the Pacific? A sea level drop at over 500 ft. at the last glacial maximum would have caused them to be islands by way of lesser weight on the Pacific Plate, causing it to rise, as the land areas from the weight of ice, are depressed to below sea level, in Antarctica and Greenland. Not to mention breaches in late Wisconsinian ice dams that caused such major devastation such as the Scablands of the Pacific Northwest and areas in Siberia. Local maybe, but in the context of several thousand years of years time, perhaps global too.
@102 Not Stupid
I beg to differ.
Crucifixion is the process where a person is nailed or bound to a cross or a stake. It was first used by the Persians and later by the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans as a form of capital punishment. Alexander the Great introduced it to the Mediterranean area and the Romans perfected it as a means of capital punishment. Normally, there was a permanent stake in the ground. The victim carried the crossbar on his back to the stake. The crossbar usually weighed between 50 and 75 lbs. Sometimes the person was nailed to the crossbar, other times he was tied to it. The crossbar, and victim, were then hoisted into place. One method was to hoist the crossbar into a notch on top of the stake so the whole thing looked like a T. Another method was to place the crossbeam a few feet below the top making a cross. Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim. When nails were used, they were driven through the wrists between the radial and ulna bones and not through the palms since the nail would have ripped through the palm because the palm could not withstand all the weight of the body.
Justus Lipsius, in one of the earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright. In them, he describes the form of crucifixion you describe as well as the crucifixion of jesus that everyone is accustomed to know, the T cross. Even though we all know jesus’ death is recorded in all four gospels but for the sake of the discussion, I’ll list some non-Christian writings that record jesus’s death: Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny/Seneca the Younger.
I find it ironic how you make a claim that jesus’s death/ressurection if applicalbe, is a myth that perpetuates a legend when 1.) if the crucifixion text passes the history test, then who cares if he died sideways or upside down, he died. 2.) we have more evidence for jesus’s life than tammuz. So, whether Jesus was crucified in a T shape or stake form, the evidences and records showing proof of jesus’s death, even resurrection, surpasses most, if not, all ancient literature, including Tammuz’s. Which leads to one of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted. If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus’ words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not?
Yes, the Bible was reliable, at least in my informed opinion. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ.
My understanding is that intelligent design (ID) isn’t a science as it can’t be tested in experiments, produces no predictions or creates any new hypothesis in contrast to the theory of natural selection (NS).
If you (Darth Arcon) have an experiment that proves the theory correct or can produce a single prediction or a new hypothesis confirming the legitimacy of ID as a science then I would be very interested to hear about it.
NS isn’t perfect but it’s clearly the best we have at the moment and will be until proven otherwise.
All this stems from the fact that humans cannot comprehend the time frame of a million years, much less a billion years!
This is getting too loud… Time for a drink after reading all the comments and the crap I’ve seen today.
How about everybody do the same? Take a break, collect yourselves, and then see what you think about this then?
I’ll see you in hell :-}
@106 Figured you were a textbook “christian”. Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon! Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.
Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer. That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology. “Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it? The bible may not contradict itself but the followers sure do. And take it from an X-Christian.
Guess what? I think we live in Warhammer times now and are starting to see The Horus Heresy.
So much for what you know.
@90
“But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.”
Oh, I can deny it and I will. The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions? The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery? How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church? This is the lasting contribution of christianity.
Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord. It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.
Ah, @107. You bring an excellent point to the table. I reiterate the word excellent. Why? Because it is true. There is absolutely NO WAY to scientifically prove that ID is true. I couldnt agree with you more. On the flip side, however, stands the scientific backing of evolution. If you really think about it, and dont just think of ways to prove me wrong and prove you right, there is really no way to “scientifically” prove any world view or “beginning of time” theory to be true. Think about it, I implore you. When faced with the scientific method, which seems to help define reality with the least amount of effort, remember back to grade school science class. The main step in the scientific method is to “observe”. When faced with ID vs evolution, you cant observe the beginning of time, nor can you prove that there was an actual “beginning”. For all we know, time, and by extension the entire universe, has always existed. There is no way to prove it with science. That is where science falls short, and you need to focus on logical thought to guide you to the truth. And as far as I have “logically” thought, ID seems to be, IMO of course, the most logical choice. Obviously, others disagree with me, for they have come to a different conclusion. They try to use fossil records, carbon dating, and process of elimination to try and back their claims. But, when all is said and done, all the fossils in the world mean nothing without credibility. And who do you get credibility from? Other people? Is that a joke? How can you possibly use other people as credibility when faced with such a controversial subject? Sure, I can honestly tell you that Albert Einstein believed in “a” god. His god was the Jewish god, Jehovah. However, even when such a smart man believes in such a thing, you still cant use his claim for jack! What is Albert Einstein to me? Please, I dont mean to offend, but he is just another person with his own beliefs! Even though many people consider him to be one of the smartest men in history (I am one of those many people), they still believe other things. Im not jewish………The point Im trying to make is a simple one. Use your own brain, and draw your own conclusions from things that you ALONE can prove. Dont base it on any proof from someone else unless you can logically think it through to the same conclusion…
I can almost guarantee you (I use “almost” to cover myself for future reference) that when the people I challenged come back on here, they will give me links and books and documentaries and the like. But as I said, such things require credibility to be true. After all, I have heard a lot about most of the fossil record. I have heard unbelievable things like these Lucy bones are either one of the first human beings, or just some person somebody dug up. That some bones from the Neanderthals (Im not sure on that, it could be from one of the other pre human…things) were pig bones and teeth. I have heard credible opinions from both sides, and both sides are credible by some person with a shiny degree or whatever. Point being? Only trust yourself. Heh, I think it is rather funny that most of the people on here are challenging me to prove ID to be true when in reality my “original” goal was to have equal representation in our schools. My motives have changed since then, true, but after thinking a lot about it, and your comment 107, I guess I need to return to that original intent. Please, dont base your belief on what I, or anybody else says, base your belief on what conclusion YOU logically come to…
And for the record, just because I think everybody should use their own logic to find truth, I do personally believe in ID (not necessarily Christianity, though I do believe it is the closest ID theory). Because of this little fact, you will find bias in my writing. I suppose that is just how it works…sorry…
@110 [chuckle] Figured you were an Christian/Myth “believer”. “Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon!”
Tammuz crucifixion may have occurred before the time in question, but presumably the stake version, while the cross version followed. But, either way, it really doesn’t matter which one Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. The Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into “cross” is the Greek word “stauros” which means, “an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross.” If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus’ hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, John 20:25 says, “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the [b]nails[/b], and put my finger into the print of the [b]nails[/b], and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says “…in his hands the print of the nails…” So it’s most logical to state that Jesus died on a cross with outstretched arms.
“Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.”
And Tammuz’s name is mentioned only once in the bible, Ezekiel 8:13-15. hardly any manuscripts in support for Tammuz, not that I deny his existence.
“Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him”
Would you mind pointing out that verse?
“but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer.”
It may appear to you that way, but it seems to be that you’re right only if Jesus did not claim to be God. If that’s the case, then Christians are worshiping Jesus and not the Father. I could be wrong, but if we can establish that Jesus claimed to be God/the Father/The Creator/Grand Designer, then we can conclude that the early Christians worshiped both Jesus and God the Father as one, which would negate your entire point.
Did Jesus claim to be God? Considering he was a jew, speaking in jewish terms, he certainly made the point clear that him and the Father are one (in nature). John 10:30-33 quotes “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” There are about 8 bible verses i can think of that support the claim that show that Jesus is God in flesh, or at least claimed to be one with the Father, like, John 5:18 – “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrew and Psalms). I could list more at your if you want.
I think we can both agree that Jesus is worshipped. In fact, He said to worship God only, yet He receives worship. What does that tell you? Under the premise that Jesus is one with the Father, if he tells his followers to worship God only and they worship Him then they are worshiping both Jesus and God the Father at the same time. It’s impossible for them to worship Jesus and not ‘The Creator’ because Jesus IS one in the same with ‘The Creator’. For example, John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
“That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology.”
Please back that up.
As far as your knowledge of Christianity vs Horus/Egytian religions, these kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.
Consider the first paragraph on the website
http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:
“What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”
So the facts are:
1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.
Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)
Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.
So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.
C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death.
They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.
Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.
it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations – like they believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are some pretty exact details – and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study it:
1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of worldview in question.
“The Horus Heresy.”
I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus.
First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.
Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.
Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis – so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.
On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ – he was born in a swamp.
This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples – I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.
I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is – besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” – or use its blatant falsehoods to kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.
In fact, here was a list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his “virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.
Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.
born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25
born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)
star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.
adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus
teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”
had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel
performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.
crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets
And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.
There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births, sons who die and resurrect, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” makes it sound like there is a strong similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g., somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this “resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably actually start laughing at these claims.
And that’s not quite much for what I know.
scientists do not try to re-write the bible. that’s why we don’t allow christians to re-write science. two different subjects that should not try to define each other. either way DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!
@wah
Wow, I dont think I could ever come up with as much historical backing as you. Im not saying I disagree with you or anything, but dont forget where your posting to. This isnt a forums with a dedicated community. It is a reply section to a documentary. Most people have the attention span of a 12 year old on here (which actually includes me…). I doubt rather much that they would be willing to read such a long explanation…good for you for knowing all this, though. Its a lot more than I will ever know…
@111
You denial is interesting. lol. and you make an xlnt point. I guess the world would be better with islamic views or buddhist views. Let’s see your worldview:
world islamic view = bloody wars and conflict is going to happen anyway over religion, except christianity would be on the opposing side, we would not have liberty and free thinkers and woman would be of a lower class, blacks and jews are unequal and none of us would be allowed to speak our mind on this internet against islam or any religion without being criminizled for that. well so much for that worldview
world buddhist view = everyone is peaceful, but eventually someone’s going to fight and someone will die but hey, be peace and loving and sit idly by while other people are being killed. point is, war will happen either way, and eventually, if you’re a buddhist, you side with neither side, letting it happen instead of defending the oppressed or standing up for what’s/who’s right.
Between those two views, I’d personally choose a world w/ Christianity. Ever heard of the Elmer Gantry myth? If followers of a religion start being hypotrical doesn’t mean the truth is negated. Truth is truth and salvation is still made available by the grace of God.
“The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions?”
And their blood was spilled for your and our freedom to live in a world that believes in alleviating poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. I’m not trying to give the impression the world is perfect, bloodless, and full of justice, but at least you have the right to speak your mind on this board, if not for the virtues of freedom of speech. Innocent blood was never intended as an aftermath of Christianity, but Christianity arrived to divide people over their beliefs about jesus which would result in conflict, yet, it would have been the exact thing if it was another religion in place of Chrsitianity. Either way, it sucks, get over it.
“The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery?”
Do you even know why the war started in the first place? Instead of getting involved in the communities and fighting off terrorists from oppressing neighborhood, they’ve allowed problems in Iraq to fester until it was too great too ignore that they had to launch a massive invasion. War is never good so the only way to make sure another “Iraq” doesn’t happen is to prevent it. How do you prevent something like Iraq from happening? Easy. Not sit idly by and ignore them. Getting involved with people means sending in reserve troops in to help with everyday life by forming personal relationships. And why should we be involved in other countries? To reiterate, to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. Values found in Christian virtues.
“How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church?”
That’s a good one. But blame it on Catholicism, not Christianity. Where ever Christianity was, it left when the Protestants left Europe. Roman Catholicism is its own religions separate of that of what we normally call Protestant denominational ‘Christianity’, which resulted in movements like Evangelicals, Fundamentalism, and non-demoninations. and honestly, even if Christianity didn’t exist, you think these ‘would-be-priests’ in the highest elders of ‘church’ wouldn’t be able to find a way to hold themselves unaccountable for their crimes?
It seems like this is a very hot topic. Let’s see it for yourself.
http://rapidshare.com/files/69812472/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70040918/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70146948/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70274621/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part04.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70252174/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part05.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70174601/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part06.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70211704/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part07.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70245541/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part08.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70241408/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part09.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70283311/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part10.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70298742/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part11.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70365298/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part12.rar
I agree that the problem with all observations is that we tend to bring our preconceived biases to the conclusions we make.
Few would have a problem with a glass that contains 50% water and 50% air being described as either half empty or half full.
But a majority would have a problem when someone denies the glass existence as a matter of faith.
My observation of the ID movement leads me to believe that they are trying to undermined/supplant NS science with faith based beliefs in the science curriculum.
I also believe that this result will be to the detriment of all concerned as it is a obvious attempt to justify a preconceived fallacious religious bias that the glass sitting right in front of them doesn’t exist.
GOD is in the detail.
@Death Arcon
Thanks. but you get my overall point, right?
Besides, I only split it up in 5 simple sections:
1. Crucifixion
2. Tammuz
3. Jesus’s Divinity
4. Christian/Pagan Myth
5. Jesus Myth/Horus Heresy
In regards to ID, it is a theory that ’settles for less’ for each side. It’s an attempt to reconcile two enemies. But in the end, there can be only one, for one will rise, one will fall. Like Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 says: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
@119
disproving 1 of the 2 options at hand would NOT prove other one correct
heck they could both be wrong and we might aswell be a simulation in a super-computer âla matrix, ran by flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns aboard flying emerald turtle on the way to castle of clouds
now thats a theory id like to be taught in schools, since both evidence used for scientific view and the creationist can be used to back it, and best of all, you cant disprove it!
@120
@ Death Arcon
You seem to be passionate about what you’re talking about. Maybe we should get together for tea and discuss more.
@70
This is a little too late but you seem to be missing the context of that ‘phrase’. “Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?”
The question is not measuring the ‘almightiness’ of god. If you want to see how almighty god is read the old testament. the question in mind is measuring the integrity of god. simply put, since god’s nature is perfect he cannot contradict himself/his nature. That’s on the order of, ‘can god kill himself?’ or ‘can god lust?’ god can not contradict his own nature. he is unable to deny himself. so it is not a matter of what god can or cannot do because by definition he can do anything and everything only within his own nature, which is perfection. taht being said, it is a matter of integrity and if god can keep his word/integrity then that means he is perfect in that sense. for instance, it’s like asking a leader to lead an unleadable person. since it’s in the leader’s nature to lead, he will lead those who he can only lead and by doing that he is keeping his integrity. since he can’t lead the unleadable, that doesn’t take anything away from his ability to lead or his leadership skills or his integrity as a leader for that fact. hope that helps.
I know a woman who is heavily into the catholic religion. She’s always talking about saints, and important figures in the history of the catholic church, how great it is, etc. She didn’t believe me when I told her that the catholic church had spent more than 600 years arresting, torturing and executing every man, woman and child who didn’t agree with them. She accused me of making it up. :/
@Jingle Jangle
Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord.
Nope. that’s not true at all.
“It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.”
that’s such an untrue statement totally based on your moronic biased opinion. You’ll be surprised to find out in the real world from your small cave that there are strong, intelligent and liberal people who adhere to a religion. You sir are an idiot for calling millions of people weak, stupid and intolerant, making yourself to be “elite”, which says a lot about your creed, let alone attitude and personality.
@124 Rekrul
Ouch! did she cry? Well, that’s what happens when you integrate governmental law and religion and give too much power to radical fundamentalist zealots who grossly misinterpret the bible. You should tell her that even if church leaders have done evil things in the name of God, truth is still truth found in the Christian message, not the Catholic message.
Fighting with religious people doesn’t make any sense, its arguing science versus religious dogma.
Or reality versus imagination, as it were.
@127
try telling that to the ones who want fairytales to be taught in schools as a science
@126
“truth is still truth found in the Christian message”
Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?
Y’all gotta realise that you can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts. It is well known that the current bible is nothing like the original (whatever that was) and you can confirm this by getting hold of a King James version (oldest obtainable) and comparing it.
The bible has been rewritten by religious zealots to make it work for their own purposes. So when you say stuff like “note plural NAILS” then coincidentally you could be just as wrong.
“Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?”
I’m taking what you mean by that question is that the message is made up by mortal men by picking a card out of magic hat? Certainly not! Truth meaning what God has already divinely revealed to us through Scripture. The canon of the christian bible is considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God.
simply put, “Salvation is still by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s one of the main doctrinal truths that most Christians, and any true Church, do agree on, among other essentials of course.
@131:
And why is the canon of the christian bible considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God? Because it says so.
I humbly bow before your logic
@131
If the faith of the world has already been decided by the christian god, why bother doing anything?
i mean, really, what about the concept of free will, if our actions cant even change the outcome of our divinely planned lives?
with blind religious logic i could make the assumption that “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”(=AKA mental illness)
dun dun dun
Just to let you know i had a really good wank while reading all the comments here.
@130
oh you shouldn’t have trodded down this road man. So you’re doubting the reliability of the bibliography test of the New Testament? My God man you don’t know how to pick your battles. BUT you are right that I could be wrong, since the copying of the original documents could have been maliciously tampered with. So let us look at how well accurate of the original manuscripts are compared to the copies we have today:
If you’re talking about the NT, I consider the bible to be as historically reliable as how well it has been tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested, which are the bibliography test and the internal/external evidence tests, but for you i’m only going to cover the first test.
First, for the bibliography tests, when you compare the NT with other ancient literature as Homer’s “Iliad” or Plato’s work, it’s the best attested ancient writing in terms of the time span between events and the document, # of extant manuscripts, and the time gaps between the original dates written and the earliest copies we have. As far as the accuracy of the manuscripts goes, I believe they are supported by Syriac, Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian versions, as well as Greek NT lectionaries and early patristic NT quotations like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. So there you have it. There are at least 8 different languages whose own copy of the NT substantiate its accuracy.
I’ve already said this earlier in my earlier comment, but I’m going to reiterate to you once again.
You make an xlnt point that the original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context.
You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. And this is where we get different versions.
But NOTHING affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy.
“You can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts”
If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then we would have to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you?
Of course not. Would you give the “benefit of the doubt”? Let me guess: probably not?
One of the ways to test the internal evidence of ANY historical document, therefore measuring its reliability if in fact all, is to use, what John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”
One of my favorite sayings of S.H. Horn is directed to 99% of all the Christian skeptics in this comment board:
“Think for a moment about what needs to be demonstrated concerning a ‘difficulty’ in order to transfer it into the category of a valid argument against doctrine. Certainly much more is required than the mere appearance of a contradiction. First, we must be certain that we have correctly understood the passage, the sense in which it uses words or numbers. Second, that we possess all available knowledge in this matter. Third, that no further light can possibly be thrown on it by advancing knowledge, textual research, archeology, etc…..Difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clear light; but until such time as we have total and final light on any issue we are in no position to affirm, ‘Here is a proven error, an unquestionable objection to an infallible Bible.’ It is common knowledge that countless ‘objections’ have been fully resolved since this century began.
It’s clear that most sincere christian critics and skeptics here on this board aren’t willing to give ‘the benefit of the doubt’ but instead spout out totally ignorant opinions that the bible/christianity is unreliable, myths, imaginations when, in fact, their presumptions really stems from their own procrastination to actually test the reliability of what they are attacking.
This is the mindset of all of you of whom I’m referring to: “The bible is unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative because of this and that but I’ve never ACTUALLY read the bible or did any type of research, let alone, give the benefit of the doubt, to see if is IN FACT unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative through careful research. I honestly believe it, in fact I’m convinced, but I’ll say it as if I have some sort of authority even though I’ve never actually been on a quest to disprove the bible but only through my ignorance.”
You all make me sick!
Hmmm…The benefit of doubt. I think it was Albert Camus who called this attitude “intellectual suicide”
People always say there no proof o evolution, I got proof. Dogs, how many different breeds of are there ? Hundreds ?. Breeding is evolution on turbo. Back in the caveman days or the Moses days, there was no German Shepards or Bulldogs or Mexican Hairless. They where domesticated wolves and jackals. Then human beings started to breed the fastest with the fastest and we got Greyhounds. We bred the biggest with the biggest and got Great Danes and so on. We are still turbo evolving animals. Have you seen that breed of cats with the short front legs ? or those goats that faint when spooked ? We took animals with a genetic defect that was rare and bred them to bring it out. A fainting goat in nature would not survive, nor would a cat that has short legs. We even did it to other humans, have you heard of a Mandingo ? Google it.
At least try to give me proof. I’m not out to get you so calm down.
A gut feeling is not proof, a 2000+ year old text is not proof more then any other holy text, like the hindu ones.
You claim you have proof, and i assume you know what that means.
If you give me hard evidence for the christian God´s existence, i will convert here and now within a heartbeat.
So here is you chance. Go on, do your part, enlighten me.
oops that was ment @105 Darth Arcon
@132
Inspiration indicates how the bible received its authority, whereas canonization tells how the bible received i ts acceptance. it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority, and quite another for men to recognize that authority. Canonization, then, concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures. canonicity is determined by god. actually, a canonical book is valuable and true because god inspired it. that is, canonicity is determined of fixed conclusively by authority, and authority was given to the individual books by God through inspiration. the real question is not where a book received its divine authority, for this can only come from God alone, but how did men recognize that authority? Authority is recognized by men of God. Inspiration determines canonicity. if a book was authoritative, it was so because god breathed it and made it so. how a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether. Precisely speaking, canonicity is determined by god, IOW, the reason there are only 66 books in the canon is that God inspired only that many. that is, only 66 books were found to have the stamp of divine authority, because God only stamped that many, or invested that number with authority for faith and practice. a book is valuable because it is canonical. a given book is not canonical because it was found to be valuable. rather, it was found to valuable because it was determined to be canonical by God. IOW, a book is not inspired because it is inspired; it is inspiring because it is inspired.
@133
That depends if the christian in question is a Calvinist or an Armenian. Calvinists believe in unconditional election where it asserts that God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. Where as Armenians believe in conditional election where all believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned. Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.
“with blind religious logic…”
funny. you only see it that way only because of your IGNORANCE to understand how God forgives people.
“I’m going to kill someone (just for the hell of it) and then I’ll ask for forgiveness.” God’s forgiveness doesn’t work that way. He wants genuine repentance, not premeditated repentance. With that mindset, you’re playing a very dangerous mindgame with God and He knows the intent of your heart.
dun dun dun.
While God will forgive all sins, past, present and future, he will not allow people to take advantage of his forgiveness. SO by saying this in your heart, “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”, and applying that concept in real life, your salvation comes into question. God’s salvation and gift of forgiveness are for those who will accept it, not exploit it.
So your attempt to find a logical loophole has failed once again in your miserable pathetic life.
@136
Hmmm… “intellectual suicide”. That’s ironic coming from someone who read the OT three times and attended churches regularly, not to mention, someone who read NT as well in the spirit of asking questions. What does that tell you? He, himself, believing that “benefit of the doubt” was “intellectual suicide” still risked the chance of killing himself intellectually for a chance to fill the spiritual void inside of him?
@137
While that is certainly proof for the theory of MICRO EVOLUTION, it does not however, proof the entire theory of evolution, including macro evolution, which theorizes that monkeys turn into humans, or the mutation of one totally different species to another completely different set of mammal/reptilian/amphibian/insect/arachnid species. One of the main ways to scientifically prove that monkeys turn into humans is if we find all the ‘missing links’ fossil records, which we haven’t but would be very interesting to see if we do, OR are able to repeat the event in question to confirm/solidify the theory. But so far we’ve not found or are able to turn a monkey into a human or a monkey to naturally turn into one. So far, most of the evolution theory is pure speculation at best, while some theories can be proven, or in fact, fact.
@139
oooo you were that close to getting owned…
So, in a nutshell this means: The holy scripture is considered authoritative because it has been cannonized by god. How do we know it? Because it says so!
Once again, I humbly bow before your pristine logic.
Concerning Camus: Of course he read the bible. It’s an interesting perspective on the human condition. However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.
@velo
Trust me on this, but 9 out of 10 times, atheists who are convinced that God exists from out of a discussion/argument will leave convinced only for a short time and go back to where they were before. There’s a name for it, “something theory”.
@105 Darth Arcon
I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.
What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.
Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.
The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?
Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.
When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?
For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?
Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).
So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):
- Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
- Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
- Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
- Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
- Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
- Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
- Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
- Geophysics
- Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.
And on and on…
Compared to this you have… What?
@106
You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.
OR
You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too
@105 Darth Arcon
I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.
What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.
Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.
The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?
Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.
When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?
For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?
Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).
So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):
- Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
- Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
- Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
- Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
- Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
- Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
- Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
- Geophysics
- Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.
And on and on…
Compared to this you have… What?
@141
Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)
Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.
We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.
@144
Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?
If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.
I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that”.
Theres no diffrence between micro and macro evolution, only creationists or scientists who have spent too much time in same space with creationists even recognize the ‘diffrence’
@143
:LOL: “how do we know it?
well, what i said wasn’t certainly in a nutshell. I was just warming you up. There’s more later…. But on top of that, YOU GOT THE TERMS ALL MIXED UP. Again, you failed to distinguish between the two terms. God determines the authority of a book by breathing His Word, speaking His Word. Allow me to repeat myself once again (sigh),
Inspiration = it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority,
canonization = and quite another for men to recognize that authority.
In light of that,
canonization = concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures.
canonicity is determined by god.
Your question “how do we know if God inspired these books?” well i’ve already told how god inspired the books. what you really want to ask is:
“How do we recognize, or know, the canonicity (that God canonized the scripture)?”
Simple: the witness of the Holy Spirit.
The recognition of canonicity was not a mere mechanical matter settled by a synod or ecclesiastical council. it was a providential process directed by the Spirit of God as He witnessed to the church about the reality of the Word of God. Man of himself could not identify the Word of God, but the Holy Spirit opened the eyes of their understanding so that they could recognize God’s Word. Are you still awake?
John 10:27
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”
John 16:12-13
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Time to get technical. This ain’t no to say that in some mystical way the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers settled the question of canonicity. The witness of the Spirit only established the reality of the canon, not its extent or limits. THE CANON WAS ESTABLISHED BY A TWOFOLD METHOD OF FAITH AND SCIENCE. Objective principles were used, but the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit was in operation, confirming the reality of God’s Word to His people. in the providence of God, the principles were used to determine the extent of the canon, while the Holy Spirit gave assurance as to the reality of its essential message. The tests for canonicity were not mechanical means for measuring out the amount of inspired literature, nor did the Holy Spirit say, “This book or passage is inspired, that one is not.” This would be a revelation, not an illumination. Get it? The Holy Spirit neither witnessed to the exact extent of the canon nor settled the matters of textual criticism. He did providentially guide the process which gave assent to the limits of the canon as well as give witness to the people of God as to the reality of God’s Word wherever they read or heard it.
There’s also the testimony of Christ, which is probably one of the most important ways we know it was God-inspired. Jesus taught definitely that God was the Originator of the Hebrew OT. He quoted as authoritative or authentic most of the 22 books of the Hebrew canon.
Here’s a brief breakdown for ya:
A. He considered every section, “Law and Prophets” and “Law, Prophets, and Psalms”, to be prophetic of Him.
B. He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles, which was equivalent to saying “Genesis to Malachi”
C. He asserted that the OT as a whole was unbreakable Scripture that would never perish, and that it must be fulfilled.
D. Jesus personally authenticated persons and events of which i’m not at liberty to list, unless you want me to you,you ignorant bastard [J/K. a test to see if you're reading lol].
E. Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon, that is the 22 books of the Hebrew OT, but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the “word of God.” i’m not at liberty to list His OT references, unless you want me to you
Basically, the principle that “canonicity is determined by inspiration” was pronounced by Jesus concerning the OT and promised for the NT.
NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:
-Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
-Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
-Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.
since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.
“However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.”
wow. i know you didn’t read or understand the context of what i said earlier. John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.” S.H. Horn’s text, in a nutshell, said, “to test the reliability of a historical document, one must read it to CRITICALLY analyze it, but not have to believe it.”
And that is exactly what Camus did, and, to my guess, NOT ONE OF YOU have EVER done: is read the bible under criticism, to see if it is indeed true to what it said. Camus basically “checked out” the bible. Did he believe in the truth of the bible? probably not. But by reading the bible with an open mind, he certainly “gave the benefit of the doubt”. IOW, even though he didn’t believe in the bible, he assumed what the bible said is correct ONLY for the sake of critical analysis (something I doubt any of you are capable of). And that’s what Montgomery and Horn were saying: Once you critically analyze something only then you can make a final decision if it is logical or not. Did Camus not ask many questions about the bible? certainly he is critically analyzing the bible. And he couldn’t critically analyze the bible without first recognizing what the bible is really saying and you can’t recognize it without “giving it the benefit of the doubt” and you can’t “give it the benefit of the doubt” without reading it.
It’s funny how you used a source that ‘opposes’ the use of a ‘tactic’ yet uses that very same ‘tactic’.
to put in short, “giving it the benefit of the doubt” means believing, not Believing. Like, “If what this says is true, then this must happen.” Once you willfully block yourself off from opening up your mind to what could be true, whether it is true or false doesn’t matter, then you’ve immediately prevented yourself from knowing if it was true or not. There’s another term for that attitude. Willful ignorance. Camus believed that the quote in question was intellectual suicide because he was afraid what was before him might be true. and if it was true it would shake the foundations of his existence. even if he found what was to be true, he would not Accept or Believe it, if you catch my drift. Why? Pride and ignorance.
If they allow ID in science class they should allow other creation stories also, hindus believe that lord brahmin split himself in two to create man and woman other creatures were made in same way.
Other gods mostly snap fingers or say something like ‘be’ to create life, internet says that there is more than 500 different stories.
I find it funny that some christians get offended by the idea that we evolved from apes, “we are no animals! we have morals etc!”.
Show me ape that has killed 6m other apes.
Some mammal species show more human-like emotions than most humans in general
so-called morals are vastly overrated, especially when with religion or politics they tend to be double-standards too
me myself, if i have to choose between creation stories i pick the one regionally closest to me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#The_Storyline
it has over 22 thousand verses
Thank you for this wonderful example (Inspiration – canonization) of circular reasoning. I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top. How do you come up with this?
Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?
actually im trying to parodise a generic fundamental christian if youre referring to me
clearly not working tho
@133 in regards to free will
God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice. Knowing this is not taking away the freedom of my child since she is freely choosing one over the other. Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things (1 Joh 3:20). Besides, if a person were to choose A instead of C, then that is what God would have known would happen.
Furthermore, if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, the argument says that God knows what “we are going to choose.” If we are going to choose” something, then we really are making the choice — otherwise it wouldn’t be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose. Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options…otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.
Back to the bowl of dead mice. The father, however, is not omniscient where God is. But does this difference negate the analogy? Not at all. Knowing what a person will do still does not force them or limit them to doing what is known. The complaint of those who say that if God knows what we are going to do then we don’t have “real” freedom is logically stating that God’s foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. The complaint implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose. It would be up to the complainer to establish some logical connection between what God knows what will happen and the mind of the one who makes a choice so that the mind of the person making the choice no longer is making a choice. It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God’s knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?
God’s knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices were were freely going to make. To deny that God is all knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God’s nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.
Nevertheless, some people try and claim that God does not know what we will freely choose. But, this cannot be since it would violate the biblical teaching that God knows all things.
@146 in reply to #105
“What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.
Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.
The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?
Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.”
Certainly you deserved to be addressed seriously, from another person with a degree in computer science to one with a biology degree.
CAN GOD MAKE A ROCK SO BIG HE CAN’T PICK IT UP?
That’s the almighty question, no pun intended.
I’ve encountered many atheists who use this type of paradoxes in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can’t pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, then He isn’t omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore IMO, it’s conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above “paradox” lacks is vital information concerning God’s nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn’t be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can’t pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn’t pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn’t logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a “Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth’s crust.” A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What you are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn’t exist. Such assertion is illogical from the start. So what you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You want to use illogic to prove God doesn’t exist instead of logic. It doesn’t work and the “paradox” is self-refuting and invalid.
“You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.”
Taking this from your perspective, I should mention that stories are wonderful tools for teaching. Sometimes historical events have a tendency to be exaggerated to make a point. If Noah’s flood was not a local flood, then it didn’t happen since no evidence exists for such an event in the geologic record
Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept.
“You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too”
You mean like the Tigris-Euphrates river valley? To delight myself in the possibility that it has occurred to me that the story was not meant as a straightforward historical account of a real event, but maybe, just maybe, have been dressed up a little to make a point, I’d say that if we believe the story was based upon something that actually happened at one time, then given the physical evidence, it could only have been local (whether or not it was a “borrowed” story I don’t see as a separate issue–I don’t see why it couldn’t have been a borrowed account of a real local event that happened somewhere else–but I ramble). This is not to say that it was not a devastating event to those it happened to–anyone who lives along the great North American river valleys in the past decade can probably affirm that huge (but local) floods are incredibly devastating, both physically and emotionally. The apparent flooding of the Black Sea at about the right time sounds to me like an excellent candidate for the gem of such a story, considering the enormous extent such a flood would cover, and the different cultures it would have affected.
Yet there’s 2 things that bother me in that scenario.
1. The point of the flood was to destroy human civilization, rather than to destroy almost all life. If, at the time, all human civilization was in one valley (perhaps the future Black Sea and the surrounding area), it may be possible to flood the entire human world, w/o flooding the globe. Nowadays, the globe would need to be flooded to drown human civilization. Regardless if local, or global, God’s warning to Noah surely indicates the miraculous happening w/ the flood.
2. Abraham is regarded as a Patriarch because all the Hebrews were his descendants. Abraham was from Ur, which was the capital of Sumer about the time that Abraham left. If the Bible is correct in both the flood narrative and biography of Abraham, the culture whose flood story most closely approximates the Hebrew flood, should be Sumer. For now, that seems to be the case. Though some may imagine they have challenged the credibility of the Bible, they are in fact validating it.
BUT, on the other hand, if it was local, then the whole account is simply a lie.
1. No possibility of forewarning. Even in our modern day, we can only warn of flooding being immanent or possible. In neither case do we find people building boats to ride it out. When one is warned, one presumably goes to higher ground!
2. No time to build a boat. Why build a boat for a localized flood? That does seem a bit silly to me. Move, if you know ahead of time. Get to higher ground!
3. No reason to save any animals. To entertain the idea of saving local animals? Maybe some livestock — by driving them to (ahem…grin…) higher ground…. Carry a pet with you or loaded in the wagon or something. But all the birds of the air, too?
4. Since Mesopotamia is located west of the Zagros Range and south of the Turkish Ararat Range, the Mesopotamians knew about those mountains and lied about “all the high mountains everywhere” being covered.
Yes, localized flooding, such as that which produced the Pacific Northwest scablands and cut the Columbia Gorge can be devastating. We see flooding in China and India and the various monsoon countries that are awful. Flash flooding in dry areas can be deadly. But these are all missing the elements of THE flood story which is found in so many cultures around the world: all men were killed except a family who survived on a boat and saved the animals with them; a family who was forewarned so they could build that boat for that flood.
The Noah story really has to stand or fall as a worldwide flood due to those elements in it. There is too much “wrong” with it for it to be a story of a local flood, no matter how bad.
But even so Costa200, your suggestion further intrigues me to critically analyze another question I’ve had for awhile in regards to a local flood.
Is God a low pressure system?
The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. The argument continues by saying that since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global – or else Genesis is a lie as I suggested earlier.
Again, trying to take this from your POS, the problem with this argument is that it presupposes that God is a direct causative agent in all storms. I call this the “God is a low pressure system” conjecture.
Even with this, one can still have a localized flood exaggerated to make a point (mythologized) and still maintain God’s and the Bible’s integrity by claiming that all storms that have caused localized flooding since the time that the Flood myth supposedly took place are due to naturalistic causes rather than by God’s direct intervention – thus leaving God’s hands clean, so to speak, and the covenant unbroken (i.e. Insurance companies are wrong to call them “acts of God.”).
However, my instincts is telling me that God isn’t a ‘low pressure system’. In regarding to God’s involvement with nature, I think there are a couple of Bible passages that speak to that:
Colossians 1:16-17 — For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Zechariah 10:1 – Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the causes of natural disasters points back to being the results of man’s rebellion against God. This would take us back to the judgment of the Flood and the changed ecosystem. The word of both comfort and encouragement we are given, though, can be found in Romans 8:28 – We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens, and that He won’t allow anything to happen that will not, in some way, benefit those who love Him.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t see where the Bible allows for a localized flooding at the time of Noah. Not just the narrative itself, but so many other points in the Bible indicate a one-time disaster which inundated the entire world. You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..
In the meantime, about the rainbow. I don’t see it as saying that God is only involved in those storms that result in rainbows. I see the verse as saying that when there is a rainbow it will be a reminder of the covenant.
What about genetic diseases and inbreeding? it would take much more than 1 family to sustain a healthy population after the flood
and no way they could have procreated fast enough with that child and mother mortality rate they used to have back then
and there was no global flood, and if there was how the hell did the animals from other continents get there, and if america and australia were supposedly populated after noah’s time(much later after since required population to move), how come knowledge of the continents didnt survive?
and they say science cant awnser the simpliest questions ^^
Aaand what about the apocalypse, theres this very hypothetical question ive been wondering, but no christian been able to awnser properly,
if the apocalypse doesnt occur in few upcoming centuries, theres bound to be human colonies on other planets, and possible in other starsystems as well, would the people there be safe from the horrors mentioned in the … …. cant remember the english name… book of revalition or what it was?
and since the horsemen/demons/locusts are all on earth humanity could practice some orbital bomboardment on them, or, since if they appear on earth, that can mean 2 things, therye made of regular matter/energy as the rest of us, therefore following the rules of our universe
what if you killed them off with antimatter based weaponry, annhilitating their every atom, leaving absolutely nothing behind, converting them all into energy, nothing left to regenerate
or just trap them in a black hole, the space bending on itself, and the fact that time practically would stop from observers point of view if something was alive in a black hole, stuck there for rest of the lifespan of the hole
hello?
@153 WHo Cares
See I knew you weren’t gonna read the whole. I did a test you failed miserably. In fact, I added the following response at the end of the first half of my response, anticipating your response of “circular reasoning”:
NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:
-Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
-Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
-Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.
since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.
“I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top.”
That’s well thought out answer. How convenient. But seriously appreciate the kind rejection.
“How do you come up with this?”
Research. Anyone can do it. Even a lab monkey.
“Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?”
If you’re able to entertain the idea that God could exist, then it is to be expected to consider the plausibility of miracles.
And speaking of house boats. wow. you tripped on another land mine there.
Could Noah’s Ark hold all the animals?
God said to Noah in Genesis 6:14-16, “So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks” (NIV). According to God’s Word, Noah built the ark. Eight people entered it and all humanity died in the ensuing flood.
Could the ark really contain all the animals of the world? Let’s look at this in more detail. The ark took about 120 years to build. Noah was 480 years old when he began the work and he had the help of his wife, three sons, and his son’s wives. He probably hired local people to help in the construction.
The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.
The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 ÷ 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let’s consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let’s double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.
Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.
Classification_____#of Species____#of Kinds on the Ark
Mammals . . . . . 3,700 . . . . .3,700 (a few live in water)
Birds . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . .60,200 (7 pairs [Gen. 7:3])
Reptiles. . . . . 6,300 . . . . .6,300
Amphibians. . . . 2,500 . . . . .2,500
Fishes. . . . . . 20,600. . . . .zero
Other marine life 192,605. . . . zero
Insects . . . . . .850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)
Total . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . .72,700
The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.
Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 ÷ 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.
The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.
It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.
Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility.
*cough* continents separetd by oceans *cough*
kangaroos, buffalos etc…
@139 regards to my alternate view of a global flood
Did the flood really happen? Yes. Jesus said in Matt. 24:37-39 that the flood happened. If you can’t trust Jesus, you can’t trust anyone. As far as physical evidence goes there are numerous sedimentary deposits world wide which suggest a universal flood. There are countless fossil deposits world wide (For fossilization to occur organisms must be buried rapidly with sediment.). Every major culture has a flood legend. Of over 200 flood legends, 95% say the flood was universal; 70% say survival depended upon a boat; 66% say the wickedness of man was the cause; 88% say there was a favored family; 66% say the remnant was warned; 67% say animals were also saved; 57% say the survivors ended up on a mountain; 35% say birds were sent out; 9% say eight people were saved; and 7% mention a rainbow.
Is there enough water to flood the entire earth? Absolutely! If the earth were perfectly spherical the oceans would cover all the land by more than a mile in depth. The biblical account is that it rained for 40 days and nights in which the floodgates of the heavens were opened up as well as the fountains from the earth (Gen. 7:11;8:2). There is a theory known as the canopy theory that states it had never rained on the earth up to the time of Noah and that a mist watered the plants (Gen. 2:6-6). The theory goes on to state that there may have been a heavy cloud or water vapor layer over the entire earth and that it was this canopy of water that became torrential rains during the flood period.
Did the flood cover all the earth? Yes it did. The depth of the flood waters is described in Gen. 7:19 as covering “all the high mountains under the entire heavens.” Also, there are many references in the Bible to it being global: Gen. 6:1,4-5,12,13,17,19;7:4,6,10,19;8:3;9:15. There were 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:12), 110 days of flooding (Gen. 7:24) and 221 more days of draining (Gen. 8:1-5,13-14). That is a total of 371 days of flooding that covered the mountains. That could not be a local flood.
I’m aware you don’t believe in anything from the bible, but be very careful about the next words you’re going to say.
@159
Ships aren’t boxes, theyre more wedge shaped. That cuts down about 50% of volume.
You’ve packed the animals in like sardines, they don’t like that too much and they only pack them like that for transport, not for 40 days.
For a ship to wright it self like that, especially one of that size, the ballasts would need to take up about half the hull. Modern day ships use ultra dense DU. I doubt noah had that.
Wooden ships can’t be built that big. Biggest wooden ship ever built was 100m or about 330ft and that was using modern steel bracing.
I’m an engineer, I get paid to know these things.
Also your animal estimates are wrong. As of 2004, the figures are:
1,250,000 animals, including:
* 1,190,200 invertebrates:
o 950,000 insects,
o 70,000 mollusks,
o 40,000 crustaceans,
o 130,200 others;
* 58,808 vertebrates:
o 29,300 fish,
o 5,743 amphibians,
o 8,240 reptiles,
o 10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)
o 5,416 mammals.
@160
*cough* geology of ancient times *cough*
@162
Check this out:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
@162 you also need to consider petrified wood.
@162 http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html/www.imdb.com/title/tt0473700/board/nest/83672803?p=2&d=90128347#90128347
more pictures
Nono wah, I understood perfectly well: Some guys made gut decisions (about the texts) and then invented fany terms to make them appear justified. Happens every day in politics.
Say, could you be a darling and stop copy-pasting nonsense from this pathetic apolegetics website carm.org?
@162
Okay. Maybe ship science isn’t my speciality. I commend you for your expertise. Bravo.
However, it’s important to mention in this discussion the historical non-Christian evidence of Noah’s ark…..
Anyway, here are some quotes from past notable historians about the subject that were compiled by a scholar named Richard Riss. This is Part One of a long article, as for some reason this website is refusing to let me post the whole thing at once due to content standards.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH`S ARK
Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) stated that, in the country called Carroe, there were “in it the remains of the ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them.”1 Elsewhere, Josephus wrote:
.
However, the Armenians call this place , the Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are showed there by the inhabitants to this day.
Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For when he was describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: “It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs.”–Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician antiquities, and Manases, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported, that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”2
.
The existence of the ark on Mt. Ararat is also mentioned by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115-185), who stated, “and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”3 A similar statement is made by Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), who said, “Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point, when even to this day the remains of Noah’s Ark are shown in the country of the Kurds?”4
.
Chrysostom (c. 345-407), wrote, “Have you heard of the Flood–of that universal destruction? That was not just a threat, was it? Did it not really come to pass–was not this mighty work carried out? Do not the mountains of Armenia testify to it, where the Ark rested? And are not the remains of the Ark preserved there to this very day for our admonition?”5
.
Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) wrote: “Ararat is a mountain in Armenia, where the historians testify that the Ark came to rest after the Flood. So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen there.”6
.
A thirteenth century Armenian prince, Jehan Haithon, wrote as follows:
.
In Armenia there is a very high mountain–the highest in existence–and its name is Ararat. On that mountain Noah’s Ark landed after the Flood. No one can climb this mountain because of the great quantity of snow on it winter and summer. But at the summit a great black object is always visible, which is said to be the ark of Noah.7
Sir John Mandeville (d. 1372), an English knight, wrote an account of his travels between 1322 and 1356. In The Travels, chapter 13, he writes:
.
From that city of Artyroun men go to a mountain called Sabissocolle; and there beside is another mountain called Ararat, but the Jews call it Taneez, where Noah’s ship rested, and still is upon that mountain; and men many see it afar in clear weather. That mountain is full seven miles high; and some men say that they have seen and touched the ship, and put their fingers in the parts where the devil went out, when Noah said “Benedicte.”8
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Two
(Continued)
Adam Olearus (1603-1671) also travelled extensively, and wrote that “the Armenians, and the Persians themselves, are of opinion, that there are still upon the said Mountain some remainders of the Ark, but that Time hath so hardened them, that they seem absolutely petrified.”9
.
The ancient traditions of India and China include accounts of a time when the ancient world was carried away by a flood and re-peopled by a few who had been preserved miraculously. According to Hindu tradition, Manu was warned by a great fish that the earth was about to be engulfed by water. He was told to build a ship and to put into it all kinds of seeds, together with the seven Rishis, or holy beings. The flood came as predicted and covered the whole earth. The ship was made fast to the horns of the fish, which drew it on safely and finally landed it on the highest summit of the Himalayas. Manu was then permitted by God to create the new race of mankind.
.
There were seven companions of Manu, and, including himself, eight were saved. Manu is called Satya, or “the righteous.” After the flood, he drank mead and became senseless and lay asleep, [exposing himself]. One of the three sons who had been born to him, Charma, found him and called on his two brothers to witness the shame of their father, and said, “What has now befallen? In what state is our sire?” The two brothers were more dutiful than Charma and hid him with clothes. When he recovered his senses, and knowing what had happened, he cursed Charma and said to him, “Thou shalt be a servant of servants.”10
.
According to Chinese tradition, Fah-he escaped from a deluge which destroyed the human race with the exception of himself, his wife, his three sons, and three daughters, and from these, the whole earth was peopled.
.
Manetho, who lived about 250 B.C., wrote the ancient history of the Egyptians, according to which there was a worldwide catastrophe in which a person called Toth was saved. Before the cataclysm, Toth inscribed on a slab of stone in sacred language the principles of all knowledge. Afterward, he translated it into common language. The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and launched it into the sea and watched it disappear from sight.11
.
In the ancient town of Apamea in Phrygia, there was a pillar upon which was carved an ark, which, according to tradition, had come to rest on that very spot. A coin was also found on one side of which was represented an ark with the door wide open and a patriarchal figure receiving a returning bird into the ark. On the other side of the coin is a man and his wife leaving the ark. On the ark itself appears the name “Noe.”12
.
The Roman Flood tradition was preserved by the well-known Latin poet Ovid, in Metamorphoses, while the Greek writer Plato preserved material on the flood tradition in his unfinished dialogue, Critias. Another ancient writer, Lucian (A.D. 120- 180), renders the Greek tradition as follows in his Dialogues on the Syrian Goddess:
.
Not one of us now living is descended from the original race of men, who all perished. We, numerous as we are, are no other than a second race sprung from Deucalion. The aborigines were full of pride and insolence, unfaithful to their promises, inhospitable to strangers, deaf to supplicants. Hence they were overtaken by a greater disaster. The earth suddenly opened its sluices, heavy showers of rain fell, the rivers swelled, and the sea arose until the waters everywhere prevailed, and every mortal [perished] except Deucalion, who on account of his virtue and piety, was saved to give birth to a new race of men. He put himself with his wives and children in a great chest, and thereupon there came to him boars and horses and lions and serpents and all kind of land animals. He took them all in, and all the time they were with him Zeus ordered it so that they did no injury, but lived together in harmony.13
.
The native North American Kolushes of Alaska had an ancient tradition that the father of the Indian tribes formerly lived toward the rising sun. Having been warned in a dream that a deluge would desolate the earth, he built a raft on which he saved himself and his family, and all animals. He floated for several months on the water. The animals, who could then talk, complained against him. A new earth at length appeared, and he then alighted with all the animals, which then lost the power of speech as a punishment for their complaining.14
.
The native Mexican historian, Ixtilxochitl, wrote as follows:
.
It is found in the histories of the Toltecs that this age and the first world, as they call it, lasted 1,716 years; that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and lightning from the sky, and even all the land, without the exception of anything, and the highest mountains were covered up and submerged in water fifteen cubits (caxtolmolatlic); and here they add other fables of how men came to multiply from the few who escaped from this destruction in a `toptipetlocali,’ which nearly signifies a closed chest; and how, after men had multiplied, they erected a very high `zacvali,’ which is today a tower of great height, in order to take refuge in it should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently their languages were confused, and, not being able to understand each other, they went to different parts of the earth. The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends, with their wives, who understood the same language, came to these parts, having first passed great land and seas, having lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach this land; they wandered 104 years through different parts of the world before they reached Hue Hue Tlapalan, which was in Ce Tecpatl, 520 years after the Flood.15
.
Flood traditions of this kind are characteristic of just about all ancient cultures. Dr. Richard Andree, a German scholar, has compiled a collection of 88 different flood traditions from various cultures around the world.16
There have been many modern sightings of Noah’s ark. In 1905, a ten-year-old Armenian boy, Georgie Hagopian, went with his uncle from Azerbajain in Old Persia to Mount Ararat and saw Noah’s ark.17 An interview with Mr. Hagopian is printed in John Warwick Montgomery’s book, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, which refers to him as George Tamisian.18
.
In 1916, during the First World War, a Russian airman, W. Roskovitsky, flying over Mt. Ararat, stated that he had observed on one of the slopes of Mt. Ararat the remains of an ancient vessel. The Czar organized an expedition, which found the remains in question and brought back a description of them which was conclusive with respect to their identification. The report was lost during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.19
.
In the 1930s a New Zealander, Hardwicke Knight, stumbled upon the remains of Noah’s ark without realizing what it was until some time later.20 Then, in 1952, George Jefferson Greene took photographs of Noah’s ark from a helicopter. These photographs were lost ten years later, when he was murdered for his gold.21
.
There have been many recent reports of sightings of Noah’s ark, including that of Chuck Aaron of Orlando, Florida, in September of 1989. He and Bob Garbe photographed the ark during a September 15 flight. These photos are available from the Immanuel Expedition Foundation in Orlando, Florida.22
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Three
(Continued)
REFERENCES
1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, XX, ii, 2, in The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols., trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1833), vol. II, p. 107.
.
2. Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, I, iii, 5 and 6, in Whiston, vol. I, pp. 17, 18.
.
3. Ad Autolycum, book 3, chapter 19, trans. Marcus Dodds, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (1885), vol. II, p. 117.
.
4. Panarion, I,i,18, trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, 2d ed. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), p. 77.
.
5. John Chrysostum, sermon, “On Perfect Charity,” trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest For Noah’s Ark, p. 78.
.
6. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, in “Scriptorium Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,” (1911), XIV,8,5, trans. Montgomery, p. 80.
.
7. Trans. Montgomery, pp. 82-83.
.
8. Quoted by Montgomery, pp. 93-94.
.
9. The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors, trans. John Davies (London, 1662), Book IV, p. 187.
.
10. Hugh Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857), p. 290.
.
11. John Urquhart, Modern Discoveries and the Bible (London: Marshall Brothers, 1898), p. 175.
.
12. Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), p. 144.
.
13. Quoted by Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story In Stone (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1968), p. 175.
.
14. Ibid., p. 183.
.
15. Quoted by Ibid., pp. 186-187.
.
16. Richard Andree, D_ie Flutensagen, ethnologisch betrachtet, as cited by Rehwinkel, pp. 129-130.
.
17. Violet Cu_mmings, Has Anybody Really Seen Noah’s Ark? (San Diego, Ca.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), p. 217.
.
18. Montgomery, pp. 113-118.
.
19. Ibid., pp. 119-125; Cu_mmings, pp. 61-108.
.
20. Montgomery, pp. 125-128.
.
21. Montgomery, pp. 128-131; C_ummings, pp. 143-148.
.
22. “Yanks: We Discovered Noah’s Ark,” in The Home News, Friday, September 22, 1989, p. A6.
Here is the real site with pictures of NOah’s ark.
http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html
“Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration”
Sorry science seeking an explanation for an ends is not valid. You’re starting off with a definite answer and trying to fill the gaps.
Would you trust an article on race from, say for example, “White Supremisist Weekly”?
Do you have an article from a more neutral institute?
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark#Locating_the_mountains_of_Ararat
“In June 2006, Bob Cornuke of the fundamentalist Christian Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute took a team of 14 American “business, law, and ministry leaders” to Iran to visit a site in the Alborz Mountains purported to be a possible resting place of the Ark. The team did not include any archaeologists or geologists among its members.”
So there was no one qualified? I wouldn’t trust a priest to do my plumbing. You shouldn’t trust a business/law/ministry leader to do your science.
You havent addressed my issues of ballasts, free space and size constraints on modern ship building. Even the most high tech steel hulled ship is only 450m long and that’s still sitting in a dry dock in Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_Institute#Noah.27s_Ark_Controversy
What say you?
Also petrified wood is not a legitimate construction material. It’s basically fosilized wood.
@167
Why? does it bother you?
If it does, i’ll save the hassle.
Here’s breakdown of Noah’s ark:
http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm
But what’s his name argues otherwise, expertly I might add. Hence posts for “Historical Evidence of Noah’s Ark”
@145 Costa200
“When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” …blah blah blah”
This is in continuation of my earlier response (post 155).
For such an intellectual person, you don’t seem to score high on the EI test if you know what i mean…[to.be.continued]
Have you ever entertained the idea that God wanted to have a deep personal intimate relationship with His own creation? And you can’t have that without ‘drama’ if you know what i mean. ‘drama’ as in all those unnecessary things you were talking about. even so, it doesn’t negate god’s nature. His understanding is beyond ours. He has a purpose for everything if you actually read it in proper context before making ignorant statements. He works in mysterious ways. If God was playing golf, He’d more than likely hit the ball to ricochet off of many objects just to get to the hole in one instead of just hitting it just straight to the hole, know what i mean?
But let’s take it from your POS.
If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall?
That question basically sums up your concerns.
Before I begin, I’d like to point out to you that maybe because you haven’t realized the following clarification is because trying to understand some things about God from a intellectual/logical standpoint is extremely difficult, if not, impossible. Why? God mostly operates from an emotional/relational level. If you can’t relate to him on that level then you can’t understand what God is trying to say to us in the bible. You see we have three parts in the brain: physical, emotional, and logical. Super-intellects normally operate in the logical, and most of the time they’re geeks and nerds and nice boys, that’s why they don’t get the girls because they can’t relate to them on the emotional gut level. The problem with men is that our physical part of the brain overpowers our emotional part while the emotional part overpowers our logic. Physical = involuntary reactions, sneezing, sexual drive. Emotional = our natural reaction to past life events, like trauma, bad/good experiences. Logical = rational. SO just because something doesn’t logically make sense, doesn’t mean it’s automatically moot on the emotional/physical level or, in this case, state of being is non-existent. OK so now wer’e through with human physiology 101.
At the risk of sounding flippant, why not tackle your previous question: If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall? For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn’t mean that the person (angel) isn’t free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.
1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).
2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is “bad” and that God’s word about righteousness is true.
3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.
4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we’d be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall.
5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.
You know your children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that you shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.
@157
LOL. You have quite an imagination. I commend that. But your hypothetical question coupled even with a proper hypothetical answer means nothing for either side. Basically, it means nothing because it doesn’t correspond with reality at all. Any hypothetical situation can be taken to basically any extreme to accommodate the question in doubt. And even without a proper answer, the theory actually doesn’t prove or negate anything for that matter. It’s pure speculation at its best. I have close personal friends who use to ask me a whole bunch of “what if” questions. God it was annoying. I felt like they were knats buzzing around. Who cares. Stop living in never-never land. But if you’re looking for a closing answer to all that. God won’t allow your story to happen. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat#History
“and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”
Mount Ararat was never an Arab moutain. The closest thing to Arab is Persian and they’re completely different.
Also why is Jesus always depicted as a white guy? He was born in Bethlehem which is smack bang in the Middle-East. Most likely he would have had olive skin.
Wow. you seem to know your stuff. But that doesn’t negate Noah’s Ark. You must disprove all evidence before it, including historical ones buddy.
Mr. Bob Cournoke you sire are first challenge of the week.
@179 Jesus’s sking.
Jesus is depicted as a white guy because the European Roman Catholics gave him that image. Olive skin? probably the same color any other people in those areas. ALthough, i’ve heard there were black jews in those areas at the time so i guess jesus could’ve been black. Possible but i highly doubt it.
Yo, wah @177
“God has reasons that we simply do not know about”
So the best thing would be to shut down our brain and declare a theocracy
@182
oops what i meant was his reasoning is beyond our understanding.
No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.
There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.
Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.
That’s why the criminal law system is based on “innocent until proven guilty”.
Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” – It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.
it may appear to you that way. but look at it from my perspective.
“No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.”
ahh. on the contrar mi amigo. I’ve already presented evidence, it’s up to you to disprove it.
“There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.”
I heard this one before. In fact I use it sometimes and while the former is true, the ladder is not, as I can see you changed it, thereby making it a fallacious statement. IN regards to the ladder part, all you need is the slightest evidence that indicates the possibility of the object in question. Then it is up to you disprove that.
“Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.”
Yes. You would be correct IF THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE. But that doesn’t belong to the equation.
“Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” – It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.”
Consider this example: Gold. Base on the two premises above, in order to prove that gold does not exist you would have to search every crevice of the earth to prove that it does not exist. However, if one shred of evidence that is found to indicate that gold might exist, then the proof must be disproved by the other side. Either case, the evidence in question is enough to substantiate a plausibility. What is the evidence in question: gold dust. One can find gold dust and know that gold exist, even though you’ve haven’t found the actual gold. OR let’s replace the object in question with water. ALl you need is rust, or whatever evidence that water leaves behind.
So, i’ve already provided evidenece, or ‘trail’, that indicates the historicity of NOah’s ark. NOw it’s time for you to disprove them. It’s simple as that.
Gold dust is equivalent to gold.
You can only prove water exist if the evidence left behind is exclusive to water.
Bits of petrified wood is not ark. It could be a number of things. Did you read the part about the one person in a group that described it as basalt? Or the part about several other creationist geologists denouncing the group? There’s a 7000 word article on why that wasn’t the ark on one of the links.
I provided several sources that showed that your evidence was dubious at best.
Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you? I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.
Anyway I’m going to bed. All I can say is ask more questions , get your information from less biased sources and read both sides of the arguments so you know what you’re debating against.
Yes wah, exactly what I mean. If his reasoning is beyond our understanding, then we cannot rely on our own reasoning in principle, because our very institution of reasoning, science, clearly contradicts the bible, in respect to our genesis and to the history of the middle east.
That’s why I said: Let’s abondon your reason and declare a theoracy. I mean…it would be the sensible thing to do
Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w6-8XhJa6Ds
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcA7s4UO4sY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rwwg1olQ68
@155 wah
“Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept. ”
Floods leave very clear signs in the geological evidence. The sediments and hydrologic selection along with certain depositions of strata are a dead give away that a flood has ocurred in a certain timeframe. If someone tomorrow managed to demonstrate that there is a continum of such evidence worldwide he would bust most of modern geology (which would then be old geology)and have his name ingraved in the halls of science. Apparently nobody, not for the lack of trying, could ever do this. The padron of sea rise and fall, the sediments left behind, all of it indicate a very old Earth with tectonics and an absence of a worldwide flood.
This is not saying the biblical account is totally made up. Certain local events, such as the ones you mentioned, may be the root of this myth. Let us not forget that the story must have been centuries old when it was laid on writting. Oral tradition certainly took its price on the accuracy.
Plus, there isn’t enough water in the planet to do what the biblical version tells us. Even if all the ice and water vapor suddenly became liquid there isn’t enough water to rise the sea level to do what the biblical version says. Unless one is to resort to magical thinking (in which case everything is possible) i cannot see how this would be feasible in this planet.
“To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens”
Being in control and then just wipe out all the world? In computer science that would be the equivalent of a techie guy saying he had the system “under control” and then went on formating the hard drive. If that is control…
“You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..”
It’s not how i interpret it. Although i’ve taken some heavy duty Geological training (i freaking hate foraminids) i’m not even an expert. The way Geologists as a community see the issue is the point here. If you go to a Geologist and ask him to look at some data regarding the possibility of a worldwide flood what are you going to show him?
Because he can bury you (literally…) in Core sample data of places that should have been flooded and never were.
Also, if there was such a flood how is it that fresh water fish survived? A tiny unbalance in salt levels kills fish like nothing else. A worldwide flood with the sea covering mountains would just wipe out every single fresh water fish that could not cope with salt. Given this, you either resot to magic to explain it or fresh water fish evolved from other fish, but in this case we don’t have enough time for that to happen (isn’t the flood supposed to have happened some 4000 years ago?)
Also, there is the slight problem that certain archeological findings should show marks of the flood. After all, the Sphynx is older than that and shows no marks. Also, how can one family populate the whole world fast enough to, after the flood, build great works, like the pyramids and other wonders. Where did all the manpower come from?
If you look at the population graph we have until the industrial revolution, human growth was very low at all times. This only changed with modern technology. How can a family suddenly populate everyware?
And why could paintings in caves survived intact? those caves must have been underwater during the flood!
Clearly, the fact point to a local event (many candidates here, just take your pick), and not a worldwide event.
Also, on the ark. A ship that big (although not big enough to hold half the animal species for 40 days, as writters seem to have forgot about plants or something since many species of plants would not have survived in the salted land after the flood) would brake itself apart. There is no way a pre industrial age guy would be able to make such a boat and have it floating around for 40 days in what would seem harsh conditions. Not even mentioning the fact that such an ark built on land would probably crash itself on the solid ground as it would not have a propulsion mechanism. Again, only by resorting to divine help can you hope to keep that baby floating. But, if you are going to use magic to get rid of every pratical impossibility then you can basicaly stop concerning yourself with all these matters because magic explanations cannot be tested and are not scientific.
And the “petrified wood”… Sorry but i just had to LOL at it. Any kid at my class could point out a very common formation of basaltic columns. Mount ararat is vulcanic, so what you see is a natural aspect of a vulcanic basaltic cone.
See here, more petrified wood all over the place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
(using wiki cuz i’m lazy and even wiki had to have this)
See this one (i use it as an example in class):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boyabat.jpg
I can see how a person with no geological training can mistake it with “petrified wood” but i cannot accept that people pretending to do serious scientific work just ignore something i’ve taught to 7th graders… What kind of “scientific” background do they have?
@wah
Ive got to hand it to you, you are much more passionate about this than I will ever be. I would love to show fallacy in these people, but I could tell from the very beginning it was a lost cause. I honestly was surprised I pursisted as long as I did. These people (mainly Costa and velo to my observation, mainly Costa) continue to give me the same excuses they have been trying to disprove me. It was a pleasure to read your replies. Anyways, this is a wrap for me. BTW, its Darth not Death… =)
In reply to Costa, heh…How many times would you like me to state the same thing I have been saying? Im sorry, but I just cant continue on like this. Perhaps if it was just you and me without the worry that something is going to be said while Im not here, I could show interest. Obviously, though, that is not the case. You should be proud of yourself, though. You have got to be the best insulter I have ever met…what a thing to be respected for…
And for velo, I know you wernt trying to attack me, that is why I settled down a bit in my last post. You, unlike the Costa guy, actually have an open mind and are willing to hear both sides of the argument. While you do have bias, you cant claim more bias than what I would show myself. I respect you, and for that Im going to give you one of the thoughts I have had. I have logically thought through this quite a bit, and I give it to you at face value. As I said before, your logic is what gets you to the conclusion you end up at. It doesnt matter how hard I think it through, it is you that needs to choose. Do with this what you will: ignore it, think through it yourself, believe it. It is up to you. As for me, Im not going to be coming back on to this page again. Honestly, I dont have the time to waist debating when I can already see the conclusion, right back where we started. Anyway, here it goes…
The subject of morality is a tough one to think about. It is a subject that science fears, mainly because science has virtually no hold on it. When one thinks of morality, it requires only thought; no experiments, no observation of phenomenon, no hypothesizing.
When dealing with morality, there are two sides of debate: moral objectivism and moral subjectivism (I think I made up those words…). When one enters the thought of morality, they HAVE to join one side, and it is usually the side that agrees with his/her disposition to life.
If you believe morality is objective, it means you believe in absolute truth. If you believe in absolute truth, you believe in absolute power. Finally, if you believe in absolute power, you believe in a god of some kind.
If you believe morality is subjective, it means you believe truth is relative to the situation. This means you dont believe in a god.
Yet, when you look at morality without bias (or as little as possible at least), you notice something. Lets look at a simple hypothetical situation: Lets say a boy on his 16th birthday steals a gun, shoots 200 men, rapes those men’s wives, and then is shot and killed by police. Gruesome, huh? I can guarantee you it doesnt matter what you believe in, that is a horrible crime. Why do you think that, though? If we look at, say, a monkey (for lack of a better subject) that kills 200 other monkeys and has sexual intercourse with 200 female monkeys, the situation is perfectly normal (maybe not “normal” normal, but it is a possibility). During my studies in Biology, I was told that according to natural selection, the most fit of a species is the one who has the most offspring. I can honestly say that a large number of the females in both situations above are going to be pregnant because of the situation. That monkey is one of the most fit monkeys of all time; it had a lot of offspring. However, that boy would be called a psychopath and put to death, obviously, when he refused to cooperate with authority. So, if your evolution is true, how would you explain that situation (<–rhetorical question)? At what point between the evolution of the monkey (the animal) into a human (the…human) did such a situation become wrong? The answer? It didnt, because it never happened.
Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society. After all, according to evolution, that boy would be one of the fittest human beings to ever live. If evolution really did happen, then it is impossible to look at human life as being worth anything. It doesnt matter if a giant meteor destroys the planet, or if the human race destroys itself with atomic bombs. Who cares in evolution? Who cares what happens? What advantage does the survival of humans play in the grand scheme of things if evolution is true? The energy level of the universe stays the same while matter is neither created nor destroyed. Whether humans exist or not has no effect on that fact…
When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?
So, there is some brain food for you to munch on a while. Ignore it if you want, criticize it if you want, believe it if you want. It matters not to me. Cant say I didnt try…
“Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society.”
Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.
It is clear, by your tone, that you cannot argue this subject and clearly you can’t even keep your head over the water in this type of intelectual debate.
“Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”
Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life (yes i’m into humour right now) because a supposed divinity is watching doesn’t ring a bell? Yes, we will end up mostly the same way (you with a cross on top and me without it i believe) but i will not go deprived of the fun i could have gotten out of life. Can you say the same?
Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if purgatory is like that Mr Bean comedy show and a guys says “to the left to hell… Lawyers… thiefs… Christians… what is that? OH sorry… the jews were right…)
I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family. I’ve never wronged anyone intentionally and honestly i do not believe a kind god (he is that right) would ever screw me over because i did not believe he existed. On the other hand i think he would be very pissed at that christian assassin that went to church every sunday.
Is anybody actually reading any of these diatribes?
Damn, I thought this thread was dead by now. Anyway, seeing that “(G)god(s)” is a title and NOT a name, what is his name? The word “god” comes from “El” and “gods” come from “Elohim”. Now these words are not Hebrew or Aramaic but instead are Philistine (or modern day Palestine). Strange enough, these words could ALSO be used for “demon” or “demons”. So, clearly using “(G)god(s)” in-place of using his REAL name shows ignorance on those who profess to love the TRUE CREATOR (insert name here). Oh, I wont accept the “He has many names” lame azz excuse either (this saying stems from Egypt). He has 1 name like you and I have. It is known so look around. And no… we can not call Steve by David’s name either and vice versa.
Let me ask you another, since you “Christians” love to type novels that would show MORE of your paganism roots. In ancient times the title “BAAL” was used to address the beings that these people worshiped. But not only was it used to that effect but the title was also used to address men AND animals. Throughout time this word was changed to HIDE or conceal what is now going on, rampant paganism within the churches and synagogues(sic). How do you feel every time you use the word “Lord” to address YOUR Saviour? Do you know the root word for “Lord” is “BAAL”?
Christianity today, is for people who can not think for themselves or unable to search the truth to save them from lets say a…. a fiery pit? But they love to celebrate “Christmas” Jeremiah 10:1-10 (i think) and crap like that.
It seems to me that people who “profess” to love the Creator (insert name here) really mean to PISS him off!
Nobody can trust the KJV anymore.
You have no idea how much I wanted to keep my promise and stay off this page. Unfortunately, I am only human…I guess Im going to have to break my promise…
Costa, dont flatter yourself. Your responses were pathetic at best…
“Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.”
Hmm…wow…what kind of half thought through response is that?! So tell me something, you want me to solve your little contradicting saying, yet you are too scared to even try mine? If not by science, how would you confront what I said? Science seems to be the only thing you hold dear, yet you arnt even going to try? Bah…
“Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life…”
Who cares if you hit the truth or not? Who cares about your happiness. Cmon, guy? Surely you must have a better response than that. I love it when people like you take things I say way out of context, ignoring entire segments I say. Your happiness means NOTHING! Your truth means NOTHING! Hmm…I can go on…Im not saying that I think they are nothing, or that you think they are nothing. On the contrary, they are the entire reason Im still typing. No, it is your belief that says they mean nothing! Oh and FYI, even though I “limit” myself as to what I do, I can say without any doubt that my life is a rather happy one. I wont lie, there are some bumps I would prefer to get rid of (to make it clear, the bumps wernt caused by my “limited” morality…), but overall I could be as happy as you seem to be with your limitless morality…
“Also, how do you know you are following the right god?”
Funny, yet again you warp my words…I never told you which god I follow. I said I believe in (get ready for it!) “A” god. I could tell you I believe in Christianity, but I really dont have much knowledge of history like my friend “wah” does, so Im not even going to try. Your right, I could be following the wrong god. That really doesnt help your case much, though…stay on subject.
“I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family.”
I appreciate you proving my point for me…did you even read what I said, or were you thinking too much about how cool you are? I hate repeating myself, but Im afraid it is the only way to get you to see it…According to the belief that YOU follow, that being evolution and survival of the fittest, the boy in my hypothetical situation is just as, if not more, fit as a human than you are. You apparently pride yourself on being a moral individual, yet you turn around and stab yourself in the back saying evolution is true. According to evolution, there are no moral truths! You do those things fruitlessly. It doesnt help you! Your going to die just like everybody else…including that psychopath boy…so why dont you go out and kill all your enemies, rape all the women you want, and get shot by that mean looking bouncer at the club? What is stopping you? You will accomplish the exact same thing you are by continuing on like this…
And to the lovely person trying to…oh, warp my words yet again (you people seem quite good at doing that)…ooo, your cool with your definition of a god! Lets give a round of applause! You were too busy looking at yourself in the mirror to realize the context of the word “god” in my post. Im curious, what word you would like me to use…if not “god”. I was trying to stay neutral within the boundaries of ID so that we could stay on the subject at hand instead of branching off to some tangent about how the Catholic Church had crusades hundreds of years ago…what word (or phrase) would you like me to use? Fine, from now on I will use the term “almighty being”. That work for you?
I hope I dont have to come back, but this time Im not going to promise. I dont want to have to break another one…
@186 Bob, @187 Who cares, @188velo, @189Costa200
haha. :LOL: that’s plenty of people to debate online at one time. [clap]
“the flood didn’t happen”
God created the universe just 6 chapters earlier. He’s about to cause a flood that will destroy virtually all life on the planet. However, your big hang up is over rocks, pebbles, and puddles…it seems rather reasonable that the God destroying the planet could also make them ‘wash out’.
once again, I’ll be briefly open minded to take from YOUR perspective, though I’ve not seen you reciprocate. Anyhow, there is ample evidence for massive regional floods in the near east but I will consider the lack of evidence for a global flood 4,400 years ago. There are trees living that are 6000 years old (See Guiness book of records). A global flood that is claimed to have caused the grand canyon would have destroyed any mere tree. Plausible on your part.
“the Ark and all the animals?”
well you could always take the baby’s there smaller. You could also only take two dogs, not a dog of every kind. Dogs do change and still remain dogs. Let me also point out that if God can find a way to flood the Earth i think he can work out these small details. ….likewise, if God can create the universe, organize the cosmos, design DNA and well everything else, I’m sure He can figure SOMETHING out. and since we don’t know what kind of trees existed before the flood, its possible that Noah had really strong trees even without a miracle occuring. Besides and more importantly, all of these seem like rather petty obstacles when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
@173, 179, 189 BOB and Costa200
“mount. ararat? nope”
There’s already historical evidence substantiating this. Of course, over the past 4000 years its probably been destroyed.
“yes wah, exactly what I mean. If his reasoning is beyond our understanding, then we cannot rely on our own reasoning in principle, because our very institution of reasoning, science, clearly contradicts the bible, in respect to our genesis and to the history of the middle east.
That’s why I said: Let’s abondon your reason and declare a theoracy. I mean…it would be the sensible thing to do”
if you’re a naturalist or materialist it would appear that way. However, I’m a Biblical theist. There is a world of difference between being rational and being a rationalist. There is also a world of differene between believing in nature and science and being a naturalist. Those “ists” and “isms” change everything. For you, there is a world of difference between possibly believing in a god of sorts and being a theist. So i’m less inclined to agree with you as much as you are to me. To look to ones self before looking to a higher source would seem to be pure arrogance. Given how many mistakes I’ve made over my life and my limited knowledge and the limits of science it really doesn’t seem all that reasonable to not put my faith and trust in myself and science. Personally, when speaking from a Scriptural standpoint, the flood story is this: if you believe in God, then His power shouldn’t be an issue in performing miracles. How anyone can believe that God is capable of creation ex-nihilo but not stretching the laws of physics is beyond me. You put your faith in your reason and understanding. I put my faith in a book I believe God wrote. I believe that God has a much better grasp of His univere than I could ever have. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to trust the Bible. And don’t get met started on the “Reliability of the bible’s historicity”.
“Being in control and then just wipe out all the world? In computer science that would be the equivalent of a techie guy saying he had the system “under control” and then went on formating the hard drive. If that is control…”
I guess if you consider creating the universe weird, then yes that is our argument. However, I’m not certain why it would be weird or far fetched for a theist to believe that God could protect Noah’s ark. It seems well established in the story that God was in control and God wanted Noah to survive. Therefore, its really not unreasonable that God would pull a few tricks out from His sleeves to help out Noah and the animals.
As stated before, I’ve always felt the needless point in scientifically proving any historical event or, in our cases, merging naturalistic presuppositions with an active theistic worldview. One can’t prove Lincoln’s assassination any more than a recorded miracle from a scientific perspective. On the other hand, looking at it from a historical perspective, there’s ample literature, writings and accounts to suggest the flood story otherwise, local or global, unless you can disprove all the testimonies of Riss’s article, let alone the historicity of the OT, then we can consider all other ancient literature/writings, such as Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
As you can see from my openness of perspectives on the matter, I personally ‘don’t hold a gun’ at standpoint on a minor issue such as the flood, biblically speaking that is, particularly when we [should all be] aware that not all of the OT is to be taken literally, as authors/writers of the books use many different literary devices to convey a message, let alone to be read scientifically, and that the OT explains more of the ‘history’ of things than the ’science’ of things. lol. Science wasn’t even ‘invented’ back in those days as opposed to history. So again I see a ‘lost cause’ to validate the OT stories on a scientific basis compared to literal history. But still it’s been quite an interesting experience with you to look at from your perspectives.
@190 “Darth” Arcon. sorry hehe.
If what you say is true, then either way, I don’t really hold any type of grudge on this type of issue, although we do have fundamentalists on the ‘flood’ story, it’s not a major doctrinal or salvational issue and shouldn’t have people hung up over what’s more important issues in Christianity, like Jesus’s testimony.
@193 Not Stupid
your point?
By your logic we all better change our names to its original Latin meaning to avoid from stepping over each other’s toes. ooooooo
Exodus 3:13-14 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.”
Notice how God didn’t attribute a “name” or “title” to identify him by. He did that to point out that He will not be manipulated by any calling of names. His identity surpasses our ability to control or summon God at any time. and there you’re worried about how the calling of names affecting God, including the very word “god”? seems very moot.
@194 Not Stupid
that’s why we have different versions. and don’t get me started on the whole manuscript-extant accuracy.
@wah
I highly appreciate you taking the time to do this research, and I highly respect you. I do believe Christianity is the right path, but I really cant provide solid historical proof to confirm my position to others. However, if I maintain a neutral standing within the general ID belief, I can use logic that they will actually listen to. That is why they are trying to debunk history against you and trying to confuse me with self contradictory hypothetical’s. Id say we compliment each other fairly well. (if any part of this post is offending, please dont take it that way…that wasnt my intention… <_<).
Anyway, Im not a history buff and will never pretend to be. I do have quite a bit of thinking time, so it isnt uncommon to see me sitting, starring at the wall in math class thinking about random things. I just dont have the patience to do historical research…
@147 Velo
“Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)
Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.
We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.”
for someone who can create the universe by scratch it shouldn’t be too hard to create a human.
@148 Velo
“Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?”
Recognizing the existence of something is one thing but placing your trust in “a personal being” is a whole different matter. You should Lucifer that question.
“If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.”
it has nothing to do with proof. my point is that 1/10 times means it would take a miracle for you to trust in God, while it’s natural for you 9/10 times to not believe.
“I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that””
again, it, as in my previous statement, has nothing to do proof. all bout complete trust. your problem is you’re trying to reconcile an empiricist viewpoint to theist philosophy.
@186 BOB
“Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you?”
i’m young enough to be a teacher.
“I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.”
it’s called not being anal and in a hurry. what am i, writing an essay here?
@199 Darth Arcon
Hey, different strokes for different folks I guess. So no i don’t take offense of your post. But I have to say I enjoyed reading your responses to them. You have a talent for pointing out the contradictions between their worldview and the way they live/(debate in this case). I highly respect you too, as well as for keeping an open mind, and we certainly compliment each other.
@Costa200
“Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if…”
The real question isn’t about what/why/how others believe. The real question is if YOU believe in any god or not. Do you believe truth is knowable, or if God would communicate to His people? If not of any of those, then what other point are you trying to make, besides thinking that “question of doubt” refutes the faith and historicity of Christianity?
What if.. what if…what if..
who cares. it’s hypothetical, means nothing because it doesn’t correspond to reality. you’re living in never-never land.
@188 velo
“Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.”
Just a bit of fun for you atheists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssKZavFZJE
and flood sceptics
http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-catastrophe.html
@147 Velo
it’d be very rare and almost a miracle to find it.
Check out Dr. Don Batten’s explanation on the common ancestry of humans and apes:
“The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:
1. Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (’homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
2. Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
4. We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.
Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error – averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].
7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.
The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!”
Do you know a doctor who has refuted this explanation?
@203
id like to know about your educational backround, if you believe those guys, theyre outright lying at you
@205
prove it.
@110 Not Stupid
““Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it?”
Would you point out the verses that indicate it so?
And unless you can prove me your claims, read what Henry Morris and Martin Clark has to say about the Trinity so that you may understand what it really means:
The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.
Both Old and New Testaments teach the Unity and the Trinity of the Godhead. The idea that there is only one God, who created all things, is repeatedly emphasized in such Scriptures as Isaiah 45:18:
“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; …I am the Lord; and there is none else.”
A New Testament example is James 2:19:
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.”
The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16:
“I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”
The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit).
The New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is evident in such a verse as John 15:26, where the Lord Jesus said:
“But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, He shall testify of me.”
Then there is the baptismal formula:
“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).
One name (God) — yet three names!
JESUS — That Jesus, as the only-begotten Son of God, actually claimed to be God, equal with the Father, is clear from numerous Scriptures. For example, He said:
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).
HOLY SPIRIT — Some cults falsely teach that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal divine influence of some kind, but the Bible teaches that He is a real person, just as are the Father and the Son. Jesus said:
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13).
TRI-UNITY — The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God’s creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.
We “see” God and His great salvation in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, then “experience” their reality by faith, through the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.
Though these relationships seem paradoxical, and to some completely impossible, they are profoundly realistic, and their truth is ingrained deep in man’s nature. Thus, men have always sensed first the truth that God must be “out there,” everywhere present and the First Cause of all things, but they have corrupted this intuitive knowledge of the Father into pantheism and ultimately into naturalism.
Similarly, men have always felt the need to “see” God in terms of their own experience and understanding, but this knowledge that God must reveal Himself has been distorted into polytheism and idolatry. Men have thus continually erected “models” of God, sometimes in the form of graven images, sometimes even in the form of philosophical systems purporting to represent ultimate reality.
Finally, men have always known that they should be able to have communion with their Creator and to experience His presence “within.” But this deep intuition of the Holy Spirit has been corrupted into various forms of false mysticism and fanaticism, and even into spiritism and demonism. Thus, the truth of God’s tri-unity is ingrained in man’s very nature, but he has often distorted it and substituted a false god in its place.”
Unless you can show me how the above biblical interpretations are incorrect, I suggest you keep yours to yourself.
@206
You’ll find out when you to go highschool, its not my job to eduacate you about anything
@208
yea your job is to learn from me.
Therefore, heed this wise saying young grasshoppa:
it is not one’s job to educate those wiser than themselves.
Wah 18:7
its not about wisdom, its about knowledge and capability to use it to understand the world we live in
please get proper eduacation, praying for god wont help you feed your family
“praying for god wont help you feed your family”
the Israelites would beg to differ in Exodus 16:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016%20;&version=45;
In short, the Israelites come to the wilderness of Sin. They murmur for food, God promises bread from heaven.
Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic. Things like bread folling from the sky is something that can be researched academically, but obviously is not. So that means there is only one conculsion: All the academica is spiked with atheists who produce nothing, but just wallow in their materialist filth. Don’t you think we should remove them? All those geologists who don’t believe in the flood. All those biologists and medical scientists who use evolutionary approaches fighting viruses, bacteria, parasites and cancer (and I tell you, it’s pretty much all of them).
Their work, even though sucessful is not sanctioned by the scripture. What should we do with them?
@212
“Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic.”
So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?
“Don’t you think we should remove them?
What should we do with them?”
What do you think? You don’t need me to answer that for yourself.
“i’m young enough to be a teacher.
it’s called not being anal and in a hurry. what am i, writing an essay here?”
I sincerely hope you’re not a science teacher then. Probably shoudln’t be marking any lengthy reports either. I was refering to words like ladder vs. latter, which are spelt exactly the way you sound; unless you have a thick American accent – that’s hardly being anal.
Why is it that almost all Creationists are from the US? It’s virtually non-existant in Europe, Australia and NZ. Suggestions in those regions were immediately laughed out.
When was the last time “Creation Scientists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to existing knowledge/technology?
Also, once again to stress. You CANNOT validate your argument by posting evidence from biased sites. Would you accept my evidence for the benifits of eugenics if I linked to a skin-head web site?
Wah:
“So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
Well, if the work is not published in peer reviewed journals, there is no way to tell if the research was done properly. And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth, this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible. Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.
Well, scientists won’t change their attitude (this has to do with their petty dependence on evidence), so what shall we do with them? I mean, this is a real problem. They are noisy and they impede our strive for a virtuous and God-fearing society.
@214 Word! ;D
@wah
To have a rigid idea of how things should be and then try to force the puzzle to fit is not science and never will be.
Religion is rigid, science is not, it changes by default if something is disproved. Religion evades the proof and tries to come up with excuses. Or just ignore it, and call parts of the bible allegorical. (when it rains god opens a window in the heavens.) I bet they actually believed he did back in the day, just like Thor made lightning with his hammer. But why don’t you… could it be because science proved it wrong?
Your God is a god who hides in the holes of our knowledge, and the holes are shrinking.
“So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
When discussing thing outside of their area of expertise, yes.
As for DNA similarity, not all DNA is expressed. A lot of it is things like retroviral DNA insertions, which are not a part of genotype, and which ARE a concrete indication of common ancestry. Your quote ignores this, as well as other things like the structural similarities between human and chimp DNA. For example the large section of telomeres in the middle of one of the human chromosomes that corresponds to where two ape chromosomes fused at one point in our ancestry. Again, this is damn good indication of common ancestry as telomeres have no business being in the middle of a chromosome, their only function is to control replication at the ends of the DNA strand.
Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics. Which is entirely the point really.
I can promise everybody that it does not matter where you get the info from, it is going to be biased in some way. You guys are trying to have wah get his backing from an “scientific” place, yet that same “scientific” place teaches evolution. At the same time, wah is trying to get you to get proof from just as valid “scientific” places, only they believe in ID. However, you believe that anybody who believes in ID must not believe in science. This is the problem with credibility. Both sides have plenty of credibility, yet each side maintains that their credibility is better. In a situation like this, credibility fails…
Therefore, why dont some of you guys trying to disprove wah take a whack at my little “conundrum” I posted a little bit back. It requires no credibility, only thought. The only person who has attempted it (at least as far as I could tell…) was Costa, who gave me some really cheap answers. Im curious what happens when credibility fails and one has to return to his/her own logic for the answers…Im also curious to see if my logic has any holes in it…I dont doubt it does, but I think Im pretty close to the truth right now…
The difference is that wah was making claims about the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, using sources that even a passing scientific knowledge can demolish, and that a simple critical reading of will find to be littered with lies, fallacies, and quote mining. Ironic, considering they usually try to claim the moral high ground at the same time.
As for your conundrum… I’ll go look for it… dunno how long I’ll be.
@ 219 Darth Arcon
point me to the right post please
“When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”
Is that what you meant? This.. badly formed version of pascals wager?
LMAO
False dichotomy is the least of the fallacies in this one. It is not a simple either or choice. I cannot choose to believe in something I think is wrong simply because it might be convenient to me if I was wrong. Apart from that there is the fact that if you ARE right, and I get “punished” for an eternity for making the best conclusion out of the available data, I would never choose to worship your deity anyway, he’s a knob.
Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him. Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is. And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is. Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school? I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.
Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.
/me officially done with this thread.
@velo
#195
@220
Hmm, yet again you are not the one that can supposedly “demolish” his findings easily. Someone had to do that for you, and for that you need the credibility of that person. You cant just say the community can easily confront such things. If you do, then that implies the existence of a credible person that did it at some point. To avoid this, you need to use your own logic, and not count on these “supposed” figures like “90% of the scientific community believes this.” Where did that number come from? And even if that number is true, what percent of that 90% were force to believe it due to peer pressure? My point of all this isnt to have you go looking for sources, it is to avoid the need for credibility entirely…do it yourself…
@222
Yeah, kinda. That ending was just something I was thinking of at the time and kinda ended up in there. Mostly Im talking about morality. The point you make is a good one, but then again it is still somewhat thin. Your still forgetting that NOTHING matters in evolution. It doesnt matter what people believe in, we could all believe that we come from a spontaneous combustion out of random rocks. Heh, we could believe that pink unicorn and happy frog story from earlier! It doesnt matter if evolution is indeed true. About the choice, who cares what you think? Thats the point. It doesnt matter if your happy or depressed because of such choices, it makes no difference (in an evolutionist’s world, that is). As for your final comment, from MY perspective (in case you dont get it, this is a hypothetical), you have seen the correct evidence and didnt believe it because you are stubborn. In my book, that would be equivalent to a big, fat FU to God’s face…yeah, if I was God, you can be sure I wouldnt want that happening…
@223
Well, we cant force you to a decision. It is you that decides, and it is quite clear what your decision is, even though your still talking like you have credible backing…Thats all fine and dandy, but dont judge people because of their belief. I think that is rather rude to try and pretend like you know him. You have no idea who he is, or even if its a dude! Thanks for your time, regardless.
And so the discusion continues. Boy this seems to have been a touchy subject. In an earlier post of mine (pg 1) “The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.” As for the flood issue: Every time it rains it rains water once held on earth gone to the atmosphere by evaporation. If all H2O were released from the atmosphere at once it would only be enough to cover all land mass by 2 inches. The funny thing would be for someone to travel this in a ship 300 cubits long (whats a cubit) for 40 days without becoming beached. I would assume (unless your God gave it some hovercraft capabilities) Noah would have beached in a very short time.
By the way I’m selling a statue on Staton Island if your interested. LOL
@214 BOB
“Why is it that almost all Creationists are from the US? It’s virtually non-existant in Europe, Australia and NZ. Suggestions in those regions were immediately laughed out.”
You tell me. AFIK, popularity and notoriety doesn’t change absolute truth.
——–
“When was the last time “Creation Scientists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to existing knowledge/technology?”
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. The fact is that those scientists were driven by the ‘theistic worldview’ to explore the world around them, even if they weren’t ‘bible-believing Christians’. But since these men generally believed that the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Ps. 19: 1), IMO, I believe that they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature’s mysteries. Apparently, “creationism” wasn’t in common use until the late 19th century, but prior to that time, the Christian worldview (common in Europe at the time) supported the underlying ‘principles’ that made ’scientific inquiry’ possible and desirable and provided the basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish.
Such principles can be loosely described as:
[creation ex nihlio (that God created the orderly world around us, reflecting His rational nature)],
or [Gen. 1:26-7 (that humankind was uniquely created in God's image, thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order],
or [God's general revelation (God's creative actions discoverable in nature - "God's world")],
or [the teachings of the New Testament and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament which both consistently exhorts God's people to exercise the virtues of discernment, reflection, and vigorous analysis.]
These principles served as the backdrop for the emerging ‘experimental method/scientific inquiry’ (testability, verification/falsification).
Charle’s Hummel says, “some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, and the validity of mathematics and logic. I believe those are ‘rooted in Christian theism’s claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe’s intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish.’
Besides, it’s a pointless question for you to ask. That’s on the order of, “When was the last time “theists” produced anything of value in terms of adding value to the naturalists’ worldview?”
——
“Would you accept my evidence for the benifits of eugenics if I linked to a skin-head web site?”
They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. On the other hand, biased or not, I’ve presented you historical evidence that is actually related to the topic at hand. Even if it is not really credible and appears to be, that doesn’t relieve your obligation as a debater to refute it, which you really haven’t directly done. Oh, you misspelled “benifits”.
***************
@215 Who Cares
“And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth,”
Are you positively sure about that? And do you assume there’s only one creationist model?
——
“this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible”
And for what reason do you believe that the scientific community rejects ID journals? its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals? political controversy? misunderstandings about the theory itself? “popular opinion”? “new paradigm opposition?” and speaking of the mere “opposition of new paradigms”, it is only to be expected that they are rejected, even if there are evidence.
So the real question is: Does the scientific community decide to publicize (or not) a peer-reviewed journal on the basis of its evidential merits, or simply because of the above?
So is your opinion on ID or Christianity in general because you’ve actually tested the theory or historical evidence yourself and see if it holds up? or is it based upon its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals, or by the “popular opinion” of the scientific community?
———
“Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.”
And your point?
*************
@217 Velo
Science changes because our knowledge increases through research and methods. But the truth that God speaks by His creation and the ‘dynamic universe’ which God created for us to discover and learn will never change.
************
@218 Redem
“Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics.”
Have you ever considered that it was just a summary, and that the sources and references used in that summary have already taken into account of what you were talking about?
————-
@222 Redem
“for making the best conclusion out of the available data”
the data in question is the world around you that God created for you to make a conclusion out of. So I take it you worship the created rather than the Creator?
***********
@223 Not Stupid
“Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him.”
…and coming from someone who appears to be completely narrow-minded and unable to look from another’s perspective, let alone think outside the box.
Moreover, you’re judging my beliefs based on what again? Your determination or lack of research?
————–
“Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is.”
No shi_t sherlock holmes.
——————-
“And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is.”
You make the claim in Scripture. You back it up with verses.
——————-
“Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school?”
Guess again. You thought I was Catholic because it appeared to you that I knew more about Catholic history than I should, which contradicts your claim that I “can not study beyond the “Bible””.
——————-
“I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.”
I’m sorry. Did I ever offer you salvation?
——————–
“Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.”
Seems like you did that a little too well when you replied to my earlier responses. And it looks to me you do it much better than I.
@225 me
“The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.”
After 500 years I’m pretty sure protestants, who charged the catholic church for teaching biblical doctrine contradictory to the Word of God, would’ve checked to see if it is indeed what the Trinity claims to be.
———————-
“As for the flood issue:”
If you believe that God helped Noah, then what’s the problem?
Darth Archon, if you were god you wouldn’t be worth worshipping either.
You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.
Morality isn’t really gone they way you claim it is. It’s simply not an absolute. There is a difference. Nor is there a lack of meaning, simply a lack of a meaning imposed from outside. There is as much meaning from an evolutionary standpoint as there is from a gravitational one. The claim is meaningless when you consider that morality has nothing to do with science. You are conflating science with naturalism, and nihilism.
Perhaps your world view is more.. comforting, more fulfilling or whatever… I don’t really care. I care if it’s right, and that is the only standards to which I hold it. I also compare it to the similar views expressed by the hundreds of other religious groups in the world, and there is nothing that makes yours stand out from the crowd.
@227 Redem
“You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.”
Actually it’s the other way around. God ascribes his attributes or ‘desires’ onto humans. As Gen. 1:26-7 tells us God created us in His image. It is man’s fall (sin) that corrupted these attributes/desires within him. For example, we’re jealous out of hate (at least 99% of the time), while God is jealous out of love.
“Morality play”
Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?
Wah:
Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!
Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.
So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?
My goodness we’ve reached page three. I think this is a milestone for my TV posts. I encourage more discussions.
@229 Who Cares
Well, I guess you’re not sure at all that there are no peer-reviewed journals. Why make a claim you’re not sure of? Oh, that’s right. It shows your lack of confidence.
“Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!”
As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?
“Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID…”
Are you absolutely sure you don’t need the lack of evidence to reject ID? Maybe what you need is the belief that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals, or the simple lack of inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to you. Is the science that is commonly excluded from the journals excluded because it is not good science or because it is simply out-of-step with the “current teachings of science?”
——————-
“…will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.”
That wasn’t the case with the transition from geocentricism to heliocentrism. And let me make an educated guess: you’re a biologist?
—————
“So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?”
Oh, now you’re accusing me of burning down abortion clinics? Who do you think you’re talking to? A fundamentalist? If you’re so butt hurt about ‘anti-scientists’ who fight on the front-line then you need to leave somewhere political to murmur to extreme zealots. I’m sure they’ll straighten you up pretty good. As for me, on some grounds, admittedly science is an enemy to God but for the most part, it’s an ally, serving to affirm God’s truth, by discovering and learning about the world that God’s given to us, through the scientific method.
*****************
@230 Mr. X
How you’re doing Mr. X?
“Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal”
None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians. And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid. I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.
Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.
Newton believed in alchemy.
And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.
Take that as you will.
@232
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
@232 BOB
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
@232 BOB
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the center of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. Allow me to spin your view to how science appears to me: What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is soo loow below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
uhhh… oops. would someone mind deleting the first two comments I accidentally made, including this one?
Wah:
So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word? Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories? He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago. Nobody likes a liar.
You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin.
All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.
I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?
Well, of course not, only a madman would think so.
But not you, as you are clearly not a fundamentalist.
You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a month, make the water disappear without leaving any trace and replenish the biosphere with every animal we see today, ressurect all the drowned plants, give the pinguin, the boa and the koala directions how to reach their natural habitat (considering they start their journy at the middle east) and reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.
Yeah, that’s a rational stance.
@237 Who cares
I totally agree.
Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.
But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark).
One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc. That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today. in 5500 years. WOW.
As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.
I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.
A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?
A God who is such a prick does now deserve anyone’s worship.
Luckily he doesn’t exist, unfortunately people believe he does, so it doesn’t really matter.
If there ever will be a global catastrophe that wipes out all life on this planet I’m betting my cards on its because people cant agree on who’s invisible friend is the right one.
“Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?”
Relative, rather than subjective. And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.
“As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?”
It’s not a matter of “could” such a being do it, but did such a being do it. The evidence says no.
Newton and Copernicus are only recognised as scientists by a simplistic view of history. They were student of the universe, certainly, but not scientists as we use the term today. They’re given the title as an honourary term in recognition of their contribution to the development of science.
@Redem (227)
You do realize that is still not a valid answer, right? What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.” Typical evolutionist perspective there. Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like? Sure, we can make an educated guess based on what little facts we do know from countless experiments, but it is still only a guess. We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks. Im not saying science didnt play a large part in that conclusion, what I AM saying is that where science stopped, human logic filled in the gaps.
Now, this is but an example of how science cannot prove everything. So, when you turn around and say that what I stated is false simply because it cannot be scientifically proven, you are using this pre-conceived “fallback” to avoid the need to come up with a logical response. I dont want you to tell me, “Thats just the way it is.” Such a response betrays you own belief.
If morality has meaning in evolution……..ya know what? It doesnt! The day morality has meaning in evolution is the day when (for lack of a creative idea that will never happen, sorry Im not very good at thinking of pink unicorn stories…) pigs fly. When looking at morality within an evolutionary perspective, it doesnt exist! According to evolution, we are nothing but mindless animals, so why dont we act like it? And dont tell me it is because we are civilized. What advantage does civilization play in the terms of evolution? Even if human being acted in a way that was only advantageous to themselves, they would still survive and, eventually with evolution being true, would evolve into yet another mindless animal who would continue the process.
As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong? You are still, obviously, missing the point by saying such comments. IF you are right, the fact you are trying to “educate” me in your belief is pointless. It doesnt matter what you or I believe, eventually we will both end up dead in the ground (or cremated, but thats not the point…). You waist precious energy trying to disprove me, energy you could be using to pass your genetic material on so that you may be a more “fit” creature. You are betraying your existence by continuing to come back! Yet, here you are, still trying to put up the good fight. Explain that with science!
“What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.””
“If there’s no good evidence for it, there’s no good reason for accepting it.” is how I would have put it.
A typical rational response.
“Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like?”
That you even use a term like “scientifically proven” display a lack of understanding of science. Nothing is proven to an absolute sense in science, to the extent that things are “proven”, the structure of an atom has been. That scientists are willing to specify the limits of their knowledge is a damn cite better than the religious community is.
The structure of an atom can be derived from the behaviours of subatomic particles, and from the behaviour of atoms. Both of which have been studied in minute detail over the years by the best particle physicists in the business.
Their conclusions, and the continual mounting evidence for their current model, amounts to a hell of a lot better than a mere “educated guess”.
An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence. The conclusions of the scientific community goes far beyond that.
“We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks.”
Again with the highschool science education. Those diagrams are massive simplifications used to help young students grasp extremely difficult concepts like the structure of atoms. As their education progresses they learn more and more and more complex models are presented to them. Like particles as quantum probability waves, for example. Or DNA as mapping proteins, rather than being a “blueprint” for an organism.
Do not confuse high school science teaching with the real thing.
And what you describe as “human logic” is the human understanding of the rules of the universe. We recognise them, we don’t invent.
You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available. They also are based on the opinions of people who really have no basis for them, priests compiling their oral traditions from bronze age Judea. They’re also internally inconsistent, with multiple accounts differing in some of the details. Mutually incompatible accounts.
Then there is the “arguments” that are raised time and again by creationists to support their cause. Ones regarding the second law of thermodynamics are a person bugbear of mine. Many of them are plain and simply either lies or are based on a total distortion of the science and evidence.
The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality, unless you are really just trying to abuse strawmen?
“As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong?”
I care.
And I do not subscribe to nihilism. You present a false dichotomy of either nihilism or fundamentalism. I choose neither.
My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.
@237 Who Cares
“So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word?”
And where does that say in Scripture?
—————
“Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories?”
I don’t see anything wrong that. Science need not be an enemy of faith, because science deals only with natural cause and effect: not *disproving* the supernatural, but merely ignoring it.
—————
“He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago.”
One of my Christian acquaintances has a BS in philosophy, who happens to be the leader for the College & Career Fellowship. Last time I checked he’s still a Christian. I think it’s safe to say God is still alive and well these days, don’cha think?
—————
“Nobody likes a liar.”
That’s an outrageous claim. Could you back that up with Scripture?
—————-
“You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin…..I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?”
That’s all cool, and, admittedly, that’s one of the reasons why I believe that evolution should not be entirely kicked out. I’ll be honest, I completely SUCK in a wide range of scientific fields (biology and what not) but when it comes to Geology, I’m not all that smart at it but its a different thing for me. So all I can take out of evolution is that I believe that those who follow the theory believe that everything around us has evolved out of something else, hence the title: Evolution. I believe that God has created us in such a complex way, so we’d be interested in learning things, finding things out, researching stuff about ourselves and about this world. Basically I believe that God delights in things like when we study out his creativity. Thats the okay side to evolution in my opinion. Whats not okay is that just like everything else in this world, evolution can take our minds and hearts off God when we go too far.
—————
“All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.”
You’re absolutely right! All is well, even if people like Dr. Josef Mengele further the advancement of medicine.
—————
“…I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?”
Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.
In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.
I will look at from your perspective and admit that evolution is part of the basic biological science cirriculum, of course, but also that the natural world that biology and the other scientific disciplines describe IS part of God’s revelation to man and Christians not only can, but must, learn from if they are to avoid gnosticism–a heresy some parts of the Christian conservative movement are perilously very close to.
Still, there are many more productive ways to spend our time than in debating evolution. Even when it comes to education, schools are teaching things far more harmful than evolution. (Most of you, for example, would be shocked to hear what schools there in New England teach as part of sex ed.)
—————-
“You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a….reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.”
That’s not hard to believe if you’re a Biblical theist who believes in the power of God here. If God is capable of creation ex-nihilo then stretching the laws of physics shouldn’t be too hard for God, now is it?
———–
“Yeah, that’s a rational stance.”
Rationality is not the only way to perceive reality, let alone know things.
Evolution has been widely accepted by the scientific community at large for the better part of the last half century. In the spirit of exploring a basic theological question, the problem Christians, and more and more scientists, have with teaching evolution in school, is that, as a theory it is becoming less tenable with every new discovery. In light of this as we already know, many Christians and scientists, have been advocating the introduction of the ID theory. In fact, many in the political and scientific sphere having been lining up against these new forays into the ID curriculum on the grounds that it is “anti-science” and religious. Of course, the problem with this is that theory of evolution is on life-support itself and ID is at least as scientific as evolution (and I say a great deal more so) and the ID curriculum in no way teaches about God, or Christianity, or any other religion or religious activity. The reason so many people are so vehemently against the introduction of ID is that there are now two different faces to the scientific community: the impartial face, that gathers evidence and postulates theories based on research and repeatable experiments. The other face is that of science as dogma, where scientists have taken on a world-view and they are desperate to make the evidence fit the Christian doctrine. As far as wiping out evolution? If it is unsupportable, as it is becoming more and more clear that it is, then there is nothing that can be learned from it, and it should be swept onto the trash-heap of history.
*******************************
@238 Velo
“Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.”
How any Creationist can believe that God is capable of creation ex-nihilo but not stretch the laws of science is beyond me.
—————
“But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark). One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc.”
Babies? Like I said before, you could always take the babies. They’re smaller. You could also only take two dogs, not a dog of every KIND. Dogs do change and still remain dogs. Let me also point out that if God can find a way to flood the Earth I think he can work out these small details.
—————
“That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today.”
God created the universe just 6 chapters earlier. He caused a flood that will destroy virtually all life on the planet in the last chapter. He’s about to repopulate the Earth again. However, your big hang up is over farm animals…it seems rather reasonable that God creating life could also perform miracles.
————–
“in 5500 years. WOW. As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.”
The fact that you base most of your entire argument on “5500 years” logic, basically rules out your entire argument at the least because you’re not talking to a Young-Earth Creationist here. In fact, I would lean more heavily on the Day-age creationism. And even if I was a young-earth creationist, I would simply argue that if God can create the universe, organize the cosmos, design DNA and well everything else, I’m sure He can figure SOMETHING out. I would ask you what makes you think that Satan couldn’t of distorted nature to lie about God? But it’s just hypothetical. God very well could have used evolution to create all things as we know it. The bible said God created everything in 6 days but who knows exactly how long a day was? It doesn’t necessarily mean 24 hours for all we know it could be millions of years. Some Christians read it literary and others figuratively. Nevertheless, it’s still speculation. But since science wasn’t invented those days, it was most likely written as an historical event. Some say it is to be read poetically. I would suggest that the answer comes down to what you think constitutes faithful reading of God’s Word. If you believe all Scripture must be read literally (which is to say, take it a face value and ignore the entire cultural modes in which the Scripture writers communicated), then you should believe the earth was created in six days; but you should also go ahead and pluck out your eye for causing you to sin. To say, or ignorantly presuppose like you have, that all scripture must be read literally is quite dangerous and frankly ignores the way the Holy Spirit used the different literary expressions his people used to communicate. To argue that not taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally means not taking Jesus literally is a logical fallacy of cosmic proportions. Jesus himself did not intend to be taken at face value every time he spoke. He was too smart for that. His teaching abounds with poetry, allegory, hyperbole and a plethora of other literary devices that would be simply ridiculous if taken ‘literally.’ Genesis 1 and 2 are works of poetry that are unmatched in the ancient world just because of their sheer beauty and poetic structure. They were meant to teach something to God’s people. God is the supreme and only Creator and sustainer of that creation. Man is his most prized creation. The Sabbath is the day in which man honors God by ceasing his work and remembering the created order, with God being at its pinnacle. That is the point of Genesis 1 and 2. Get your ‘facts’ str8 before you make false accusations!
Besides and more importantly, all of these seem like rather petty obstacles when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
————
“I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.”
God understands better then we can and ever will be. That’s why He’s perfect and we’re not.
————
“A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?”
What you are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn’t exist. Such assertion is illogical from the start. So what you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You want to use illogic to prove God doesn’t exist instead of logic. It doesn’t work and the “paradox” is self-refuting and invalid.
***************************
@239 Redem
“Relative, rather than subjective.”
Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?
—————–
“And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.”
So, more or less, you do recognize that throughout history and across the globe that morals have simply changed and are merely different between societies and cultures, physically defined more by demographic regions than most other factors. But what about the effects of relative morality from different periods of history and their societal/cultural influences? To simply put it, do we even need a trans-cultural basis for moral values? If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.
—————
“Newton and Copernicus….”
That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.
@ Velo and Who Cares
The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin. Yet your evolutionary belief absolutely requires death for it’s advancement. But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as ‘theistic evolutionists’ would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? By you clinging to evolutionary dogma, both of you would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for your sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In your vain attempts to deny Scripture with evolutionary theory, you only wind up shutting yourselves up from God’s Good News, as you remain dead in your sins.
IMHO, the Word of God is law, not theory. While evolution is theory, not law. As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.
“Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?”
Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.
And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?
If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine.
“If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.”
Nope.
There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever. All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.
Something absolutists rarely understand,or at least rarely seem to remember.
“That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.”
As I said, I care about being correct. And my statement was correct. Those men were not scientists. Science, as we use the term today, postdates those men by a large margin. They were natural philosophers.
Nowhere did I say that creationists have not contributed to science. I was merely undermining your attempted appeal to authority
“The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin.”
Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.
“As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.”
There are few laws in biology, such terms have mostly been phased out of science, except as an historical anachronism. When it is used it is to describe an aspect of the universe, such as the laws of gravity being little more than a few formulae for calculating the effects of gravitation on bodies of mass. Of course they’re little more than broad generalisations that only work to a useful degree of accuracy in working out orbits and such. And even then they’re a bit iffy.
A theory in science is an explanation of observed phenomenon, a much broader and more expansive beast than a mere law. Theories are the goal towards which scientists work.
So, you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Because direct and repeated observations of it in laboratories worldwide would seem good enough for that. Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it? That’s a tall order to ask, on a par with asking us to prove the entire history of every molecule on earth, right back to baryogenesis.
As far as anything can be proven outside of mathematics, the theory of evolution has been. Long since.
“Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.”
last I checked the title of the chapter was “The theory of evolution”. What more clues do you think kids need?
Of course, they also need be taught what a scientific theory is
“In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.”
This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.
As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-109206.html
Wah.
May I destill the wisedom of your annoyingly long posting:
Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.
Wah, do you know what an ‘electric monk’ is? Are you one?
“Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.
And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?
If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine…”
Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).
“There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever.”
Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?
“All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.”
Do you think there should be one?
“Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.”
AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.
“Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it?”
I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.
“This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.
As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.”
I don’t remember exactly how it’s spelled, somewhere along the lines of paleoevolution or….something. I’m not at all referring to the view that the process of evolutionary theories accumulate data over time to reveal better understanding for us about the entire history of Evolution. My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.
@Who Cares
“Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.”
Only true if you’re trying to explain away theology about God to a theist. And that’s exactly what you were trying to do. In your attempt to do just that in an area which you obviously lack in, your words became meaningless.
Here’s a phrase that sums up your entire point: “I don’t know what I’m really talking about.”
@Who Cares
And you know what is true in Scripture?
“For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]” Rom 1:20
“No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God” Rom 3:11
Wah
Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!
“Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).”
Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.
“Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?”
Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.
“Do you think there should be one?”
Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?
“AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.”
Ignoring allegorical interpretations, it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.
“I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.”
It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.
Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.
Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.
We HAVE seen it in action.
“My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.”
I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.
For paleoevolution I get 5 pages of google results. Hardly the “next big thing”, or even the last big thing for that matter. From the looks of it the term is simply used to discuss the evolution of historical creatures, i.e. those in the fossil record. As the name would suggest.
“Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.”
Think of any law in your local area, city, state/province or country that someone else may disagree on its morality.
“Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.”
So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?
“Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?”
So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?
“it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.”
I agree, to a certain extent that it possesses a spiritual, non-corporeal reality to it. It could be viewed as well as a supernatural phenomenon simply because the manifestation of a physical reality is a direct result from God’s personal and intimate interaction with His corporeal creation.
“It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.
Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.”
So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?
“Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.
We HAVE seen it in action.”
I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.
“I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.”
I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.
Redem, you are still avoiding the issue. Your post in response to mine (which is actually the only one I read, Im a little short on time right now…) is blowing what I said WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.
Almost your entire response was a bogus use of words which sole purpose it to distort what you are actually saying. Why are you incapable of staying on subject? Stop attacking every single word I say. Your missing the point, which is rather sad. If you cant read my…apparently “highschool” explanation, and get what I intended to say, that is rather pathetic…
Now, to maintain the subject integrity…
Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.”
“An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence.”
HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent. Maybe I should have used the term “educated opinion”. While they both mean the same thing (and yes, they do both mean the same thing), the word “opinion” seems to be more clear. An “educated opinion” is when you cannot come to a solid conclusion, and therefore, need to pool what knowledge you DO have together and connect the dots using your good ole’ brain…It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false. Actually, thats all Im gunna say bout that cause this is just an unnecessary tangent…
“You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available.”
Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that…Yet again, you seem a master at skewing other people’s words for your own ends…You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”. Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…
“The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality”
You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument. First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans. Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?! Besides, both paths (morality vs immorality) come to the same conclusion, your survival. For the longest time, immorality ruled. Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!
“My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.”
Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.
@250 Who Cares
“Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!”
I don’t think you seem to understand my point of view. Obviously, I’ve made an attempt to see your side but instead attack my beliefs simply because it is different from yours. I believe that science is not the ‘be-all-end-all’ of explaining everything and all things as opposed to it being one of the many ways to understand things.
From a scientific-biological POV, it is logically impossible to rationally *comprehend* things concerning spirituality, moral/absolute truth (in the sense that it doesn’t recognizes its existence), religious theology, history, dynamic human interpersonal relationships, artistic forms of literature, vocal/instrumental music, etc. Things of that nature are simply beyond its reach/grasp. For any science-biologists to attempt to apprehend such things is doomed to failure.
Likewise, Scripture does not teach you differential calculus, Internet web surfing, automotive construction, things of that nature. So for a Biblical theist to try to apprehend them from a theological perspective is simply silly.
Are there other ways to understand reality other than Scriptural and biological views? I certainly believe so. There’s mythological ways, historical ways, literary ways, economical and political ways, financial ways, etc. You get my point.
Can I understand reality from a scientific-biological and Scriptural-spiritual POV? Yes. It appears to me that you’ve either failed to open your mind to a new perspective of understanding reality as we know it to be OR, instead, insisted upon to stay within your comfort zone to believe, no, just consider, that the reality we live in cannot be apprehended from a perspective simply foreign to your way of thinking.
Consider the following biblical verses that show us that even though God revealed Himself to us through our reality (or rather the ‘one’ He put us in), we have failed to become ’spiritually aware’ due to the hardness of our hearts.
“For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” Romans 1:19
“Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.” Romans 1:21-23
@ Redem
“Now, to maintain the subject integrity…
Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””
I think you may be having difficulty understanding morality outside of the scientific-evolutionary perspective. That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.
@ Darth Arcon
“Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”
I agree!
Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.
@Who cares
I forgot to mention that in Romans 1:19; 21-23, Paul was addressing the Gentiles with a natural revelation view. The Greeks held natural philosophy that ‘generally’ rejected religious explanations for natural phenomena, favoring physical explanations instead, but it’s arguable that they may have included theological elements)
“So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?”
Not what I said. I said, I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t. You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.
“So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?”
No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.
“So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?”
No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
F=GmM/(r^2)
It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.
Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.
Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.
And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”
Pointless.
True, but still pointless.
“I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.”
Direct observations from apes to humans, no. We use the fossil record and genetic and anatomical and biochemical and behavioural evidences to infer that based on the knowledge that things do evolve.
And trust me, the theory of evolution is far better supported than any current theory of gravity.
Although, to be fair, there are a couple of theories of gravity and none really work all that well. Loop quantum gravity’s looking good at the moment, but who knows? We haven’t even found the graviton yet.
“I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.”
Not as I understand it. Or as wiki understands it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Punctuatedequilibrium.png
Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.
@257 Redem
“I said,”
AFAIKS, you never said.
“I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t.”
IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?
“You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.”
Only when the only arbiter is your opinion? So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?
“No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.”
What about accountability?
“No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
F=GmM/(r^2)
It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.
Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.”
I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?
“Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.”
I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.
“And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”
Pointless.
True, but still pointless.”
In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??
“Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.”
Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?
“You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.”
The point I was making is that simplistic models taught to students are not representative of the actual science done by scientists. It’s a simplified story for kids to help them learn. Attacking a simplified model of evolution is not making your argument any better.
Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence. But if you are going to sit here and say that the universe doesn’t really work in a way that science can study, and that we’re just deluding ourselves when we study it as if it were rational… You have a hell of a job supporting that claim. The sheer effectiveness of science is testament to the efficacy of the scientific method and “human logic”.
“Why are you incapable of staying on subject?”
It’s called a comparison
“Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool.”
Oh I can recognise the difference, I just insist on making it plain, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. My use of language is overly precise for that reason.
““Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””
I did not say science can support everything. Scientific evidence is empirical by it’s nature, and can only support anything that is of the “natural” world. Abstractions are not. However, evolution is of the natural world, and can be supported, which is the topic under discussion.
Besides, morality can be studied, if not in the usual “hard science” kinda way. Psychology, one of the soft sciences, deals with that. Socio-biology, I think, to be specific.
“HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent.”
No, an attempt to accurately define the term. Definitions are important to any debate.
If you disagree with it present a better one, or point out te problems with the one I used.
“It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false.”
Yes. But the best conclusion made with all the avilable evidence is still the best conclusion made with all the available evidence.
Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.
“You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”.”
Actually I said if there wasn’t evidence it wasn’t science. A very different thing. And a very proper statement to make.
“Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…”
I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.
This is not so much a fallback as the initial stages of studying any claim. Assessing the evidence.
“You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument.”
I get your point, but you seem to be so locked into a black and white world fo false dichotomies that you fail to comprehend my responses.
“First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans.”
Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.
I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.
“Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?!”
As a side effect of something else which is advantageous.
“For the longest time, immorality ruled.”
Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.
“Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…”
I do not recall saying this. In fact, nothing like this.
“And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!”
Evolution has no more or less morality than any other force of nature. If your claim is that evolution cannot account for morality, this is false. Morality is simply self interest afterall.
If it’s something else, make it clear so we can discuss it.
“Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”
Hardly an error in logic.
Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.
“That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.”
I know. I am simply dealing with his denial that morality is possible from an evolutionary stand point.
“Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.”
The problem comes from the lack of understanding of my view.
Just because I think that morality is a socio-biological construct, does not mean that I must therefore declare it valueless and must then ignore it. It simply means that I do not ascribe a supernatural origin for it. It is still valuable to me for a number of reasons. It’s enabled humanity to reach a point where my life can be comfortable, and almost entirely safe. Where I can spare the time from base survival to think on things and ponder the nature of reality. Where I can talk to people thousands of miles away and treat them as equals, not competitors. On a more personal level it means I can trust my friends and family, and society at large, not to screw me over and leave me bleeding in the dust. It means life is good. Why would I need ot reject this because there is no absolute objective source for it?
It is also the point that morality is something that is ingrained in me, not something I can simply choose to ignore, even if I was inclined to follow your reasoning. It would be like choosing not to care about my nation, just because there is no reasonable justifiable reason for blind patriotism. I still care about historical injustices to my antion and my people, even though I consciously forgive Britain for it, I am still an Irishman through and through, and our history sometimes makes my blood burn.
I do not need to deny my humanity because I think we are the result of our ancestors struggle for survival and offspring.
“IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?”
Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.
They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.
“So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?”
It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.
“What about accountability?”
What about it?
“I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?”
On that level it is not really all that interesting. The theory though, that’s an area for study. The results of which will be life changeing for us all.
“I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.”
Adaption is based on luck, to a degree. No matter how well suited an organism is to survive, it can still be removed by a stray rock falling off a cliff. But evolution is not a matter for luck in and off itself. Luck applies to the individuals involved, not the overall process.
“In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??”
In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.
“Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?”
Cover up? Errr… no?
It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.
Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
Things of that nature.
Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.
You can’t discuss with people who are not willing to accept the simple truth, that life is over when you’re dead.
One thing is for sure: autosuggestion works great.
@259 Redem
“Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.
I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.”
That’s an interesting viewpoint. However, IMO, I think what distinguishes us from primates and all other life on Earth is we are conscientiously aware of our immoral acts. We all have the primal instincts to survive and reproduce but while our immoral acts are driven by our logical/rational/thinking and emotional parts of the brain, their immoral acts are driven by the physical/involuntary/impulsive parts of their brain. Although they appear to commit immoral acts from their emotional and logical parts of the brain, their behavior is only conditioned in whatever environment they are in, even if they pass their behavioral patterns to the next generation. Basically, they don’t universally know right from wrong because they merely act on what was programmed into their brains or whatever ‘ethics’ was raised or conditioned into their behavior. Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.
“Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.”
It may appear to you that way but it seems to me that by God’s standard, at least according to Scripture, sin ‘ruled’ ever since ‘Man’s Fall’. So it is not only by modern standards but also by God’s standard that immorality has ruled for a long time, in fact far too long. First, God punished the Israelites for their disobedience before anyone else. There was no other way for the Israelites, or mankind for that matter, to receive God’s timely message of redemption without His direct intervention into a world that was already rampant with immorality. Although the issue of God’s accountability is a whole different matter, while God doesn’t condone the immoral acts that the Israelites committed to their neighbors on behalf of His instructions to do so, God used them for a greater higher purpose; which is to show them the rewards and consequences of their obedience and disobedience to God, the consequences of their neighbors’ rebellion to Him and how He relationally deals with His own people personally, directly and intimately. Ultimately, one of the major themes of the entire OT serve as an example of how God deals with all mankind through time and space from an individual to a ‘cosmic’ level. FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.
#203 if recording was aviable back then I’m sure we’d have a lot more to show about what the stupid religious did to people in the middle age and even before.
so showing off an obviously christian made movie about communists saying all atheists are communists is really low and stupid. oh wait your IQ must not be over 90 to believe that there is somebody somewhere that threw us up on heart long ago… I forgot my bad.
I’m not atheist, I just don’t believe there is somebody that “lead” our lives and all the crap that happen to mankind is because of redemption. go say to the kids in Africa that die from famine and other wild diseases that it’s because of some god they don’t even know will. They die because of human stupidity and greed. that includes you stupid religious.
I forgot warez is against your religion.. what are you doing here?
“Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.
They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.”
Maybe I’m not making myself clear, so allow me to rephrase my original question: Are you at all sure to any degree that it’s wrong? If so, how sure are you? Sure enough that’s it’s wrong just for you or for two people or more (including yourself)?
“It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.”
I object. You were given a conscience to know right from wrong and the authority to discern it objectively. For instance, at what age do you think constitutes legal drinking?
“What about it?”
I believe people should be held accountable to someone for their immoral actions. Wouldn’t you call on your neighbor if they did something so horrible you couldn’t ignore?
“In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.”
Hmm.. I’m not too sure about that reasoning. Really. I understand of what a scientific (or natural) law is and what a theory is. Personally, I’d rather lean on evolution being a theory as opposed to being a natural law (like gravity). As I (and S.J Gould) pointed out: “our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
The most famous evolutionist of recent years, Stephen J. Gould as we know him wrote in 1977:
‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’ (Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.)
In 1980:
‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980.)
AFIK, nothing has changed since then.
According to my research, no scientist has even been able to explain the process by which evolution brought about even a single common biological system, such as the eye.
“Cover up? Errr… no?
It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.
Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
Things of that nature.
Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.”
That raises my left eyebrow to bring up an excellent point. Gould formulated the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium for a reason: the complete lack of evidence for intermediaries. Gould is one of the best known and most renowned paleontologists of the last century, and one of the most ardent and most well-respected evolutionary theorists. He was absolutely committed to evolution. But even he could see that there was a complete lack of evidence for the gradual evolution of life over time. Thus he promoted Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims that there are bursts of change interspersed amongst long periods of stagnation. (Of course, this just goes to show that evolutionists aren’t going to allow evidence to controvert their theory; they build into the theory immunity from evidence. You see, the theory was tweaked so that the lack of evidence would actually become evidence! Isn’t that nice?) The point is: the evidence of intermediaries is more likely than wholly lacking. I recon that even the best evolutionist of the last century recognized it.
“Just because I think that morality is a socio-biological construct, does not mean that I must therefore declare it valueless and must then ignore it.”
I think you mean socio-cultural relativism.
“It simply means that I do not ascribe a supernatural origin for it.”
Then to what or whom should you ascribe morality to, let alone provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values?
“It’s enabled humanity to reach a point where my life can be comfortable, and almost entirely safe. Where I can spare the time from base survival to think on things and ponder the nature of reality. Where I can talk to people thousands of miles away and treat them as equals, not competitors. On a more personal level it means I can trust my friends and family, and society at large, not to screw me over and leave me bleeding in the dust. It means life is good.”
WOW. You’re not one of those people who give long speeches at thanksgiving dinners are ya? LOL. Anyways, amen to that brother.;) I understand that you’re likely thankful for that. But shouldn’t you thank God for all that too?
“Why would I need ot reject this…It would be like choosing not to care about my nation…”
I think it’s good that you’re thankful for all the good in life and I am too, at least, or I hope so that, you recognize there are other people in this world worse off than you are, way worse. I don’t see any reason to reject that too, at least IMO what God has given to us…
“…there is no absolute objective source…there is no reasonable justifiable reason for blind patriotism.”
Maybe because you’re looking for it from a scientific-biological perspective. You should consider looking for a *different* alternative.
“It is also the point that morality is something that is ingrained in me,”
Scripture shows us “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:19) “They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [e]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [f]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]” Romans 2:15
“…not something I can simply choose to ignore, even if I was inclined to follow your reasoning….even though I consciously forgive Britain for it,”
That’s very good for you. I wouldn’t either. But not everyone as you’ve clearly seen from my above examples willfully chooses to be conscientious, consciously or subconsciously, even to those who follow my reasoning! Scripture affirms that “Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.” Romans 1:21 “And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,” Roman 1:28 “[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless” Romans 1:31
“I still care about historical injustices to my antion and my people,”
…but I also feel it’d be absurd for you, for anyone including me, to live with that kind of [thankful] attitude (not that it’s bad) as though it’s perfectly all right for…….African soldiers to slaughter innocent children. Personally, I can’t live as though it is all right for…sex traffickers to kidnap 13-year-old girls from Mexico City or Thai pre-teens sold into prostitution rings. Can you live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners? Surely you can’t live as though it’s all right for dictators like the late Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in me cries out to say these acts are wrong — really wrong. What about you? More importantly, what about them, the ‘guilty’ ones? Well, I don’t know… Should we deem them ‘guilty’ at all, let alone call their actions wrong? I would certainly hold them accountable to ’someone’ for their immoral actions if I could. In fact, I believe even if we *could* call on anyone’s morals to be surely wrong, then in my heart I’ve held them accountable to me for their misconduct. But that could all be speculation, which I feel uneasy in.
“I do not need to deny my humanity because I think we are the result of our ancestors struggle for survival and offspring.”
If you’re fine and dandy with just that reason alone, then I’m compelled to say that the looking glass of evolutionary biology is not the only avenue to embrace our humanity. I suppose what divides us is that I firmly believe that the value, meaning and purpose of humanity can be better understood from a Christian worldview as opposed to believing that evolutionary-biology is a just false view of the significance of humanity.
@lol
“I’m not atheist.”
Of course not, you’re just a bigot.
“I forgot warez is against your religion..
Personally, only if it’s morally stealing. Isn’t it against YOUR own conscience?
“what are you doing here?”
Politely asking a hypocritical troll to ’shoo! shoo!’
Yo, wah.
I have to apologize. After thorough internet search I finally found the christian reseach I argued before didn’t exist.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/applied-creation-science.php
I bow my head in shame.
@268 Who Cares
LOL. That’s a good laugh. Somehow that website seems awfully familiar. I think I visited it a long time ago with the exact same news headings, only changed is the date and maybe the letter. That webpage is obviously made to be a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, period, unless their extreme fundamentalists. Who cares.
You’ve got to find a better day-job seriously. What point you’re trying to get at besides being an ass? Next thing we’ll find breaking news: Christians are doing human experiments to biologically and surgically remove sin out of the human soul.
“Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.”
And humans are different how? We do the same as they do.
“FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.”
Which would be considered immoral by today’s standards, hence proving my point.
“Are you at all sure to any degree that it’s wrong? If so, how sure are you? Sure enough that’s it’s wrong just for you or for two people or more (including yourself)?”
I am sure that it is wrong by my standards of right and wrong. Which are based off both the teachings of the society I live in, and my personal thoughts on the nature of morality. The golden rule, and all that.
“I object. You were given a conscience to know right from wrong and the authority to discern it objectively. For instance, at what age do you think constitutes legal drinking?”
Assuming you’re right on being given a conscience. Which I do not agree with.
But to answer your question, 18 is the legal age here.
If you meant to ask what I think the legal age should be, I dunno, I started drinking at 16, did me no harm. I also disagree with the entire idea of a legal age for drinking really. It’s not a simple question, when are people physically and mentally capable to handling alcohol? It depends on the person, and no simple age limit is really fair to everyone.
“I believe people should be held accountable to someone for their immoral actions. Wouldn’t you call on your neighbor if they did something so horrible you couldn’t ignore?”
We call it the state, where I come from. It doesn’t need a supernatural arbiter.
“As I (and S.J Gould) pointed out: “our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.””
He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution. Smacks a little close to quote mining for my tastes.
“The most famous evolutionist of recent years, Stephen J. Gould”
Most quote mined, certainly.
“AFIK, nothing has changed since then.”
It’s only been 30 years, why would anything have changed? :p
Apart from filling in a lot of the transitional species, of course.
“According to my research, no scientist has even been able to explain the process by which evolution brought about even a single common biological system, such as the eye.”
Oh come on now. This one was answered by Darwin over a hundred years ago. Every stage in the development of the eye can be observed.
“Gould formulated the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium for a reason:”
He didn’t think the evidence supported slow steady changes, but instead suggested rapid changes and periods of stability.
“(Of course, this just goes to show that evolutionists aren’t going to allow evidence to controvert their theory; they build into the theory immunity from evidence. You see, the theory was tweaked so that the lack of evidence would actually become evidence! Isn’t that nice?”
You almost make it sound like improving a theory to account for the evidence is a bad thing.
Well I suppose it is, from the religious point of view.
“I think you mean socio-cultural relativism.”
Nope.
“Then to what or whom should you ascribe morality to, let alone provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values?”
Evolution.
“WOW. You’re not one of those people who give long speeches at thanksgiving dinners are ya? LOL. Anyways, amen to that brother.;) I understand that you’re likely thankful for that. But shouldn’t you thank God for all that too?”
If I believed in him i might do, but I don’t. :p
And no, I don’t make speeches. I hate spekaing in front of people. Although, when I do, I try to make the best of it.
“Maybe because you’re looking for it from a scientific-biological perspective. You should consider looking for a *different* alternative.”
Been there, done that. It was intellectually unsatisfying, and never really made sense, especially compared to some far better answers. For more logical answer, anyway. On the basis of Ockham’s razor, anyway.
“Personally, I can’t live as though it is all right for…sex traffickers to kidnap 13-year-old girls from Mexico City or Thai pre-teens sold into prostitution rings. Can you live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners? Surely you can’t live as though it’s all right for dictators like the late Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in me cries out to say these acts are wrong — really wrong. What about you? More importantly, what about them, the ‘guilty’ ones? Well, I don’t know… Should we deem them ‘guilty’ at all, let alone call their actions wrong? I would certainly hold them accountable to ’someone’ for their immoral actions if I could. In fact, I believe even if we *could* call on anyone’s morals to be surely wrong, then in my heart I’ve held them accountable to me for their misconduct. But that could all be speculation, which I feel uneasy in.”
Again, I repeat. I do not think these things are right, or even allowable. And I would hold them accountable to the law. I simply do not thinkt here is any sort of absolute basis for these things, or an objective source for them. I shed no tears when such people are jailed/overthrown etc..
Just because I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral, does not mean I must declare them tolerable.
“If you’re fine and dandy with just that reason alone, then I’m compelled to say that the looking glass of evolutionary biology is not the only avenue to embrace our humanity. I suppose what divides us is that I firmly believe that the value, meaning and purpose of humanity can be better understood from a Christian worldview as opposed to believing that evolutionary-biology is a just false view of the significance of humanity.”
It is not that I prefer the evolutionary model so much as I think it is the correct one. I do not require my “value” to be derived from some external source.
@Redem
“Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence…”
I never said science was awful and we shouldnt use it just because it may end up proving myself wrong. Far from it, I love science! BUT, human logic plays a VERY large part in the results. Without logic, science ends up just displaying simple facts. For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!
“I did not say science can support everything…”
Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…
“Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.”
First off, what I said was just a way to show human logic was necessary in science. Second, what you just said has a lot more meaning then what you think it does. No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong. Look at it this way, though: There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…..analyzing the situation further, an earlier comment made was that you cannot prove a negative wrong (I think that is what I remember). IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…makes you think…It is all based on perspectives, I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible! It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview. Yet, if the entire purpose of that evidence is to change the person’s worldview…that doesnt work, does it? You modify the evidence to agree with your worldview, but the evidence is there to change your worldview…hmm…I am overanalyzing this…Im going to stop now…
“I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”
Very well.
a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)
b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)
c)I cant do that, mainly because history is not one of my strong points. I guess my purpose is only to get you through “a” and “b”. Getting you through “c” is better left in the hands of people more capable of doing so than I
“Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.”
Modern apes have a social system, not necessarily morality. Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill. You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.
Plus, you need to realize that morality is not “black and white”. You also need to account for little things like why a person feels a sense of guilt if they do something wrong. If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever. That ape continues on the way it had. That human is either caught and sentenced to life in prison, or has to live out the rest of its life knowing that it took the life of another individual. Even if taking the person’s life was necessary to its survival, the killer would still feel guilty. If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist. Am I saying that because of the result of a dichonomy? No. I am saying that because guilt has no place in an evolutionist’s morality. It is a feeling that would have never developed because it serves no purpose. Evolution is adapting to changing conditions (which apparently also means the creature changed into a different species, though that isnt the conclusion Id come to). If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?
“Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.”
That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right? You know for a fact that your correctness (I think there is a word for this, but I cant remember…) here does not help you. Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…
“And humans are different how? We do the same as they do.”
Except we can look back at our history of moral trends.
“Which would be considered immoral by today’s standards, hence proving my point.”
And my point was that the ‘immoral treatment’ as you’re referring to occurred according to God’s justification but then again Christians live by the new NT. And to extrapolate upon that point, how do you feel the changing various ‘ideas’ of slavery, from ancient to modern? I think western civilization made slavery look bad.
“I am sure that it is wrong by my standards of right and wrong. Which are based off both the teachings of the society I live in, and my personal thoughts on the nature of morality. The golden rule, and all that.”
Compared to ancient times, today’s standard is not much higher than you think it is. Much of the immorality back then still happens today, some in hiding (illegal), some in the open (legal), some merely in different forms. Nonetheless, our standards do not live up to the standard of perfection. If perfection exists, then I believe that is where the absolute objective source for moral truth lies. Is there evidence for it? Of course not! Our consciences bears witness of the (right and) wrong of our human moral condition. If we look at it from an observatory view, there are no absolute basis for morals.
“18 is the legal age here”
21.
“I started drinking at 16″
First time I drinked I finished my 13oz cup of Old English before my veteran friends in 25 seconds +-.
“We call it the state, where I come from.”
Well there’s your arbiter. As far as your city goes, the law has assigned an objective moral value basis, for the time being, on everyone within city limits.
“It doesn’t need a supernatural arbiter.”
Maybe your state, even mine, doesn’t. But the world does.
“He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution. Smacks a little close to quote mining for my tastes.”
I don’t think he was making a case for evolution as a scientific law.
“This one was answered by Darwin over a hundred years ago.”
Only if you consider him as a scientist. But not by today’s standard.
“You almost make it sound like improving a theory to account for the evidence is a bad thing. ”
I believe his theory was a ‘face-lift’ of gradualism. As wiki points it, it’s simply a [i]form[/i] of gradualism, from an ecological sense of biological continuity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
“Well I suppose it is, from the religious point of view.”
Wow. Appreciate the open-mindedness. Such a rarity these days.
“Nope.”
Really? Then how would you compare morality in a socio-biological construct as opposed to morality in a socio-cultural relativism.
“Evolution.”
The way I see it, we need a trans–cultural basis for moral values or else we’ll end up with socio-cultural relativism.
“Been there, done that. It was intellectually unsatisfying, especially compared to some far better answers. and never really made sense, For more logical answer, anyway. On the basis of Ockham’s razor, anyway.”
hmm. Jesus, in Matthew 13:13, comments: “This is the reason that I speak to them in parables: because [d]having the power of seeing, they do not see; and [e]having the power of hearing, they do not hear, nor do they grasp and understand.
“I simply do not thinkt here is any sort of absolute basis for these things, or an objective source for them.”
Even though you don’t think there is any, do you want to know why there should be one?
“I shed no tears when such people are jailed/overthrown etc..”
Me neither. Nevertheless, as you and I are, they’re still human and should be valuable. And I’m not just speaking about those people, but on behalf of all humanity, since they (and we) collectively reflect the depraved condition of humanity as a whole.
“I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral”
But, hypothetically, if every single person on this earth delighted in murder, rape, torture or sexual perversities [and I prefer not to get specific for sensitive reasons], don’t you think there should be one?
“Just because I do not thinkt here is an objective basis for declaring them immoral, does not mean I must declare them tolerable.”
Just because you don’t see any reason or evidence to suggest or believe there is an absolute/objective source for declaring them immoral, does not mean it is non-existent.
“I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”
As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?
@250 Who Cares
“Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!”
That’s absurd! That’s like saying you can’t prove that the President Bush lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies and the consistency of its messages through various historical events of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.
Very interesting documentary. It paints almost disturbing picture of today’s America.
I was not aware that their educational system is that much lacking.
Anyway, or, at least, courts are still doing their job.
“the inability for evolution to explain morality”
How about the inability to just research before saying something that is simply not true? Tell me, if i explain you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?
Because if i do it and you continue using it 5 minutes later i’m not even going to bother because that would just demonstrate an argument like this cannot move foward since you creationists have some sort of selective blindness and use the same arguments over and over after being proven wrong.
The information on this must be some 40 years old but still you keep on going. It’s ridiculous really.
Yes or no, will you stop using this argument if i can demonstrate how “morality” rises in an evolutionary frame?
@COsta200
so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?
@ Wah
“missing links”:
http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html
Press “start here”.
What next? You are going to ask for missing links between missing links… hehehe.
Seriously now. If you creationists actually studied up on the fossils found you would know that we have the stuff between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptil, reptil and mammals, reptil and birds… Regarding plants we have the the whole kingdom’s evolutionary development pretty much exposed too, from algae to Angiosperms…
What the hell more do you want? Seriously, that argument about missing links has been completely destroyed decades ago and you still bring it over the table? Modern science has no new questions to answer by creationists, it is you who keep making the same questions over and over again like its something new that needs to be adressed. This is the internet age. Google it up godamnit, how hard can it be?
And i see you evaded my question. If i explain to you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?
Of course, us zealous creationists use the same stuff over and over. Yet, I see you evolutionists use the same stuff as well. For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used. Why is this? It is all a matter of perspectives.
From my perspective, I look at that argument as a thin attack on what I believe, so I go ahead and show why it is lacking. You view it as absolute evidence to prove your belief true. Since that is your mindset going into the debate, any lack of insight I show you will automatically be regarded as a lunatic’s mindless rambles…It can also happen in the opposite manner, where I am the one attacking and you are the one pointing out the lacking.
Because it is true, it doesnt matter what you tell me as to why evolution lacks morality, I WILL find something wrong with it (from my perspective). And it doesnt matter what I tell you as to how to explain a limitless being creating a limit on itself, you WILL find something wrong with it.
This fact remains in any debate, when both parties believe they are right. The original intent of the debate is to “enlighten” the other side with whatever facts they find. I knew from the beginning that this was impossible, yet I persisted. Call it a “fool’s hope”, if you will.
Go ahead, try to enlighten me with your findings, Costa. But I am really starting to lose interest in this debate. A debate trying to convince some unbiased person, yet an unbias person doesnt exist. There is a conundrum in merely debating that both of us cant really explain.
Ill come back on, read whatever your response is to this. Ill probably even post a response, but I cannot see a point in continuing to debate without a possible goal in sight. I am curious to see what you have to disprove my morality claim, though. I will be coming back, at least once.
A short answer to your question, Costa: yes, if your findings disprove my morality claim AND I cannot give a logical response to debunk it, I will drop it. I highly doubt this is possible, though. I am a bias person, after all. Chances are, I will see error in your logic (at least, from my perspective)…
Can’t the narrow minded fundamental christian Americans have their own board, so the rest of the board doesn’t get annoyed?
Thank god that there are also normal people living in the US.
@costa200
First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)
Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame. In fact, IMO, evolutionary biology can logically explain morality, but not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.
3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.
4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.
Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..”
Finally, I believe in transitional species because we’ve found them for other species but we haven’t found all of them. It’s like a picture puzzle missing the most important pieces. But without them, the picture, although we know it’s there and real and merely missing the pieces, is really incomplete, it’s not really a whole picture. As we all know, the biggest problem in the theory of evolution is the big gap in the fossil record. IOW, when archaeologists dig up these bones, they find the transitional forms that help one animal transform to another animal. And if you can’t find those bones you can’t prove evolution ever happened in that sense (not that I doubt the existence of the whole of evolution.) That’s what you call the missing link. And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms. And until all pieces are actually found:
A. evolution is just pure speculation, but a very good one that makes a lot of sense, I admit.
B. such theory will never be fully solidified.
What I think we disagree at this point is that for you it’s just matter of “when” as opposed to me it’s a matter of “if” the pieces will be found.
Moreover, one thing that limits the intelligence of apes is their inability to reason, to invent, or to appreciate the sound of music. You see you don’t get orangutans forming themselves into an orchestra. You don’t get themselves forming into a court system to meet out justice for the other creatures. IMHO, this isn’t the case where they’re prehistoric man less evolved than us but it’s because he’s another species.
We’ve all seen in high school the pictures from apes to humans. But those are just pictures. And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? No, not at all.
Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.
The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.
And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.
Also, a note to the moderator and website master: I find it unconstitutional that we are censored to use the word “co_ckpit” on this board. As I had to insert the underscore between “o” and “c”.
Oh wait, nevermind, the internet is international so there’s no “constitutional rights” or “censorship” laws, is there? Seriously, I’m not sure if that kind of jurisdiction belongs on the web.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, has these comments about the “origin of species” in “the descent of man”. If there are any ladies in here, listen to what he has to say about women: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands”(Chapter 19, 1871 edition “Descent” v2, 327)
Did you hear that? He’s saying ‘man has EVOLVED to a higher eminence over women in basically anything he decides to do’. Whether it requires reason, imagination, or deep thought. IMHO, Darwinian evolution, at its core, it not only male chauvinistic, but it’s also very racist: Charles Darwin wants us to believe that black people are less evolved than whites. Of course that’s arguable but it’s a sad fact that it’s still a controversial debate even till now, which it shouldn’t be an issue at all. Nevertheless it still is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man%2C_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex#The_race_debate
If I can’t convince you how unscientific evolution is, perhaps these following experts can:
1. Noble Prize Winner Ernst B. Chain said in reference to the theory of evolution, “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”
2. Sir Arthur Keith, the physical anatomist and anthropologist who wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of Species 100th Anniversary Edition said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
3. Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” Although he was Christian, he’s no better than you using a non-Christian source to make a case against Christianity.
“Man has said, ‘I will believe in anything as long as it’s not in the bible.’” Unfortunately, that is so true.
Give me an example of a transition species. I’d like to hear it because I’m just curious, not because I’m doubting it.
According to evolutionists, we ultimately came from a single-cell organism? Probably came from the ocean. Do you think we came from a fish? or a bird? This is where both atheist and theists have a problem: the beginning. (Genesis 1:1) (Romans 1:19-20)
@279 Darth Arcon
Of course you can always deny evidence based on your beliefs. You can and i can and that is clear. Although i do my best to give every proof a fair chance to hold water i’m clearly biased due to my science embebed education and skeptical on principle mindset. I won’t, for example, accept metaphysical explanations. Then again, if someone is allowed to use magical events to avoid problems in what would be a scientific discussion you could never get anything done. You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation. That is because the supernatural mumbo jumbo cannot be tested/falsified and any side of the debate using it would not be able to actually demonstrate it.
But the bias i might have would not be a problem since the scientific community as a whole would have to be in some sort of major conspiracy to drop creationism in favour of evolution. Fact is, thousands of scientists argue for evolution even though many of them are also theists. You see, evolution doesn’t say there is not god. In fact, many religious organizations have embraced evolution as fact due to simply the amount of evidence and the importance of the 21st century science.
Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?
Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making? I sometimes do the curious exercise of explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them. And these are highschool kids. What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?
Anyway, on with the show. Let us look at how morality is hugely important for evolution and why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can…
First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.
So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day. But let’s look at what morality really is. How does our brain decides what is morally correct?
There are several levels of morality. The first level is related to kin. And this one is VERY easy to explain in an evolution frame. You would agree that our brain has a certain amount of rules we use for kin that are not used for non-kin personas. And we accept in society that kin come first than others. And genetically it would be favourable to do so. You see, survival of the fittest doesn’t mean the egoistic bastard who takes it all. It means the one who leaves behind his genes in the population. The fittest is the one with the larger offspring. This explains why some animal mothers (and some fathers) in nature care for their children. Why clan based animals work together and why they seem altruistic at times. What they are doing is to care for their genes. If you do harm to your familly and you don’t leave your genes then the altruistic familly will spread THEIR genes and you won’t.
Scientifically, gene flux is decided on two levels. First, the individual is selected, hence unfavourable genes get eliminated while others are not. But, this is not the only selection going on. The main failure of people who use the “morality argument” is that they seem oblivious that not only individuals are selected (where a clear tendency for egoism could be drawn) but also populations are selected. A population that does not function properly, for some reason, tends to get eliminated. If the percentage of egoistic people in the population rises to a critical level that it stops working for mutual survival (if it is required by the enviroment, because if it is not, i.e. if there are enough resources to go around so you don’t have to cooperate, you can be selfish) that population is going to be eliminated and the ecological space will be used by a population where the percentage of altruistic individuals remained high enough for the performance to be better.
In a human example, if you have two tribes and in one members spend their time fighting (murders, injuries), stealing (which in turn tends to things being stolen back), raping (wich leads to injuries, fights…) and so one. And in the other one you have a strict conduct like:
I am the Lord thy God
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
(THESE are used to give credibility)
Honor thy Father and Mother
Thou shalt not murder*
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
(and THESE are very usefull for a wandering tribe that needs to work together)
But let us talk about the other levels beyond kin (those are the most interesting since kin is so easy to explain).
After kin you get solidarity with your neighbours. Wich basically is probably an extention of kin since if they are close to you then you are going to marry and live together. When in the bible there is that “love thy neighbour” it was literaly the neighbour, not the whole species together.
The third level of morality is about the species itself. Morally, you, and most people, would rather save a human than a dog. So there must be something connecting us that is not so much kin related. Help a stranger? Why?
That’s when the weakest of gene selection comes in. Helping an individual of your own species you are actually helping over 90% of the genes you have in common with him. This actually pales in comparison with kin (that’s why humans usually only helps strangers when themselves,kin and neighbours would not get too harmed by that help).
But all of this could just be drivel because nature is cruel and it’s the “law of the jungle” out there right?
But it is not so. Many animals cooperate.
Moral behavior is little more than behaving in ways that are beneficial to the group rather than merely to yourself. Group-living animals, and primates in particular, can teach us a great deal about how such behaviors could be selected for and evolve without requiring a moral puppetmaster in the sky. In many primate societies close social bonds formed by individuals serve to regulate social behavior. These social bonds are strengthened through grooming, food sharing and reconciliation behavior after a conflict. While competition and conflict are a normal part of group living it is often surprising to learn how rare it is, especially considering the amount of attention such conflict receives in the academic and popular press.
Fedigan (1993) found in one study that white-faced capuchins (the cute New World monkeys who carried the deadly virus in Outbreak) displayed 1,078 cooperative behaviors and only 136 aggressive ones. Likewise, Sussman et al. (2003) found that ring-tailed lemurs spent about twenty-five minutes per day in direct cooperation and less than one minute in aggression. Sussman and Garber (2004) followed up on these findings by analyzing seventy-eight studies covering twenty-five genera and forty-nine species of non-human primates. They determined that prosimians, monkeys and apes would spend the vast majority of their social lives in cooperative interactions. The study also showed that the amount of social aggression was statistically insignificant. The levels of aggression ranged from zero in colobus monkeys to a high of 0.92% in spider monkeys (a species that spent 22.0% of their time in cooperation).
The authors concluded by stating, “We hypothesize that affiliation is the major governing principle of primate sociality and that aggression and competition represent important but secondary features of daily primate social interaction” (Sussman and Garber 2004:178).
Sources:
Fedigan L. (1993). Sex differences and intersexual relations in adult white-faced capuchins. International Journal of Primatology 14: 853-77.
Sussman RW and Chapman AR (2004). The nature and evolution of sociality: Introduction. In: The Origins and Nature of Sociality. Ed. by RW Sussman and AR Chapman. Aldine De Gruyter: New York, pp. 3-19.
Sussman RW, Andrianasolondraibe O, Soma T, Ichino S. (2003). Social behavior and aggression among ringtailed lemurs. Folia Primatologica 74: 168-72.
How then can theists justify that nature is cruel and immoral necessitating a moral force from beyond the natural world?
Humans are not special in the aspect of morality. Just like in many other examples, some people only think we are special because they choose to ignore scientific work and prove what they are saying by waving a book that was put together by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.
Now i ask you Arcon, where in this matter isn’t modern science able to explain the observable? I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.
@ Wah
“First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)”
About my “tone” of language i would say that i do not feel the need to be condescendant with you guys and i’m not going to soft down just because i may hurt your feelings. About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere. That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone and keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people. I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness by mathew but imagine i didn’t. It serves no purpose and only makes you look like a bible thumper really.
“Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame.”
Sorry, this board sucks for long arguments and i checked the poster number wrong.
“not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.”
Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist. The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines (except for a few wich are biologically very important) should have given you enough of a hint that there is no such thing.
“3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”
If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself. First you say it’s a chimpanzee then you say it’s a common ancestor… By definition, if it is an ancestor it is not the modern being. And yes, it is probably a common ancestor and so what? For you that may be something noteworthy but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9% similar to the chimpanzee.
“4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”
Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists? Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?
“5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”
It was a deliberate hoax and was debunked shortly after it was presented. And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?
“6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.”
Have you actually held a Neanderthal’s skull in your hands? Have you examine it yourself? I have. In the skull alone you have dozens of anatomical diferences between it and a modern human. As for the rest of the skeleton there are countless other anatomical markers. None of which is consistent with arthritis. What is the source (since i do not believe you’ve examine one yourself) you are using?
“Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””
What do you think he means by “extreme rarity”. What is he comparing? Non transitional and transitional. If you actually knew what that quote means you would understand that you are quoting him completely out of context. Gould is an evolutionist and he, like others have found that numerically it is much more likely for one to find non transitional fossils. And that is completely so. The whole argument boils down to the relative speed at which evolution happens (Punctured Equilibrium). Now you go ask Gould if there are no transitional forms. You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.
Speciation happens mostly in small populations where mutations get the best chance to accumulate. That is why you may find 100 non transitionals for every transitional. But what does matter is that one transitional makes a gapping whole in your view of things. It is not by repeating that “missing links” stuff over and over again that you will make it so.
” And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms.”
This sentence just demonstrates a lack of knowlage in the field. Do you know how hard it is for something to fossilize? If a speciation happens in 10 000 years it looks like leap in the fossil record. Humans for example. Paleontologists (not archaeologists like you said)in the future will see people with 3 molar teeth (Homo Sapiens) and then humans with 2 molar teeth (Homo Somethingelse). In the meanwhile we, a transitional form with a very bad third molar will nowhere to be found because geologically it was just a glimpse between the 3 and the 2 molar teeth forms.
Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.
Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…
“And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? ”
Biochemically we are identical. And if you want i will explain in detail why hybridization experiments with DNA are reliable and why numbers fluctuate between 96% and 99% of similarity between Chimpazees and humans, since there seems to be some doubt (like 96% and 99% actually make a difference). And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with creationists.
It is not a matter of similar facial features. It goes much deeper than that. We can trace mutations in a tree from orangotangs to gorilas to chimps and finally humans. And these mutations tell about history of the tree. To disprove evolution would be easy. Just find a mutation that says chimps are descended from Homo Sapiens (us). But no mutation have been found to say this. All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.
” The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.”
Holy cow… I’ve just pointed you to a page where you could see the bones yourself and keep repeating they don’t exist?
OK…
Check these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
Now, if that list isn’t enough to shut you up about the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.
“Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, has these comments about the “origin of species” in “the descent of man”.”
Yes he was a chauvinistic racist 19th century fellow and his works are not the modern science standard. But have you read the bible? With what ground do you criticize Darwin when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?
“If I can’t convince you how unscientific evolution is, perhaps these following experts can:”
Experts? LOL… Damn, you even got a journalist… I surrender… I surrender… Oh wait:
ERNST BORIS CHAIN was a medical doctor who won the nobel in 1945. What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.
Sir Arthur Keith WAS a CO-CONSPIRATOR of the Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax. Is this your expert? I LOOOLED hard at this, sorry. The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer. But i bet you took that from some fundie website, so just goes to warn you of the quality of their work.
“Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher”, well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…
“According to evolutionists, we ultimately came from a single-cell organism? Probably came from the ocean. Do you think we came from a fish? or a bird? This is where both atheist and theists have a problem: the beginning.”
From ancestral fish no doubt. But you are not going to ask for something between a fish and human are you? I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…
And no, evolution has no trouble with the beguining. Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining, although many fundie sites argue that it does. The beguining of life itself is a whole new argument.
“About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere.”
Well if you didn’t really care then you wouldn’t have mentioned it at all now wouldja?
“That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone”
It doesn’t. God’s does. (Romans 3:19-20)
“keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people”
Then they’re doing it’s job, unless you want to hear the Gospel?
“I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness”
So do you consider yourself a good person??
“Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist.”
The commandments aren’t moral truth. it shows it. Romans 3:23
“The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines”
Humanity knows we can’t live up to God’s standards so we make up our own standards,(Romans 1:25) thinking we are good enough and that it makes us right before God. (Isaiah 64:5)
“If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself”
it’s just a Chimpanzee. A couple of scientists (or whatever) placed Lucy as the common ancestor. THAT in itself contradicts the science community’s opinion of Lucy. That’s like, “Oh well, I guess we all agree it’s just a monkey. HEY YOU TWO! take Lucy here and label it as our common ancestor.”
“but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9%”
I think you watched too many “planet of the apes” movies.
“Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists?”
A man will lie to himself and others but his adversary will expose his true colors.
“Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?”
Costa200 the tooth came from a pig.
“And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?”
Psst.. JSYK, *whisper* it was a prank…
““Neanderthal Man””
Arthritis is commonly found in early Neanderthal populations. So it’s only natural that the skeleton is arthritis. duoy.
“You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.”
Nope. Gould simply pointed out that in paleontology trans-forms are rare. You seem to fail to grasp my point is that mutations into transitional forms are too rare for apes to evolve into humans.
“Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.”
You can’t connect something that doesn’t exist, especially when you’re looking down the barrel of a ’smoking gun’.
“Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…”
Whatever reason you may think that God put it there for (and what others may speculate about, for instance: for us to thank Him for us to explore and play with His creation, or to test our faith, or purposely put it there and remove the last pieces, or maybe Satan put the bones there to deviate our focus from Christ to lies and God took the ’smoking gun’ away), He is not going to allow the ‘last missing link’ to be found, one way or another. EVER.
“Biochemically we are identical.”
So? The similarities in the DNA in both apes and humans are the same as most of the elements of dirt can be found in humans, more or less. (Genesis 2:7)
“And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made.”
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is not enough and doesn’t really prove anything. It’s still all in your head.
“It is not a matter of similar facial features.”
Correct. It’s a matter of ACTUAL PROOF.
“All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.”
You better get outta that hole before you dig a trench too deep.
That tool is from Satan!
“the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.”
I never argued against that, just the one for the apes and humans. Re-read first sentence of post 282.
“With what ground do you criticize Darwin”
LOL. Genesis 1:27 God never placed man higher than woman like the way of the father of evolution did, except in role play.
” when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?”
That’s a blatant lie, unless you can point to some verses to show me that God made men higher than woman like Darwin did.
“What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.”
He was referring to the ‘missing link’ theory, not the general theory. Thus your point is moot.
“Is this your expert?”
Yep. An expert who showed how much of a joke Evolutionary Theory really is to the science community.
“I LOOOLED hard at this”
It’s suppose to be funny! I wasn’t trying to refute the entire theory of evolution just to show how shallow it is. 
That was my whole point.
“The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer.”
lol. You mean how I used evolution’s adversarial sources to make an absurdity of the mistakes and lies surrounding evolution?
“well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…”
well then, even the journalist and philosophers community think lowly of evolution. The whole point of saying…”to convince you how unscientific evolution is” is to say that it’s soooo unscientific that’s IT’S A JOKE! you get it!? ROFL
“I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…”
So briefly explain it to me in 500 words or less as if you’re talking to me in person in the busy streets of New York.
“Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining”
If evolutionists took themselves seriously, it should. Then it’ll get bashed by bible thumpers like me. J/K. LOL.
oh wait: the big bang theory/singular point theory. But that’s just another theory where the proof is all in their head. Yet another unrepeatable event that science tries to prove as fact but can only theorize. And to so show how futile evolutionists attempt to refute Christianity with the final missing link is, even if it was found, God still created humans. All you need is a re-interpretation of a couple of verses that show God created man from dirt and breathing life into him over many years from a single-cell organism to humans. Voila!
You ever wonder why facists movements always take religion, culture, ethics, race, economics, politics, and law over science?
“Many animals cooperate.”
LOL. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.
“You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation.”
And that’s the reason why science is so narrow-minded. It cannot explain the unexplainable, so it simply ignores it or claims, “Anything that cannot be logically apprehend by me, is either untrue or non-existent or (as Redem puts it) irrelevant or (as you put it) mumbo jumbo.
“Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?”
People take the debate between creationism and evolutionism too seriously. Really what it is, both are like rival cousins who mock each other.
Evolutionists have their monkey and creationists have the magical man in the sky.
“Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making?”
Now you know why I don’t dabble in ID.
“explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them”
PSST. arguments? hardly. They debunk them because of your inability and ignorance to put some actual meaningful thought into theist theology.
“What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?”
LOL. and what do you think creationists think about the evidence provided by evolutionists? a total debauchery I tells ya. It’s so unscientific it’s a joke. deja vu.
“why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can”
hmmm. have you ever stole once in your life before? what about murder, in the sense that Jesus said Matthew 5:22?
“First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.
So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day.”
Relative morality exists and this is precisely why: Romans 1:28-31. And this is why absolute morality also exists (Romans 1:19-20) but doesn’t exist in the minds of relativists because of this: Romans 1:21-22, 25.
“But let’s look at what morality really is.”
ROFL.
“How does our brain decides what is morally correct?”
Here’s a simpler answer: Romans 2:15
God Almighty Himself gave us morality. It is He who we must look up to to provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values. Since He is the original one who bestowed upon us His attributes or morality, it is He who we must give thanks! 1 Chronicles 16:8, Psalm 119:7; 136:1, Isaiah 12:4
It’s so simple. From your eyes, you don’t see absolute morality because you’re looking at it from a scientific viewpoint. An absolute moral basis is beyond the reach and grasp of science, let alone the scientific method. Because of this, you are blind. Matthew 15:14, Psalm 81:12
“I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.”
I know you’re speaking to Arcon. But that was a very insightful for morality from evolutionary perspective. And also the exact reason why science (or evolution in your case) is unable to “find” absolute morality within its complex logic, rational and scientific methods. If humans want to find relative morality, then you can find it in his environment and history. That’s where science comes in to examine from the outside and sees the moral situation: thus relative morality! However, there’s no absolute morality based on scientific research, so there must be no absolute morality! Wait a minute. Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But it DOES! Absolute morality comes from God. Since that concept is beyond the grasp of science, man has either denied it, willfully rejected it, or ignored it simply because it comes from God, or a supernatural arbiter (as Redem puts it). Why? Romans 2:12-13, Romans 3:18, Romans 2:12-14 tells us that the Holy Spirit, testifying of God’s perfect moral standards, convicts man of his sin before Almighty God Himself. Man, aware of his condemnation to hell, subconsciously reverts back to his way of thinking for a more, beneficial/advantageous morality, relative morality, in order to make himself right before God. Yet the law brings death for even man fails by his own standard but sooner or later points to everlasting life by repentance and sorrow.
How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..
“How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”
By opening our eyes and looking at how things really work, rather than mere wishful thinking?
“How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”
This is how people look around and not see it”
Romans 1:19, 21-23, 25
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 4:18
So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
“For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!”
Science did indeed paly a aprt in that. We know that solid stuff does not simply pass through other solid stuff. We know that the solid stuff we shot at the gold did pass through it without impacting ont he gold itself, therefore we know that matter has empty space in it. And we know from repetition just how much empty space that is based on how much of the solid stuff goes through. That tells us just how small the solid part is compared to the empty space.
I would call that some pretty good science, which has been borne out by later experimentation in particle physics. If you’re implying it’s flawed thinking… then you think the role of science is simply to state “The sun rises int he east” and not try to explain why?
“Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…”
It can support anything that is quantifiable by emeprical evidence. Not everything falls into that catagory.
Certainly anything in the natural world.
“No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong.”
There has never been ANY evidence to prove evolution wrong.
“There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…”
This is because it is not a scientific theory and is unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible to prove it wrong because no matter what evidence you might found “God designed it that way” trumps all.
Unless it’s possible to prove something wrong, failing to do so is not particularly impressive.
“IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…”
Rabbits in devaronian rocks would be a start. Or showing that it is impossible for something to have evolved. One “irreducibly complex” organism would be nice. Every attempt so far has been met with sterling work from scientists showing how it could have evolved.
“I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible!”
Rhetoric, force, emotional manipulation, torture, getting to the kids so their ideas die, mockery, etc…
All things Christians have been eager to indulge in over the years. ALl in the name of, Jesus, of course.
“It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview.”
nah. Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.
“a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)”
The fact that I, personally, am trying to convince you is a matter of psychology, not evolution. Thus far I have only delt with this on an evolutionary scale. Are you also asking about the more personal reasons for it?
“b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)”
Non Sequitur. Does not deal with point b in the slightest.
“Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill.”
Well, nor does that always occur in human societies, especially the more “primitive” ones.
“You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.”
Crime is sometimes punished. Only in more recent times is it a near certainty, going back only a few hundred years we get to the point where our actions are little different to that of other apes. So again, how are we different from they?
“If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever.”
This is not universally true, however. And I knnow of no studies that have been done on apes to tell if your assumption that they do not care is true.
“If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist.”
I don’t see why. Guilt is a useful policing tool for the social contract. Why is it not possible?
“If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?”
We’re a lot more vicious than more apes.
That might be why we need it
More seriously, though. We have not established that guilt is anything unique to humans. Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is. Guilt is merely a social construct. It is the lower of self worth, more than anything.
“That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right?”
Psychology. I would not be myself if I didn’t try to be correct. It’s as natural to me as breathing.
“Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…”
If it was a major expenditure of energy I might do that, but it isn’t. I use more energy watching movies probably. Certainly takes longer. But the why doesn’t matter, it can merely be a byproduct of stubborness and a distaste for things which are incorrect, which are advantages in other situations.
“And my point was that the ‘immoral treatment’ as you’re referring to occurred according to God’s justification”
Genocide is immoral by todays standards. Or does it simply become moral because god told them to?
A case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?
“And to extrapolate upon that point, how do you feel the changing various ‘ideas’ of slavery, from ancient to modern? I think western civilization made slavery look bad.”
Ask me that again after you see it from the slave’s point of view.
“If we look at it from an observatory view, there are no absolute basis for morals.”
We agree on this then.
“Maybe your state, even mine, doesn’t. But the world does.”
Based on what? If we establish that states don’t need it. Nations don’t need it. Then why the world? Why not simply go the same way as the city/nation?
And have people setting it. International law, for example.
“I don’t think he was making a case for evolution as a scientific law.”
No. So?
“Only if you consider him as a scientist. But not by today’s standard.”
Nice try, but modern science predates Darwin. And he presented his theory in the accepted manner.
“I believe his theory was a ‘face-lift’ of gradualism. As wiki points it, it’s simply a [i]form[/i] of gradualism, from an ecological sense of biological continuity.”
In the sense that they both represent a continuum of evolution, they are similar. But they are opposed in terms of how that continuum progresses.
“Really? Then how would you compare morality in a socio-biological construct as opposed to morality in a socio-cultural relativism.”
I wouldn’t compare them.
Not entirely sure what you’re asking me here.
“Jesus, in Matthew 13:13, comments: “This is the reason that I speak to them in parables: because [d]having the power of seeing, they do not see; and [e]having the power of hearing, they do not hear, nor do they grasp and understand.”
I don’t consider him to be a decent moral guide. Let alone likely to have existed
“Even though you don’t think there is any, do you want to know why there should be one?”
I would like to know why you think that you thinking something “should” matters. The universe rarely cares that I think I should win the lottery *Sigh*
“since they (and we) collectively reflect the depraved condition of humanity as a whole.”
I don’t consider us depraved. We’re better people now than we ahve ever been before, and getting better all the time.
“But, hypothetically, if every single person on this earth delighted in murder, rape, torture or sexual perversities [and I prefer not to get specific for sensitive reasons], don’t you think there should be one?”
No. I don’t.
Assuming you mean what I think you mean, here. Are you asking if I would like there to be an objective source for morality, if people were totally immoral?
Doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
“Just because you don’t see any reason or evidence to suggest or believe there is an absolute/objective source for declaring them immoral, does not mean it is non-existent.”
I know that. But it does mean that I have good reason to not think one exists.
“So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Makes sense to me, but I shall clarify.
I mean that we might assume that a funnily shaped rock formation was designed to look like a phallus just because it resembles one, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t simply the result of erosion by air and water.
I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.
“Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.”
unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.
“how are we different from they?”
Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things, appreciate the sound of music, band together in an orchestra, create a court system to bring out justice for others. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.
“Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is.’
you’re right. it doesn’t. But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.
“As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?”
Both.
Keeping in mind that as I said earlier, the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.
“so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?”
Which one? We make more gaps every time we find a transitional fossil. ;_;
“For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used.”
What’s this conuntrum, and your response? I’ve never heard either fo them…
Unless you mean the “Are you saying god couldn’t have made a world where life evolved”? Is that the one?
“3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”
This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists. And Lucy is but one of many examples of Australopithecus afarensis, of which we have about 120 distinct individuals, not counting bone fragments.
“4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”
At the time the scientists who recorded the tooth made clear that he was unsure if it was a hominid tooth, or the tooth of another extinct ape. For a popular magasine an artist made a drawing of what he imagined a halfman-halfape creature would look like. Later scientists showed it belonged to an extinct species related to modern pigs.
No one has ever made much of it except creationists.
“5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”
Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.
“6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.”
We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens, again not counting minor fragments and individual bones. They are not “Old men with arthritis”.
We have thousands of pre-human hominid specimens. Just a “tiny” bit more complete than you are trying to imply here.
“Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””
This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.
Here is a fuller quote.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never “seen” in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]”
He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.
To allow Gould himself to reply…
” [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
– Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.”
He is not happy with this sorta thing.
“I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.”
Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.
“unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.”
Example please.
“Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things”
Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these.
“appreciate the sound of music”
As far as I know many animals like music, and few people can really be said to “appreciate” music at a higher level than that.
“band together in an orchestra”
A unique human trait, which proves…?
“create a court system to bring out justice for others.”
Only differing by complexity. Such things happen in large societies only, and are not “human” traits, but those of civilization.
“But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.”
Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.
Their existence proves nothing.
“Did you hear that? He’s saying ‘man has EVOLVED to a higher eminence over women in basically anything he decides to do’.”
Well poisoning, logical fallacy. His views were fairly enlightened by the standards of the time. On both race and gender.
And they have nothing to do with the validity of his work.
And the bible is far worse on both matters.
“If I can’t convince you how unscientific evolution is, perhaps these following experts can:”
Appeal to authority is also a fallacy, btw.
“1. Noble Prize Winner Ernst B. Chain said in reference to the theory of evolution, “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.””
Got a source for this? I can’t find reference to anything.
“2. Sir Arthur Keith, the physical anatomist and anthropologist who wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of Species 100th Anniversary Edition said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.””
Did he write it after he died? That edition was issued in 1959, he died in 1955. Although he did indeed write an introduction to Origin, in 1928. Later, in 1958, a new author was asked to rewrite the ontroduction. W.R. Thompson.
Neither Thompson’s, nor Keith’s introduction contained that quote.
“3. Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” Although he was Christian, he’s no better than you using a non-Christian source to make a case against Christianity.”
And finally a quote from a creationist.
““Man has said, ‘I will believe in anything as long as it’s not in the bible.’” Unfortunately, that is so true.”
I merely require you to provide decent evidence that the bible is factual.
Not too much to ask is it?
More or less up to date. Apart from The last reply from wah to costa.
I’ve done enough for one day though
Anything specific from that post anyone wants me to cover mention it please, and I’ll get back to ya.
Otherwise goodnight n_n
“Genocide is immoral by todays standards.”
By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)
“Or does it simply become moral because god told them to?
A case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?”
Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.
“Based on what? If we establish that states don’t need it. Nations don’t need it. Then why the world? Why not simply go the same way as the city/nation?
And have people setting it. International law, for example.”
Good idea. The problem is that human int’l laws will never live to to God’s standard. Since the world is held accountable to God for His sin, humans are condemned by the law and our conscience bears witness of our guilt and shame and standing before Him. And unfortunately, according to “revelations” it will be a matter of time before THE ‘anti-christ’ comes to set up his throne upon earth, establishing peace through a one-world religion, one-world world economy, one-world government, one-world court system, all based on carnal standards. Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?
“So?”
He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.
“but modern science predates Darwin.”
Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.
“In the sense that they both represent a continuum of evolution, they are similar. But they are opposed in terms of how that continuum progresses.”
Thus proving my point. But if you wanna get super-technical then sure. whatever.
“I wouldn’t compare them.”
If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.
“Not entirely sure what you’re asking me here.”
I think that we’ve been looking at the same object from different angles. From a biological scope, it’s obvious that there is relative but no absolute. But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?). What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.
“I don’t consider him to be a decent moral guide. Let alone likely to have existed”
of course you don’t (Romans 2:5-8). His standards are too high for you. But you’re still ‘not off the hook’. (Romans 2:11-13) So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf. (Romans 3:21-26)
“I would like to know why you think that you thinking something “should” matters.”
Me thinking something shouldn’t matter to you at all. Neither is why you think something that you say matters should matter to me. What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.
“I don’t consider us depraved. We’re better people now than we ahve ever been before, and getting better all the time.”
say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak. That’s why it matters to you and I if absolute morality does exist or not, even though it doesn’t exist in the minds of most people on earth (proving my point that we all disagree on morals because we reject the notion of absolute morality). We simply don’t find it from an observatory view because we’re not searching for it or likely deny it while it’s in our face.
“No. I don’t. Assuming you mean what I think you mean, here. Are you asking if I would like there to be an objective source for morality, if people were totally immoral?”
Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life. Therefore, the significance of humanity is decreased because not everyone is equally valuable, even though most of humanity is value by their own standards and quality of live, the small cracks in society blemish man’s standing for God.
“I know that. But it does mean that I have good reason to not think one exists.”
Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.
test
I seem to be having difficulty posting here…
Sorry it took me so long to get back on here. I havent had a chance to go online for a while now. I also had trouble posting this to the site. It wouldnt let me. You may notice my response looks a little disoriented, that is because I hit on each of your points, and it was a little bit (ok, it was difficult) to connected each of them without sounding like Im jumping all over the place. I guess, if you wanna read what I have to say, youll bear with me…
You missed the point of what I was trying to say. I dont “deny” what evidence you have found, I find faults in your logic based upon my logic whose foundation is on the principles of ID. Same goes for you and evolution. Make me out to be an idiot who choses to ignore evidence all you want, honestly I think that is a cheap insult to everybody’s intelligence…
Your bias is just like mine. It isnt backed by science, bias cannot be proven right or wrong. You misinterpreted the word. The evidence is absolute truth pointing to what is ultimately true. How we interpret that evidence is determined by our predispositions. Dont make your bias look nice just because you believe you follow science the way it should! The science exists, and we both look at it. Just because you follow a belief void of a god doesnt mean your interpretations of that science are any better than mine. Yet another cheap insult.
And now your saying you never denied a god existed?! Are you seriously going to say that? You know you dont believe in God, so why would you say that? What you should have said is that many people have altered their look on theism because they were incapable of logically explaining the attacks on them from people like you. You never claimed God existed, stop using that as protection. Also, where are all these evolution/theists? Ive never met anybody that believed both were true…I admit, that doesnt mean they dont exist. But if they were as numerous as you claim they are, wouldnt you think I would have met one by now? Your talking like it is a commonly known thing! Sure, you can give me credibility, but yet again (as I have said many many times before), credibility is ALWAYS biased. The fact that I, nor anybody I have ever known, has met an evolutionist/theist should be proof enough they dont exist (or are at least few in number).
Murder is murder no matter where you live. It is true that culture warps morality based on predisposition (changing mostly small things, but having the possibility of changing large things like cutting peoples hands off, of which I thought was considered radical even in a Muslim community…dont watch the news, they have a tendency to show only the bad to you…personally, I have friends that live in such countries and they continue to have “in tact” hands…guess what…they are Christians, too!), but using that to say morality is subjective is hardly solid evidence…
You are generally right, kin do usually come before others. Im going to tell you the honest truth, though. If I walked in on my brother holding a gun to somebody’s head and I had the ability to stop him without talking through it, you can be sure nobody would have died that day…Regardless of the situation, killing somebody is usually not one of the possible choices to staying alive. For instance, my brother could need to kill that man to pay off a dept he owed him. In his mind (this is a hypothetical, where my brother’s choice had already been made, how he arrived that that choice is not the point), killing the man would relieve my brother of dept and, therefore, save his life. However, most of the time, other possible paths would be taken over killing such as talking it out or falling back on your family to aid you during difficult times. Simply saying kin ALWAYS get priority over others would be easy for an evolutionist to claim, but hard for him to explain. This fact shows that moral choices are made to protect all people, not just kin. Chances are, those other people do not carry any of your genes (personally speaking), but that doesnt mean they are expendable…Protecting those people would, generally, not help you much (in an evolutionist world, that is).
As you look at extensions to your logic about kin, you start noticing contradictions within. You observe a man 35 years of age (just a random number I guessed, could be any age) who has to care for his parents because they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. What advantage does that play in evolution? His parents carry his genes, true, but the odds of them passing the genes on again is insignificant. How could they possibly procreate if they cant even take care of themselves?! (Eww, I kinda just grossed myself out…) It doesnt mean the man instantly abandons them just because they possess no “evolutionary strategic” advantage to him. He still loves his mother and father, but to no purpose in evolution. His energy would be best spent either surviving, procreating, or protecting his siblings, offspring, and/or his sibling’s offspring.
Another contradiction lays in child/parent abuse. Where does this come along in evolution? If evolution were true, a parent abusing his/her children would be suicide! There is always the possibility that abuse from parents could eventually lead to the child’s death without the chance for the child to continue passing on their genes of which arose directly in response to the abuse. You also fail to explain how a child who abuses his parents ends up in a juvenile home instead of continuing to receive assistance from the parent(s). If the parents receive abuse from the child, shouldnt they continue to take care of them simply because they carry the best hope for passing on their genes? After all, what is a little abuse compared to the possible halt of your genes to the overall pool?
I dont really understand how gene flux has anything to do with kin, but whatever…Mindless (or semi mindless) animals cannot comprehend their existence, let alone understand why encouraging morality would be favorable. You would assume they would slowly change into moral creatures as they grew in intelligence, but lack of a total moral system has virtually no advantage to the creature. You cannot learn parts of morality without understanding all of morality while at the same time maintaining its usefulness. And it isnt like they would experiment to see if not killing each other would be beneficial, that doesnt make any sense. If evolution is when one individual gains a favorable trait compared to the rest of the individual’s species, then you cannot explain how morality survived the test of evolution. If the entire society doesnt follow a moral trend, it has absolutely no value whatsoever! In short, if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…hmm, doesnt sound very intelligent to me…
Your “second level” really has no basis, since you really didnt state much more than that neighbors tend to marry each other, thereby helping each other spread their genes. I doubt Im going to marry every one of my “neighbors,” thereby helping the spread of my genes…Eww, that is actually kind of disturbing…
Your third point actually does hold quite a bit of meaning, as an evolutionist. Helping your fellow species would be favorable (in evolution) compared to helping another species. However, that isnt entirely solid. Say a random person was going to kill a dog for no apparent reason. Would your only choice be that of murder? Would the only way for you to save that dog be to kill the killer? No, not really. Talking is very powerful, and is preferred even within the species. The mere fact that you tried to prevent that dog’s death without the need to hurt your fellow species in the process proves that human morality is not limited to human society in general, but can be extended to the feeling of “I need to protect more than just humans”. Protecting another species has absolutely no value to you. It’s not like that dog can be in dept to you for saving its life, it cant even comprehend that its life was in danger! So yeah, I would kill a dog if it meant a human life would be spared, but such a situation rarely ever happens, as well as the fact that such a possibility doesnt necessarily point to the person protecting its genes by killing the dog.
And now my final point: How do I justify that nature is…by nature…cruel? Actually, that is a lot easier to explain than morality is…Acording to evolution, we all came from the first microbe that claimed to be “alive”, correct? Ok, lets move up a step (Im going to state this right now, I am by no means an expert on evolution…obviously…I am making general evolutionary statements in order to prove a point, not to say that it happened the way I claim it did…because, frankly, I dont believe it happened that way…duh). The microbe gained a trait, gained a trait, blah blah blah up to a point where it can oficially claim it is not the same species anymore. Can it think? No, it cannot. It cannot think; it cannot comprehend anything. If you were to say that morality was advantageous to it, you would be a small child who was shown a picture of an amoeba that had eyeballs and a mouth…Fact is, even if morality could play a part to that little, one celled creature, there is absolutely no way it could ever learn it. The only thing that matters to that microbe is aquiring food and reproducing. Morality plays no part in it. If it met another microbe (even if it was the same species), there is no way for it to discern it between being dead or alive. The little microbe just goes on living for itself, and itself only. There is proof #1. Creatures without a brain cannot have morality. Therefore, they live in an immoral state where the only thing that matters is themselves.
Lets continue down the line. We reach the first creature with a brain (which is kinda hard to explain alone, since a brain is a rather advanced piece of hardware regardless of its size or power). This creature is the very first creature capable of forming thoughts in general. This creature is only capable of forming enough thoughts to witness the world around it. Simple thoughts like, “Is this food?” or “Can I reproduce with it” are alone in its brain. Complex thoughts cannot be formed, since its brain is the first of its kind and is, therefore, very basic and simple. It cannot even comprehend enough to tell the difference between water and a rock…how can it possibly think about cooperating with its fellow species to gain an advantage over others? All it can ever know is how to survive and reproduce (traits it gained from its ancestor, the microbe). There is proof #2. Even with a brain, at an early stage, it is impossible for a creature to comprehend morality. Therefore, the only alternative would be to live only for itself, which would be immorality.
I do have a “proof #3″. However, I have already explained it. Since I really dont feel like rephrasing it, and I see nothing wrong with what I originally said, Im just going to copy paste it: “…if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…” Look at it as though the creature in question has evolved up to a point where it is capable of forming complex thoughts, such as morality.
So, is that enough proof? Morality needed to be “acquired” at some point, because absence of morality is, by nature…nature….Yes, these monkeys and various creatures you stated do show a type of morality, but the fact remains that morality itself is too advanced for such creatures to “learn”. The only way for such creatures to display morality would be if they already had the knowledge to do so “genetically predisposed” to them when they were born. I guess I would need to admit that they do display what can be visually observed as morality, but there is much much more to morality than simply living together and benefiting from one another in a society virtually free from “wrongdoings”. Science would have a difficult time proving that the social behaviors of those creatures was indeed morality instead of simply being a predisposition of “not killing one another”.
There you have it. I kept my end of our little arrangement. I kept an open mind (or as open a mind as a bias person is capable of showing) as I read your response to morality. However, since I did find errors in the logic, I will continue to use my “morality argument” in the future if something like this ever happens again.
As for what Im going to do now, Im sorry but I really REALLY need to drop this and move on. It is quite obvious both sides are equally entrenched in their belief, so there is no point to continuing since I can almost guarentee there will be no third party viewing this debate in the future. Im not saying you cant contradict what I said here. I am quite certain that you can come up with a response to this post using evolution’s logic. While I did enjoy debating with you at first, the debate has reached a point where continuing serves no entertainment or theistic value to me whatsoever. Therefore, I am going to call it quits. This time I really do mean it (hopefully).
wah, it was a pleasure reading your findings. Costa, it was a pleasure to see my argument from a different perspective. Redem, it seems you have left already, but it was fun going back and forth there for a while. Perhaps I shall meet you all again, but if I dont…have a nice life…
As for the multiple comments, Im not really sure why, but I couldnt post my entire argument at the same time, so this is what I resorted to. I meant nothing by it…
“Both.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#History_and_origins
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/browse.shtml#darchaeology
“the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.”
Of course not! the historicity of the bible, even though true, doesn’t prove God’s divine truth; that takes faith. The followers claim it’s truth to be truth by faith. Harry potter fans don’t have faith in the ‘truth’ of the series because they don’t claim it to be true.
“Which one?”
That was a joke. They don’t exist but only in your mind.
“What’s this conuntrum,”
I didn’t say that. So I’m not gonna answer that.
“This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists.”
actually it’s true. Lot’s of people mock evolution, biased or not.
“No one has ever made much of it except creationists.”
That’s my point. It’s not that science evolution is false or non-existent but that their claim that apes evolve into humans is a joke because they don’t have the actual proof to prove it, except in their minds. Keep at the search boys. Until then, if you don’t find it before your time is up on earth, won’t you stop by a church or talk with a Christian to hear God’s Good News?
“Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.”
You know what evolutionist scientists should do? Plant some fake evidence to prove that apes evolve into humans to get back at the creationists. “THEY MUST PAY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO US!!”
“We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens”
yet they are non-transitional. Come back when you find the ’smoking gun’
“He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.”
Not against evolution as a natural law but against evolution as a scientific law.
“He is not happy with this sorta thing.”
Yea that does suck. But just suck it up and take it like a man. Nothing too serious. It’s a matter of Creationists picking on the nerdy scientists.
“Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.”
Exactly your predicament. Nature speaks of God’s nature (Romans 1:20). You enjoy what God has created for you to study, yet you fail to recognize God as the one who created that for you (Romans 1:25). You should thank God for that. Read (Romans 1:21-23)
“Example please.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
Keyword: COMPREHENSION. not apprehension. Whatever is unexplainable to science is simply ignored or at best, apprehended with a ‘rational’ explanation of the irrational.
“Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these… A unique human trait, which proves…”
Which doesn’t prove apes evolve into humans.
Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.
The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” to prove that apes evolve into humans. But, IMHO, the ’smoking gun’ doesn’t really exist, they’re just in your mind, wanting to justify your theory.
And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.
“Only differing by complexity”
Complexity complexity. That’s why we’re not related sherlock.
I think you’ve been watching one too many “Jungle Book” movies.
“Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.”
oh and I suppose this whole comment board just happened on its own as well.
“Their existence proves nothing.”
Read Romans 1:19, ROmans 2:15.
“Well poisoning, logical fallacy. His views were fairly enlightened by the standards of the time. On both race and gender.”
Nonetheless, that’s how the father of your science thinks of the value of man and women.
“And they have nothing to do with the validity of his work.”
Of course not. It just goes to show that you follow a leader who isn’t perfect.
“And the bible is far worse on both matters.”
Read Genesis 1:27. God made them equal.
“Appeal to authority is also a fallacy, btw.”
Then we’re both on the same boat.
“I merely require you to provide decent evidence that the bible is factual.”
If you really want to look for evidence for the bible then look here: http://www.carm.org/bible.htm
If not, then go to a anti-Christian website.
“Not too much to ask is it?”
Is this too much to ask?
Do you consider yourself a good person?
Yes Darth Arcon. I see these arguments on both sides aren’t really going anywhere. We’re all basically arguing for who’s more clever. It’s not gonna change anyone’s views even through convincing. We’re all wasting our time typing. So why are we all still here? It’s gone four pages. Wow. None of us have anything better to do. LOL. Oh well on with the debate…
Oh. Darth Arcon. Before you leave. Check these out. It’s WAY FUNNY!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywh8JNzOmcM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N1wKSVJ-LA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsXqa2BoUU
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-20-06.asp
———————————————————-
And these evolutionary pictures are funny:
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Charles-Darwin.jpg
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/evolution-joke.gif
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/charles-darwin.gif
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Lost-sheep.jpg
———————————————————-
One of the mammals’ evolutionary advantages was that they bore their young alive. As research has conclusively shown, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere
http://www.besse.at/sms/flying.gif
——————————————
Scientists and God
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no
longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many
miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a
man-making contest.” To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old
days with Adam.”
The Darwinian said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!”
This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.
“…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so-called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.”
—Steven J. Gould
Evolutionary biologist and Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, Speech at SMU, Oct. 2, 1990.
About Punctual Equilibrium:
So allow me to get this straight: Punctuated Equilibrium explains the process of speciation ONLY, which is when small populations can adapt by slight variations over a very short period of time. But a lab monkey knows that these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record to advance beyond just producing another specie of the parent ‘kind’, which is arguable of its definition. Punctuated Equilibrium does, however, bode well for you because it doesn’t require any fossil evidence to substantiate that evolution perpetually continues on to produce UNLIMITED CHANGE.
““Punctuated equilibrium helped to explain why many transitional forms apparently were missing from the fossil record. According to the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, transitional forms existed for brief periods of time, and so were unlikely to become fossils.””
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History/Department of Paleobiology
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html
But regardless of how brief each incremental change lasted, wouldn’t we expect to find JUST ONE fossil that reflects 1/10th, 1/4th, 1/2, 3/4th, or 9/10th of an actual transition in an existing feature? Examples would be:
* Fins evolving into legs
* Mouths evolving into beaks
* Legs evolving into wings
* Nostrils evolving into blowholes
* Legs evolving into flippers
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fossil_evidence.html
“Got a source for this? I can’t find reference to anything.”
Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Harvard University Press: Cabridge, MA, 1988, pp. 529-530.
“Did he write it after he died?”
writing forward means writing it before the book is complete or published.
Can you give an example of JUST ONE fossil that display organisms with features ‘in transition’ instead of fossils that appear to have a natural progression? Examples would be fossils that have PARTIALLY FORMED leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc., NOT just different sizes and shapes of leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc.
This only have I found: That God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.
-Ecclesiastes 7:29
The comments these kind of articles get makes good insight to one thing.
No matter what, people read what they want. If the text says one thing they go to lengths to read into it something they can agree or disagree with. Thereby justifying their own belief.
I’ve read a bunch of the comments and come across many actual errors of facts.
Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.
Calling evolution religion also makes me laugh.
Sry i fell the need to clarify this..
“Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.”
That is ID with the assumption that it is god that did it. Wich as far as i read the comments where the standard.
@Costa200
“Speciation happens mostly in small populations where mutations get the best chance to accumulate. That is why you may find 100 non transitionals for every transitional. But what does matter is that one transitional makes a gapping whole in your view of things. It is not by repeating that “missing links” stuff over and over again that you will make it so.”
* Mutations are random and do not ‘build’ on each other toward a specific direction.
“Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” … In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07
* Mutations are most often harmful and produce an overall genetic weakness in an organism, not an increase in fitness.
“While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral, the creationists gloss over a crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
* ‘Beneficial’ mutations do NOT add new instructional information and the overall fitness of the organism most often suffers.
“All of the beneficial mutations located in my search of the literature involving almost 20 million references were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp (Scroll to ‘Evidence of Beneficial Mutations’ and ‘Conclusions’)
* Almost ALL mutations are detected and re-written by miniscule machines that check for errors.
“The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage—only about 1 mistake in 10 billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp?vPrint=1
* Only changes in germline cells (cells possessing genetic material that is passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but mutations in germline cells are rare and have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it.
“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
Jeffrey H. Schwartz / Bruno Maresca, “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics” (See PDF, scroll to ‘Conclusion’)
“Some changes, however, to the genetic code cause the message to be changed so that it is no longer understood by the cell: the gene is impaired or faulty. Changes that make the genes faulty are called mutations.”
Centre for Genetics Education, ‘Changes To The Genetic Code’ Fact Sheet 4, Australasian Genetics Resource Book 2007. (See http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/assets/PDF’s/ChangesToTheGenetic_Code.pdf)
See below links regarding molecular machines that repair DNA molecules:
http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/research/Highlights/NaturesMicroscopicMotors.htm
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=6671
http://www.esrf.eu/news/spotlight/spotlight13dnarepair/
It appears to me that a major change in the phenotype or the appearance of a new or more complex feature can’t be caused by one mutation within a gene. Also, since there can be multiples of genes effecting each feature, a mutation in just one gene may have NO effect on the organism. What they can do is change an existing feature in a slightly positive way, but only through reduced or eliminated functions that always result in some fitness loss in the organism. See Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria below.
In terms of accumulations of mutations in genes, subsequent mutations that affect the same feature and build something that it had never possessed before is nearly impossible only if mutations are random and have no purposeful direction, which they are. Taken from your POV, I don’t see how or what would make the resulting organism more fit so that natural selection would preserve this new ‘we-have-no-idea-of-what-we’re-going-to-be’ feature?
@Redem
“Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.
We HAVE seen it in action.”
Yes. We see evolutoin occur. But that doesn’t solidify the entire whole theory of evolution, just some theories. The foundations on which the entire theory of evolution is based on is shaky ground.
Fruit Flies for instance were able to be engineered by scientists, with a second set of wings, but the wings had no muscles and were non-functional. All sorts of experiments have been done to fruit flies, but scientists have yet to create anything novel in them and, every time, the flies ALWAYS end up being nothing but flies! Basically, wec annot re-create the process of which nature creates, which basically shows that no such thing can happen naturally on its own, let alone the technology we have, can’t even do.
“In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings… In the end, however, they were all … fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp (Scroll to ‘Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies’)
@Costa200/Redem
“What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.”
Did you know that bacteria can actually lose their ability to metabolize certain chemicals such as antibiotics, thus giving them the ability to survive within their presence? Read other examples of how bacteria can become resistant to bacteria but NOTE that each process involves duplications or losses in coding instructions and, every time, bacteria ALWAYS end up being nothing but bacteria! Which further extrapolates upon my point that humans aren’t simply a result of the accumulation and duplication of mutations and bacteria, respectively, from apes.
“As a group, the mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
http://www.icr.org/article/14/
Basically, the theory of evolution has a lot of apparent contradictions.
@Yosemity
Evolution is hardly scientific. pFFF. More like over-rated story-telling. For instance, ‘we have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretended to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.’
Tell me in great significant detail how life evolved from one cell-organism to humans. Take your time.
@darth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ntalband.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/calvinhobbes.gif
http://www.frankandernest.com/images/archive/98/980802.gif
http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html
Discover magazine’s 1997 April Fool’s article about the discovery of Neandertal musical instruments is pretty funny.
And here’s my favorite:
Ancient Tech Support
The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:
This fire help. Me Groog
Me Lorto Help Fire not work
You have flint and stone?
Ugh
You hit them together?
Ugh
What happen?
Fire not work
(sigh) Make spark?
Ugh
You have tinder and kindling near spark?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
————————————————-
The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:
This fire help. Me Groog
Me Lorto. Help. Fire not work.
You have flint and stone?
Ugh
You hit them together?
Ugh
What happen?
Fire not work
(sigh) Make spark?
No spark, no fire, me confused. Fire work yesterday.
*sigh* You change rock?
I change nothing
You sure?
Me make one change. Stone hot so me soak in stream so stone not burn Lorto hand. Small change, shouldn’t keep Lorto from make fire.
*Grabs club and goes to Lorto’s cave*
*WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*
@wah
Your post is a perfect example of what i mean. Individuals not pleased with the definitions used by others seeks to bend them to fit there own preferences.
Saying evolution is not science is a kick in the nuts for all fields of science.
If you cant get the analogy of the tree i say you are a narrowminded individual.
“a kick in the nuts”
ROFL!
“a narrowminded individual”
and how am i narrowminded? If i was I wouldn’t even consider looking at the situation from a scientific POV. AS YOU CLEARLY SEE FROM MY POSTS I HAVE. If there was a word to describe me it would be stubborn. So are you but you’re narrowminded. Type to the hand.
Yes, Im back…but, no debating this time. I want to say a few things, but I suppose Ill hold back. Anywho, thanks for the links, wah. Ive been looking for those “Evolution Myth Debunked” videos ever since I first saw them a couple years ago…
Careful what you say now, though. The moment a creationist busts out funny jokes that are clearly an after dinner candy, they will start flaming you for it…
“By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)”
By the standards of what most would call “Western civilisation”.
“Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.”
It’s an important principle. If what would otherwise be considered immoral suddenly becomes moral because god tells you to, or someone else can convince you that he wants you to, then we all have a problem.
“Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?”
Sounds fairly… paranoid.
“He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.”
No one has claimed he was.
“Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.”
During the voyage he might have been considered a naturalist, but his subsequent work on the theory of evolution IS science.
“If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.”
Apples and oranges.
The two are not related in anyway.
Comparison is meaningless.
“But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?)”
I’ve not been saying your views (in this specific instance) aren’t consistant with the evidence. Just that they’re not a conclusion based upon that evidence, and not a conclusion one might reach by studying the universe.
“What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.”
Degredation? I see no degredation. I see a near constant improvement of the human condition.
“His standards are too high for you.”
Heh, no. Too low for me. He is a thief afterall
(Mark 11)
“So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf.”
Mine is the standard by which I judge his actions, and I find him wanting.
“What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.”
Many views are possible… not many are plausible.
“say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak.”
Yes. And far less often than it used to. Those people are being found and caught in many places, and the children rescued. By no means all, but it is still happening. And in the western world especially, those sorts of crimes are extremely difficult to get away with.
“Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life.”
I never said that. I said I have no desire for an outside imposition of some arbitrary “morality” as absolute.
“Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.”
I don’t ignore it. But the fact that I have no good reason to think it means I don’t believe it. There are many thing that are possible that I don’t believe in. The same with you.
Your religion is one of many.
“I also had trouble posting this to the site. It wouldnt let me.”
Same. Sometimes. I think it miiiiight be post length?
only happens with me with huge posts.
I’m not sure, but since I started responding to individuals one at a time, rather than in one giant message.
“You may notice my response looks a little disoriented, that is because I hit on each of your points, and it was a little bit (ok, it was difficult) to connected each of them without sounding like Im jumping all over the place. I guess, if you wanna read what I have to say, youll bear with me…”
I do envy people who can respond to things without having to cut up the toher post into tiny pieces >_>’
Something I totally fail to do and makes my replies look.. terrible.
“You missed the point of what I was trying to say. I dont “deny” what evidence you have found, I find faults in your logic based upon my logic whose foundation is on the principles of ID. Same goes for you and evolution.”
Logic has been seen as universally true by every thinker in history. Theist and non-theist alike. I cannot… really see how it could be otherwise.
If you’re talking about the implimentation of logic, then fine. But logic itself? That would remove all possibility for anyone to agree on anything, ever.
“Dont make your bias look nice just because you believe you follow science the way it should! The science exists, and we both look at it. Just because you follow a belief void of a god doesnt mean your interpretations of that science are any better than mine.”
Actually it does.
You’re adding in an unscientific assumption, and starting with a conclusion. No matter how you want to cut it, your position is not scientifically supported because you are not going about things following the scientific method.
“And now your saying you never denied a god existed?!”
I never denied the possibility. Assuming this is a reply to me… which it mgiht not be… um…
*Cough*
Anyhoo moving on.
“You know you dont believe in God, so why would you say that?”
A different thing from denying the existance of one. An important distinction, I feel.
“Also, where are all these evolution/theists? Ive never met anybody that believed both were true…”
I dunno them off the top of my head. They usually are the less… vocal… religious types.
But about 40-50% of professional scientists in the US are religious.
That you’ve never met any might simply be a amtter of geography and because on a subject like this many people shy away from mentionning any views that mght be considered “moderate” for fear of abuse from both extremes.
“The fact that I, nor anybody I have ever known, has met an evolutionist/theist should be proof enough they dont exist (or are at least few in number).”
heh
How about this as proof?
Poll results of people who accept evolution far exceed the amount of the population that could be considered nonreligious.
“Murder is murder no matter where you live.”
Unless it’s execution. Or he’s on your property. Or he’s the wrong colour/religion.
Plenty of exceptions have been made throughout history.
“but having the possibility of changing large things like cutting peoples hands off, of which I thought was considered radical even in a Muslim community…dont watch the news, they have a tendency to show only the bad to you…personally, I have friends that live in such countries and they continue to have “in tact” hands…guess what…they are Christians, too!”
Those are usually religious courts. they tend to only apply their laws to muslims. And even then it’s rare. Just like few people were burned at the stake as witches in Christian history, but it did happen.
“Simply saying kin ALWAYS get priority over others would be easy for an evolutionist to claim, but hard for him to explain. This fact shows that moral choices are made to protect all people, not just kin.”
it’s fairly easy to explain, Kin are most like you genetically. So most of your genes still pass on if you put kin ahead of strangers. This applies to larger groups, like tribes, states, nations as well, though to lesser and lesser extents.
“Chances are, those other people do not carry any of your genes (personally speaking)”
Actually they do. Almost all of them in almost the same combination.
“Protecting those people would, generally, not help you much (in an evolutionist world, that is).”
Actually it would. Consider it as an example of game theory.
One stable point would be as you assert, everyone out to look after themselves and no one else. But it’s not the highest stable point.
The highest stable point is when people assume that other people won’t betray them, and don’t betray other people, and that those who DO betray people are dealt with harshly enough to act as a deterrant. You still get people acting bad, but not too many.
Essentially what we have now.
The society which reached the highest stable point would be the one who succeeded.
“As you look at extensions to your logic about kin, you start noticing contradictions within. You observe a man 35 years of age (just a random number I guessed, could be any age) who has to care for his parents because they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. What advantage does that play in evolution?”
Elderly parents is a modern phenomenon. The life expectancy of people pre-modern age was about 35.
It’s not been a problem long enough for there to be any significant evolutionary preassure involved.
And again you mistake the issue. As long as morality exists individual results of this need not be beneficial, they’re just side effects of the overall benefits of the system.
Same with the rest fo the examples given.
“Another contradiction lays in child/parent abuse. Where does this come along in evolution? If evolution were true, a parent abusing his/her children would be suicide! There is always the possibility that abuse from parents could eventually lead to the child’s death without the chance for the child to continue passing on their genes of which arose directly in response to the abuse. You also fail to explain how a child who abuses his parents ends up in a juvenile home instead of continuing to receive assistance from the parent(s). If the parents receive abuse from the child, shouldnt they continue to take care of them simply because they carry the best hope for passing on their genes? After all, what is a little abuse compared to the possible halt of your genes to the overall pool?”
Again, side effects of mostly beneficial systems. Such as the human brain being intelligent, when that system breaks, usually due to environmental rather than genetic problems, problems arise. But it’s rare, and has no significant impact on the evolution of the species as a whole.
“You cannot learn parts of morality without understanding all of morality while at the same time maintaining its usefulness.”
Oh?
It seems to me that morality is more or less instinctive, and needs no understanding at all. Animals do instinct quite nicely. Us for example.
“If evolution is when one individual gains a favorable trait compared to the rest of the individual’s species, then you cannot explain how morality survived the test of evolution. If the entire society doesnt follow a moral trend, it has absolutely no value whatsoever! In short, if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…hmm, doesnt sound very intelligent to me…”
Morality isn’t a gene thing. So it doesn’t work as described here.
It’s a part of brain structure, which does develop slowly and with advantages along the way. morality comes from social interactions. So social animals simply learn to cooperate to mutual advantage first and foremost. Morality then develops to counteract individuals who… take advantage of such cooperation without really contributing.
At a basic level it’s simple reciprocating. If I help you get food, and thne you don’t share it with me, I won’t help you in future.
Your strawman version treats morality like hair colour, or soemthing equally genetically based. Something that is there or not. Something that needs to be in everyone to be an advantage.
“There is proof #1. Creatures without a brain cannot have morality. Therefore, they live in an immoral state where the only thing that matters is themselves.”
Surely “armoral” would be a better term? “immoral” just doesn’t work when we’re talking about things that are essentially organic machines. No more “immoral” than a falling rock.
Also, this point seems to be unrelated to the question you are discussing.
“There is proof #2. Even with a brain, at an early stage, it is impossible for a creature to comprehend morality. Therefore, the only alternative would be to live only for itself, which would be immorality.”
Again I don’t see your point? Theydon’t really think at this stage, they just… react. The brains just route information around a bit.
Your third point I dealt with already. So um…
yeah.
Basically you are trying to define morality in such as way as to make it impossible for anything to be moral toher than us.
That is why science would have trouble identifying it. You define anything that we observe as simply not “real” morality.
The definition of morality you are trying to use necessitates conscious thoughts. Thus making it impossible for anything that does not think to be moral. Not a definition I am prepared to use. Morality is not thought. I do not THINK before I step in to help my friends, or to give my little sister a hug if she needs it.
So by YOUR definition these are not moral actions, just predisposed behaviours. I can only act morally if I sit back and compose a minor thesis in my mind on the subject of morality.
““Both.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#History_and_origins
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/browse.shtml#darchaeology
Those fall under the “the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.” I rpeviously mentionned.
“That was a joke. They don’t exist but only in your mind.”
My reply was a joke too
Because there are hundreds of transitional fossils representing the transition between humans and ancient primates. As well as thousands more representing extinct cousins.
“actually it’s true. Lot’s of people mock evolution, biased or not.”
Yes, No doubt. But the claim is still false, I can find NO experts who make that claim. And, yes, I did look. Just like a researched the other factual claims made.
“That’s my point. It’s not that science evolution is false or non-existent but that their claim that apes evolve into humans is a joke because they don’t have the actual proof to prove it, except in their minds.”
This one fossil was never used to support the claim of common ancestry… so it not being hominid is unrelated entirely to the point you just claimed to be making…
The fossils we use to support the common ancestry are the ones that were actually earlier hominids…
“Until then, if you don’t find it before your time is up on earth, won’t you stop by a church or talk with a Christian to hear God’s Good News?”
Better things to do on a sunday
““Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.”
You know what evolutionist scientists should do? Plant some fake evidence to prove that apes evolve into humans to get back at the creationists. “THEY MUST PAY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO US!!””
The implication seems to be that this was desperation on the part of the scientific community because they eneded some fossils…
That’s just a lie dude. Bearing false witness is not very nice :p
“yet they are non-transitional. Come back when you find the ’smoking gun’”
I never claimed they were. I simply corrected the picture you were painting of a small number of neanderthal specimens.
“Not against evolution as a natural law but against evolution as a scientific law.”
No one was making that claim though…
“Yea that does suck. But just suck it up and take it like a man. Nothing too serious. It’s a matter of Creationists picking on the nerdy scientists.”
Quote mining is not simply “picking on” scientists. It’s abusing their words to try to make it look like they said something they didn’t, in order to trick people into thinking worse of evolution than the full quote would have. It’s lying.
“Exactly your predicament. Nature speaks of God’s nature (Romans 1:20). You enjoy what God has created for you to study, yet you fail to recognize God as the one who created that for you (Romans 1:25). You should thank God for that. Read (Romans 1:21-23)”
Which only matters if you’re already a believer. Doesn’t help me at all.
These are a aprt of the thing that I do not believe in, remember.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
Keyword: COMPREHENSION. not apprehension. Whatever is unexplainable to science is simply ignored or at best, apprehended with a ‘rational’ explanation of the irrational.”
No claimed supernatural phenomenon has ever stood the rigeurs of scientific testing.
“Which doesn’t prove apes evolve into humans.”
I never claimed it did. it shows only that those traits are not uniquely human, as was claimed.
“Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer.”
Actually yes. Just not biologically. The designs evolved over time :p
But your analogy fails because planes don’t reproduce or mutate. Life does.
“The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes.”
Does that include retroviral insertions at the exact same points in our DNA? Weird design parameters.
“The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof.In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” to prove that apes evolve into humans. But, IMHO, the ’smoking gun’ doesn’t really exist, they’re just in your mind, wanting to justify your theory.”
Hard to find something that is defined by it’s non-existance. We have, however, found plenty of ancestral hominids showing transitions towards humans. What exactly are you looking for? We have fossils from clearly not human apes, not even hominids, all the way to humans. I’m not entirely sure what more you want here.
“The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.”
Very droll.
“Complexity complexity. That’s why we’re not related sherlock.
I think you’ve been watching one too many “Jungle Book” movies.”
never seen any, actually.
And we are realted, we simply have a more complex brain. There is nothing unique about us, the differents are quantitative, not qualitative.
“oh and I suppose this whole comment board just happened on its own as well.”
Nope, but as with your plane example, message boards don’t reproduce and mutate.
“Nonetheless, that’s how the father of your science thinks of the value of man and women.”
You want to examine some of Newton’s views? They’re far worse. Does that mean all of motion is stained by them? I don’t think so.
Or shall we examine the views of the early church leaders? Why not go further back? To the views of the founders of your church? Or those of the founders of Judaism? Shall I recite liviticus versus?
“Of course not. It just goes to show that you follow a leader who isn’t perfect.”
Who has ever claimed he was perfect?
And no one “follows” him.
“Read Genesis 1:27. God made them equal.”
And then recinded it immediately, apparantly. He certainly doesn’t treat them equally.
“Then we’re both on the same boat.”
When did I make an appeal to authority fallacy?
“If you really want to look for evidence for the bible then look here: http://www.carm.org/bible.htm”
Again this doesn’t meet the London test. Nothing here proves anything that under contention.
“Do you consider yourself a good person?”
Reasonably.
““…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so-called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.”
—Steven J. Gould
Evolutionary biologist and Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, Speech at SMU, Oct. 2, 1990.”
What of it?
“So allow me to get this straight: Punctuated Equilibrium explains the process of speciation ONLY, which is when small populations can adapt by slight variations over a very short period of time.”
No. It represents the idea that a lot of differentiation can occur in a geologically short period of time, given the right circumstances.
“But a lab monkey knows that these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record to advance beyond just producing another specie of the parent ‘kind’, which is arguable of its definition.”
Arguable indeed. You can define it as loosely as you like, without ever having to conceed defeat. Gotta love language like that.
And it is untrue, the rest of your claim. We have fossils of these, you’ve been linked to some already, and simply ignored them.
“Punctuated Equilibrium does, however, bode well for you because it doesn’t require any fossil evidence to substantiate that evolution perpetually continues on to produce UNLIMITED CHANGE.”
Actually it does require evidence. And there was enver a claim fo unlimited change.
“But regardless of how brief each incremental change lasted, wouldn’t we expect to find JUST ONE fossil that reflects 1/10th, 1/4th, 1/2, 3/4th, or 9/10th of an actual transition in an existing feature?”
Actually no, given how sparse fossils are. We have a single full example of a TRex, for example. and those lived accross a span of millions of years.
Luckily we do have them.
*Fins evolving into legs
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/04_Acan_flesh_reconstruct.jpg
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm
* Mouths evolving into beaks
This one doesn’t even require much imagination, dude.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#cranial-features
* Legs evolving into wings
More of an arms than legs thing, but I digress.
See above. The acheo’s wings are not like those of modern birds.
*Nostrils evolving into blowholes
I don’t think soft tissues fossilise in water, so I doubt there’s much to find. Not much of a leap fo the imagination though.
But just about anything you wanna know on whale evolution can be found here.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
* Legs evolving into flippers
Again the soft tissue thing. We’re essentially talking about webbing, that’s the main different between the two.
“writing forward means writing it before the book is complete or published.”
I’m aware of that. I was being sarcastic.
To be blunter, that quote was fake.
“Can you give an example of JUST ONE fossil that display organisms with features ‘in transition’ instead of fossils that appear to have a natural progression? Examples would be fossils that have PARTIALLY FORMED leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc., NOT just different sizes and shapes of leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc.”
Define “partially formed”.
Rudimentary leaves are still “full formed” leaves. Fully formed fins are still “fully formed”. You seem to be asking for some sort of crippled freak.
Earlier versions of all of those are in the fossil record.
“Careful what you say now, though. The moment a creationist busts out funny jokes that are clearly an after dinner candy, they will start flaming you for it…”
Your definition of funny is vastly different from my own. It’s certainly mockery, but mockery isn’t necessarily funny. It all seems so… strained. Mockery for the sake of mocking, rather than for it being funny.
“Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer.”
That if you belive both of them materialized out of thin air somewhere in 1970s.
LOL, is that “Young aviation” proposal?
Any other way around this is perfect evolution case.
Once, someone threw a rock ….
@karlito31
LOL. you got it all backwards. Planes can’t materialize out of thin air. It was built from the ground up by a designer and builder. It had a purpose. And so is life. You think evolution can logically explain how the animal phlya popped into existence in the Cambrian Explosion, fully formed, besides a comet? I don’t think so.
Someone asked for a single example of someone who accepted evolution and was religious.
Kenneth Millar.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
Check “The Flaw in the mousetrap” section of this for something written by him.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
Ken Miller’s own website is a better source methinks.
“LOL. you got it all backwards. Planes can’t materialize out of thin air. It was built from the ground up by a designer and builder. It had a purpose. And so is life. You think evolution can logically explain how the animal phlya popped into existence in the Cambrian Explosion, fully formed, besides a comet? I don’t think so.”
Yes. For two reasons. One, the explosion was a period of 40 million years or so. Only short on geological time scales.
Two, because not all phyla originated in that time period,
Eleven of thirty two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian explosion. One appears before it, and eight after it. Twelve have no distinct fossil origin.
The most likely reason for it was simply that the earth was just coming out of the biggest ice age it had ever experienced. Suddenly there was a huge amount of free space and resources for creatures to exploit, with little direct competition, except from predation which also exploded at that point.
@Redem
You’re kidding right?
“Heh, no. Too low for me. He is a thief afterall
(Mark 11)”
“I said I have no desire for an outside imposition of some arbitrary “morality” as absolute.”
So you’re basically saying you don’t need God. In a nutshell.
“Your religion is one of many.”
What do you think about comparative religions?
“Because there are hundreds of transitional fossils representing the transition between humans and ancient primates. As well as thousands more representing extinct cousins”
That maybe so from the evolutionists’ POV, but the hands-on paleontologists and ‘the data that they have accumulated tell a very different—and more objective—story.’
Below is an article on Tim Wallace’s rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Five Major Creationist Misconceptions About Evolution” concerning paleontology’s qualifications of “transitional fossils.
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
It’s a controversial issue that basically argues that there are no transitional fossils because of the evolutionists’ qualifications for “transitional fossils” contradict with the qualifications for “transitional fossils” of the paleontologists, morphologists, archaeologists, among other leading evolutionists and the ones who actually dig up the bones, including inconsistencies found in certain scientific claims with their theories and methods. Interestingly enough, here is an article of Wallace’s response to Wayne Duck’s “critique” of the previous article: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp
“Define “partially formed”.
Rudimentary leaves are still “full formed” leaves. Fully formed fins are still “fully formed”. You seem to be asking for some sort of crippled freak.”
Partially formed like the transitional forms you find between wolves and dogs but with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion some 550 million years ago.
“Earlier versions of all of those are in the fossil record.”
Which earlier versions? The ones where all the animals suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
“But the claim is still false, I can find NO experts who make that claim. And, yes, I did look. Just like a researched the other factual claims made.”
What ‘ya talking about? Experts from both sides always make claims, true or not.
Lucy is taught in publics schools that it’s the perfect missing link between apes and people. All the elementary kids learn about Lucy. What is Lucy? Grossly ape-like features. 3 1/2 feet tall. Skull with very ape-like features, not even human-like. In fact, critical and analytical evolutionists don’t even claim that. Lucy had long arms, almost carried the knuckles on the ground. Strong muscles attached to the shoulders indicating Lucy was good at swinging in trees. curved fingers which are grabbing on tree limbs. Curved toes indicating that it was good at swinging in trees. But no, evolutionists like Donald Johanson, the one who discovered Lucy in the ’70s, said, “oh but look there’s one angle in the hip joint, another in the knee joint that indicates that MAYBE Lucy spent a part of her time walking upright.” and that’s as strong as the evidence gets that that thing’s related to humans. It’s SHAMEFUL. Leading anatomists agree that that Lucy was probably much better at swinging in trees than she was ever walking upright. and BTW, chimps walk upright too. Personally, if you ask me, I think the “Lucy’ bones are exaggerated.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125703.300&feedId=human-evolution_rss20
So, IMHO, human evolution is BAD NEWS, alright? If you look CRITICALLY. If you wanna believe evolution you’ll always find things that will prop up your beliefs. But if you think uncritically for yourself you’re not gonna see it. And there’s a lot of embarrassing moments in the history of human evolution as well.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/nebras/nebraska.jpg
Nebraska Man, okay? They basically imagined a drawing of what kind of a skull, skeleton, meat, long hair, and a club-in-the-hand would look like all from a single tooth. That’s all they discovered from the fossil. Apparently, they were also able to figure out what his wife looked like too. This was considered serious evidence and revolutionary back then, but a decade later they found it to be a pig’s tooth, which fooled the science community for almost a decade. Now, I’m not saying this to say that the science community is out there to hoodwink the public. I think they’re mostly honest people — they’re deceived. But they’re so desperate to lay hands on something that looks like an intermediate between an humans and apes, they’ll sometimes lay hold of things that are absolutely foolish. IMO, your missing links are missing in the millions.
Back in the late 1970s scientists started coming out of the closet admitting these things. Note Gould’s quote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
So even Gould said “the evidence is not in the fossils themselves but rather in the INFERENCE. IOW, how good is your ‘imagination’ to ‘imagine’ these missing links between these types of organisms,”. And this is true in the so-called human record where humans and apes have been found in fossil records (Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magnum, etc which I think are sons and daughters of Adam, then there’s Australopithecus which I think are grossly ape-like more than human) but as far as the ‘in-between’ forms we find in public school textbook pictures, that’s simply not true. They exaggerate ape-like features of the former and exaggerate human-like forms of the latter.
And referring back to Gould’s quote about the evolutionary tree in textbooks, you should probably already know that paleontologists even stopped using that “evolutionary fossil tree” because it was bunk. (http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_Explosion
Why? Based on geological sedimentary rock records using the Early Cambrian time scale, all the fully formed creatures, clams, fishes, inverberates, corals, phylum, don’t even have a hint of an ancestor below the lowest layers, underneath the earth’s crust. As we all know they call that the Cambrian Explosion because it looks like as if life just exploded into existence, as if God CREATED it that way. Now the evolutionists have drawn ‘dashed’ lines joining the base of these lines that supposedly connects all the radically types of organisms, thinking as if they have one common ancestor, which basically means they’re basing this strictly on faith. They don’t have those missing links. IOW, abruptive appearances of these fossils and stasis is what we see: ‘non-change with time’.
The simple fact is that the transition series are pure fantasies. They are basically ‘guesswork’ based on a presupposition of evolution and a comparison of specific body parts while ignoring others. Evolutionists have faith that mutations have gradually made biologists out of bacteria, or Adam from an amoeba. Bottom line, my gist on evolution is that it takes as much faith in your line of work as it does for me.
“so it not being hominid is unrelated entirely to the point you just claimed to be making”
Whether that one fossil was used to support the claim of common ancestry or not, my point boils down to “educational guesses” nonetheless.
“The fossils we use to support the common ancestry are the ones that were actually earlier hominids…”
If you’re talking about Neanderthals, Cro-magnums or early human tribes, etc, then sure they’re related to us. But the relation between us and apes are still guess-work.
“Better things to do on a sunday”
Then go on another day. It’s not like salvation is only available 12 hours a week.
“That’s just a lie dude. Bearing false witness is not very nice”
Then do it on April Fool’s Day! :p
“It’s abusing their words to try to make it look like they said something they didn’t, in order to trick people into thinking worse of evolution than the full quote would have. It’s lying.”
And so is making exaggerated scientific claims that humans came from apes based on evolutionary presuppositions and educated guesswork.
“Which only matters if you’re already a believer. Doesn’t help me at all.
These are a aprt of the thing that I do not believe in, remember.”
Well how unfortunate for you.
Read Anthony Flew’s (atheist) parable: [Once upon a time two explorers set out on unchartered jungle after several days of hacking their way through the dense undergrowth of vines, they emerged to much of their surprise, in the clearing and in the middle of the clearing was a gardener. One explorer says to the other, "This is a remarkable discovery! We gotta find the gardener. Well he says, "Well we don't see any evidence for this gardener but they decided to camp their just the same for a few nights. No gardener shows up. First guy says, "Well maybe this is an invisible gardener. We need to setup a scientific trap for him by setting up a fishing line around the perimeter. That way when this invisible gardeners comes to tend his crops at night, we'll have scientific evidence for his existence." and they run this experiment with negative results and the first explorer goes, "Well wait a minute! Maybe he's not just invisible. Maybe he's an immaterial gardener as well, like a spirit being." By this time, the other investigator says, "every time I challenge the existence of this mysterious gardener of yours you give me a different qualification of this being. First you say, 'he's invisible.' Then you say, 'he's immaterial'. I ask you, 'What's the difference between immaterial gardener and no gardener at all?'"] The parable was meant to strife Christians or push them into a corner. Now I know you’re going to remain close-minded about this but I always delight myself in trying to answer the question that there’s abundant evidence for God’s existence. So I’d appreciate if you’d entertain the idea for a brief time. IOW, you don’t have to agree.
Anthony Flew believes like most people that the universe and all it’s complexities is like a complex garden. all of it began as an explosion. All the universe and matter was compressed into a tiny egg and somehow this thing blew up. And from this expanding cloud of hydrogen and gas you got stars all by accident. and planets just happen to form by chance and on this one little chunk of rock called Earth, chemicals got more complex spontaneously. and oh the first life crawled out of the warm pond and the first single-cell creature it became spontaneously multi-cellular. This bacteria turned into something like a sponge or clam, some primitive organism. and over the course of many generations it grew into a fish and a fin grew into a group of fins into fishes and eventually conquered land and grew legs and the apes swung down from the trees to turn into people. and we’re the first creatures to look back on this glorious heritage and not only that but man is still evolving and man’s next evolutionary step will be an awakened consciousness and man will realize he is god himself. So it all fits together you see. All a wonderful story. However I would submit to you there’s not a shred of science that would indicate matter left to itself will organize itself spontaneously. Anthony Flew’s idea meets a challenge when we look at nature. For example, the morpho butterfly.
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
MARVELOUS creature! If you’re in Central America you’ll see a brilliant flash of blue. he’s got no pigment in his wings but structural color. IOW, if you look at the wing under a microscope, here’s what you see: thousands of these microscopic scales in blue. On each of these scales are ridges that stand up vertically like this. On each of these rums and the spacings of those rums is so precise down to their wavelength of light that when white light strikes the surface of the butterfly wing there’s a thing called destructive interference and only the perfect shade of blue can escape from the surface of this butterfly wing and I look at something like that and I say, “That takes precision engineering!” alright? That gets my attention. As somebody who believes in the Lord I say, “My God! How great thou art?! Not only that you would create a butterfly but you would go out of your way to generate this structural color!” And peaco_cks feathers have the same effect. Many fish reptiles and birds have this property called iridescent structural coloring. Remarkable, isn’t?! But yet Anthony Flew and all our public school children and so on are taught that this is the result of undirected purposeless processes. That’s what I wanna challenge by looking at things of science.
“No claimed supernatural phenomenon has ever stood the rigeurs of scientific testing.”
Exactly my point. Supernatural phenomenon is basically out of the realm of science. That’s why they fail. Have you ever tried explaining yourself to an ant?
“I never claimed it did.”
But the evolution theory does.
“But your analogy fails because planes don’t reproduce or mutate. Life does.”
Actually they do. Planes are mass-produced. Planes are revised to improve features and better models.
“Does that include retroviral insertions at the exact same points in our DNA?”
You’re talking about God here. If he can create the cosmos by scratch I’m sure he can figure SOMETHING out.
“We have, however, found plenty of ancestral hominids showing transitions towards humans. What exactly are you looking for? We have fossils from clearly not human apes, not even hominids, all the way to humans. I’m not entirely sure what more you want here.”
Sure if you’re talking about early human tribes (Neanderthals, etc). But no smoking gun that once and for all irrefutably and truthfully factualizes the theory. And most transitions may ‘appear’ transitional when it may not even be. In fact, when you say ‘we’, in general terms, do you mean evolutionists, paleontologists or geologists? Because I can tell you right now that paleontologists and geologists say one thing but evolutionists say another about the evidence.
“And we are realted, we simply have a more complex brain. There is nothing unique about us, the differents are quantitative, not qualitative.”
But they can’t talk like we can. Parrots can ‘talk’ like we can but even they can’t coherently produce intellectual thought and reason with verbal speech and cognition into sentences, paragraphs and long-winded speeches. A 2 year old child can talk. Humans ARE unique. We are special. You are special. I don’t see why evolutionists have to ‘degrade’ ourselves down to animals. You guys are droll.
No we’re not related. We can coherently talk. And that’s qualitative not quantitative. Certain primates are said to have the intelligence of a 5 year old child but they can’t talk. They can go, “oo oo oo oo ah ah ah ah ah”
“Nope, but as with your plane example, message boards don’t reproduce and mutate.”
Again, they do. Message boards can be copied and modified.
“Or shall we examine the views of the early church leaders? Why not go further back? To the views of the founders of your church? Or those of the founders of Judaism? Shall I recite liviticus versus?”
I don’t really care about them. If you want to pick a real fight then try this: Charles Darwin vs Jesus Christ.
“And then recinded it immediately, apparantly. He certainly doesn’t treat them equally.”
Prove it. Take me verse by verse.
“When did I make an appeal to authority fallacy?”
The fact that you used Gould’s quote to illustrate your point, whether it was right or not.
“Again this doesn’t meet the London test. Nothing here proves anything that under contention.”
Yes it does. You’re probably too lazy to sift through the tons of proof that is there. The difference between harry potter and the bible is that in harry potter, there’s no historical evidence (written documents, artifacts, etc) to reasonably conclude that Harry fought a dragon in London. It’s just a purely fictional story or event whose setting is in a real place. The bible has stories (exaggerated or not) where the people and places can be reliably verified to actually happen in real history through written accounts/testimonies and archaeological verifications of items, biblical events and places. Look it up.
“Reasonably.”
Reasonably enough to pass Judgment Day?
“What of it?”
Just admit that the lack of fossil evidence and the dearth of transitional forms composing a reasonably minimum continuum means that the fossil record is a disaster for the theory of evolution so evolutionists just go on to more interesting ways to deny the truth, like Gould’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium”, as evidence against the “gradualism” that Charles Darwin expected, being simply an excuse for the absence of fossil evidence or like this:
“Students may very well wonder why the fossil record has so many seeming holes in it. If so, the opportunity should be seized to show the value of mathematics.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F
“No. It represents the idea that a lot of differentiation can occur in a geologically short period of time,”
Yes it does explain that. Even though you are essentially correct from a general perspective, your answer basically explains how the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise in a short period of time, speciation. And because the fossil record doesn’t accommodate the slow gradual process expected by Darwinism, an alternative explanation called Punctuated Equilibrium was offered to explain the sudden appearances of organisms. Yet a scapegoat to account for lack of gradual fossil evidence.
“given the right circumstances.”
And what right circumstances are those? Just curious. Because even geologists admit that changes in the fossil record are trivial, particularly in cases of fossil types like an ammonite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonite (I’m sure you can find diagram links of fossil changes), where you see in the next layer up you can see two different ammonites slightly different than the others and the next layer they’re slightly different and sometimes you can even see 20 different ammonite zones in a single section of a rock, you can trace those things (they really do occur). But notice something, you start with an ammonite and you end with an ammonite. Are you turning one creature to a totally different creature? No. The differences among these things are trivial! We’re not talking about big changes here. This tells something very important to geologists that the sedimentary rock record is capable of preserving the kinds of changes you’d be expected of evolution if it did really occur. But it seems like it’s missing. The problem is that geologists don’t see no changes in the sedimentary rock record that indicates where creatures are changing step-wise and stage-wise into fundamentally different kinds of creatures. If Geologists saw something like that then they’d be persuaded to believe that apes turn into humans but they’re not.
“And it is untrue, the rest of your claim. We have fossils of these, you’ve been linked to some already, and simply ignored them.”
Nope again. My claim is true because the links you pointed me do not really account for the apparent missing gaps, which backs up the claim that the absence of these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record. IOW, the complete gapless observations from crustaceans to humans are non-existent.
“Actually it does require evidence.”
Only if it’s used to explain rapid changes within a short time. Then you need fossil evidence to back that up. What I’m saying is it can be used to explain something when there is no evidence. Since, punctuated equilibrium was made up because there was no gradualistic fossil evidence, it is mostly used as an excuse to explain any abruptive appearance of new species that gradualism can’t account for, like when there’s NO EVIDENCE. Essentially, it can use evidence but it doesn’t really need it.
“This one doesn’t even require much imagination, dude.”
VERY questionable proof, dude. Half-reptile and half-bird. It sort of looks that way. Seems more like bird than reptile. I dunno. This is the kind of like the kind of evidence where you have to tilt your head at a certain angle and do more squinting than you have to, you know? My question is how come you can’t find a full succession of one creature turning into another fundamentally different kind of creature? If that’s out there somewhere, I wanna know about it. I’m interested in truth. But I don’t think it exists, alright?
In addition to Archaeopteryx being debatable, evolutionist spokespeople tend to exaggerate these claims when the hands-on experts like the paleontologists, morphologists, etc have a different interpretation of supposed “transitional evidence.” ‘It should also be mentioned here that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before.’ [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]
“but I digress”
I digress as well. LOL
“I don’t think soft tissues fossilise in water, so I doubt there’s much to find. Not much of a leap fo the imagination though.
But just about anything you wanna know on whale evolution can be found here.”
Very interesting. Thanks. But sadly it’s a gray area due to the fact that whale phylogeny can sometimes be contrived from how little substance, as a result of forcing data through an imaginative and speculative matching process, based mainly on hypothetical presuppositions
“To be blunter, that quote was fake.”
No, it’s true. Well it could be true as much as it could be fake. There are no absolutes remember?
——————————————————
@Redem/Costa200
If you will, I’d like to share some verses with you because I think they’re poetic. (OK. that sounded queer.)
“IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1)
“God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26)
“Who else has held the oceans in his hand?
Who has measured off the heavens with his fingers?
Who else knows the weight of the earth
or has weighed the mountains and hills on a scale?
God sits above the circle of the earth.
The people below seem like grasshoppers to him!
He spreads out the heavens like a curtain
and makes his tent from them.
Look up into the heavens.
Who created all the stars?
He brings them out like an army, one after another,
calling each by its name.
Because of his great power and incomparable strength,
not a single one is missing.” (Isaiah 40:12,22,26)
“Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 19-20)
@Redem
“Genocide is immoral by todays standards.”
Okay. That’s an interesting point you’re trying to make but what you should be referring to is war, not genocide. Let us compare today’s standards with the standards back in the bible days by observing how the Ten Commandments apply to you today. But before we move on, I must address the following:
Back then, it was immoral for the Israelites to break any of the ten commandments. It was NOT immoral as far as the rest of the world was concerned, but it was. The Lord holds all humans accountable for their actions according to His moral standards, which is absolute and objective perfection. Evolutionary biology observes that only relative morality exists because man’s moral standards have always changed, including fluctuations across the globe and through out history, and that not everyone holds the same moral standard. Because of that, only relative morality have always existed within the lives of human beings and that I agree to be absolutely true. However, even from back in the bible days to now, God’s moral standard is unchanging (Isaiah 41:4, Psalm 18:31, Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), perfect, let alone His nature (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Psalm 19:7, Psalm 119:96, Matthew 5:48), and absolute (Isaiah 44:6; Acts 17:24-25). And even though today’s standards have changed, we all still firmly believe that God’s morals don’t apply to us today, that it only applied to the Israelites in ancient times. But the 10 commandments were and is NOT used as a rule guide for any one to abide by, including the Israelites and Christians because if we all lived by the 10 commandments we will never be innocent because we will always break them; after all we’re still human. The gist is that the 10 commandments are simply used to show us that 1) we are guilty before God, 2) His moral standard (of being perfect before Him) still applies to everyone, everywhere and every time and 3) we need to look somewhere else other than the commandments to have our sins forgiven (Isaiah 59:2, 1 John 4:10). Now on to the show!
Let’s go through each of the 10 commandments to see how you do. Keep in mind that the first 5 deals with our relationship with the Lord, God the Creator. The other half deals with our relationship with others.
http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ (Please go through the entire presentation.)
If you actually went through the whole test then you should realize by now that the claim that absolute morality doesn’t exist is absolutely absurd because you know in your heart that at least one of those commandments is absolutely immoral for anyone, anywhere, at any time. To say otherwise would mean that someone out there hasn’t broken any of those rules, thus making them perfect. But we know there is not one person who is perfect or blameless (Romans 3:9-13, 3:23, 5:12).
Does all that mean the ‘10 commandments’ are the strict rules for everyone to live by? Of course not! The law cannot save us from condemnation; it simply shows us that we are imperfect beings who are guilty before our Lord. The rules of man do not apply to you because no man is perfect. But if there is any ‘arbiter’ to hold us accountable for our actions on an absolute/objective basis, it is simply the Lord.
What should personally matter to you outside of this discussion is your standing before the Lord. But that is a personal matter…
@Costa200
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
(THESE are used to give credibility)
Honor thy Father and Mother
Thou shalt not murder*
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”
I find it ironic that you used the 10 commandments to justify that only relative morality exists.
Back then, it was immoral for the Israelites to break any of the ten commandments. It was NOT immoral as far as the rest of the world was concerned, but it was. The Lord holds all humans accountable for their actions according to His moral standards, which is absolute and objective perfection. As you have pointed out, evolutionary biology observes that only relative morality exists because man’s moral standards have always changed, including fluctuations across the globe and through out history, and that not everyone holds the same moral standard. Because of that, only relative morality have always existed within the lives of human beings and that I agree to be absolutely true. However, even from back in the bible days to now, God’s moral standard is unchanging (Isaiah 41:4, Psalm 18:31, Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), perfect, let alone His nature (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Psalm 19:7, Psalm 119:96, Matthew 5:48), and absolute (Isaiah 44:6; Acts 17:24-25). And even though today’s standards have changed, we all still firmly believe that God’s morals don’t apply to us today, that it only applied to the Israelites in ancient times. But the 10 commandments were and is NOT used as a rule guide for any one to abide by, including the Israelites and Christians because if we all lived by the 10 commandments we will never be innocent because we will always break them; after all we’re still human. The gist is that the 10 commandments are simply used to show us that 1) we are guilty before God, 2) His moral standard (of being perfect before Him) still applies to everyone, everywhere and every time and 3) we need to look somewhere else other than the commandments to have our sins forgiven (Isaiah 59:2, 1 John 4:10).
Now let’s go through each of the 10 commandments to see how you do.
http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ (Please go through the entire presentation.)
If you actually went through the whole test then you should realize by now that the claim that absolute morality doesn’t exist is absolutely absurd because you know in your heart any one of those commandments are absolutely immoral for anyone, anywhere, at any time. To say otherwise would mean that someone out there hasn’t broken any of those rules, thus making them perfect. But we know there is not one person who is perfect or blameless (Romans 3:9-13, 3:23, 5:12).
Does all that mean the ‘10 commandments’ are the strict rules for everyone to live by? Of course not! The law cannot save us from condemnation; it simply shows us that we are imperfect beings who are guilty before our Lord. The rules of man do not apply to you because no man is perfect. But if there is any ‘arbiter’ to hold us accountable for our actions on an absolute/objective basis, it is simply the Lord.
——————————————————
@Redem
I know the thread is pretty lengthy and considering that many people on this board have a short attention span I’ll make the sacrifice to dumb down the ‘jargon’ if you will so that it’ll be much much easier to comprehend the terminology. I’m not in anyway condescending anyone since there are all sorts of people on this board. Basically, I’m going to use VERY basic terms to describe things with as much accuracy in meaning as possible so bear with me I’m behind and need to get things done. However, I will be extremely critical and analyze things on a most basic elementary level that you’ve probably not used to. For instance, for evolution I will say ‘big bang’ instead of explaining the process of Cambrian Explosion. or fish, monkeys and men instead of invertebrates, primates and humans. Or bones instead of fossil transitional records. Basically, I’m going to be simply blunt, straight-forward and telling it like it is. I’m going to keep things very simple here. No differential calculus. No quantum mechanics relativity. Just math and physics. If the discussion is too ’simple’ for you and not enough intellectual then I’m sorry I can’t do anything about it. Been having PC problems lately, behind the posts, too many things to do.
I’m gonna do a little Scripture first.
I’d like to start with Romans 1:16 and this is Paul’s exposition of the gospel. Very important passage in here particularly for scientists. Paul says this, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”” And I say that I’m very glad that somebody was not ashamed of the Gospel several years ago in my life because I was someone who was lost, even though I felt like I was king of the world. And to be lost means what? You don’t know where you came from. You don’t know where you’re going. And you don’t know where you at. It’s a scary thing when a kid gets lost in a department store or walking through a suburban neighborhood where every house on every street and corner looks exactly the same or something like that. It’s even more frightful when it’s an adult and you know you’re lost and you don’t know what to do about it, alright? Believe me, I was very glad for verse 17. It says, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” IOW, even though I know there’s a GOD up there who’s holy and I know I’m not holy and my consciences tells me that DAILY…I can have a right standing with that holy god on the basis of faith and come to Him on that basis is me! That’s good news to someone who was lost. Continuing on with Paul’s exposition of the Gospel, which is perfectly logical, verse 18 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” It says that God’s ANGRY..at people who are holding the truth or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. It’s kinda like pushing a beach ball in water and this thing’s wanting to come up…and people are holding it down and it says all the godless, everyone, is guilty of this crime. That’s the context of this passage here. What is this ‘truth’ that’s being held back? Go to verse 19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” That’s very interesting. IOW, whatever this truth is God’s the active party revealing this to man. Verse 20, “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” What does all that mean? You pick up a blade of grass and you say, “There’s no God!”……..you’ve just condemned yourself…not because of anything that says in Scripture because NATure itself TESTifies of GOD that His existence is WRITTEN throughout nature all around about…Now if that’s the case, if that’s really true..:hmm:..that really says something to scientists. Because a scientists does what? He studies the things that are made, doesn’t he? He studies the things of nature…Scientists….I’m sorry…are without excuse. If they say, “There is no God…” ABOVE ALL people, they’re without excuse. That’s not my opinion. That’s what Scripture seems to be saying. Now, again, if that’s the case we should be able to go to science, go to the things that are made and see perfectly clear evidence for His existence IF this passage is true and let’s see if we can have some fun here. :p
Say you’re a Geologist and like looking at rocks.
http://www.mutha.com/oldmanmountain.jpg
That’s “Old Man of the Mountain”. Geologists can explain that shape for us that it’s really random erosion and jointing in the the rock face and cracking. You can get that as a result of time and chance. How about you showed me another rock that looks like this:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2429/vlcsnap12124418ja8.png
Can you I get a rock like that by time and chance? What would I say if you told me that a theory that just random process over a long ages may have produced that rock. Because it is a rock BTW. What would I say to your theory? Obviously it’s BUNK right? Obviously we can see the sharp edge, the point, we can see the base, obviously it’s an arrowhead, we might say that the invisible Indian is clearly seen being understood by the things that is made even his ingenuity and dexterity so that the archaeologists won’t have an excuse if he says that thing happen by chance. Basically, that’s the application of Roman 1. What I wanted to say earlier was we know what time and chance produces – we know what plan and purpose produces.
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7629/vlcsnap12126450pm6.png
So what is to forbid us from using that same kind of reasoning when we look at the biological world around about us? Can we do that as scientists? alright? I THINK we can do that. and so on we go.
“Natural Selection” (This topic seems to be untouched. So I want to share my personal thoughts on it. If you can bear try to keep an open mind.)
You can look at dogs (another arguable topic as well). You can get lots of different varieties of dogs through breeding. You can get many different species; fox, wolf, coyote, many domestic dogs, long hair, short hair, small, big dogs, smart and stupid dogs, all kinds of dogs. But can you keep breeding dogs by selection and get a porcupine or something radically different? No! Everybody knows you can’t do that. Every farmer knows this who breeds animals. Because there seems to be a brick wall, you can only go so far and you get this much variation and that’s it! But as we all know natural selection is what’s claimed to overcome some of these hurdles. I use to have these nice German co_ckroaches in the kitchen cupboard, and every time I get up to get a drink of water I’d hear crunch-crunch under my toes and you know it’s time to call the insecticide people. Boom! They set off a chemical bomb and come back a few days later and sweep up all the dead coc_kroaches, right? Now conceivably (but I moved out) you can find some live coc_kroaches that have survived this chemical bomb that are resistant to that type of pesticide that you exposed to that population to. Now what’s just happened? Have you just evolved a super-coc_kroach in your cupboard? Is that what’s happening? Some people will tell you that because of the stress from that chemical those coc_kroaches went uuggnh and they produced a super-coc_kroach. No. Chances are that natural selection is taking place. IOW, you’ve eliminated the 99% of the population to which that pesticide was lethal to and you identified the 1% which was there all along that had the in-built ability to resist that pesticide. IOW, God made coc_kroaches, believe it or not, with LOTS of variations among them, ok? And some could do better in different circumstances than others, ok? This is called natural selection. NOTICE that the coc_kroaches are multiplying into super-coc_kroaches.
So natural selection is nature selecting one variant of the population over another. But natural selection has no creative ability whatsoever. It CANNOT create anything new. It can only select from variants already present in the population. So it’s very very important for you to realize that natural selection can’t create anything. So when Darwin wrote his book on ‘Origin of Species by Natural Selection’ he made a big mistake because every biologist knows you can’t create anything new by that means. This is where mutations comes in.
Now we know that mutations generally represent copy errors on the genetic code. They’ve been bombarding these fruit flies w/ harmful radiation for years now to see what kind of results you get and what do you think you get? You get a defective fruit fly is what you get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antennapedia.jpg
Here is a normal drosophila fruit fly on the left and a mutant fruit fly on the right with an extra pair of legs protruding from its forehead. Well you might think it’ll help me run faster. But..no. In fact, it’s absolutely fatal to that organism, if you don’t keep him alive in the laboratory he’ll perish. Not much of an evolutionary future in a fly like that. It turns out mutations in every single case that we know of in multi-cellular animals are taking creatures to ever increasing complexity and design and marvelous new creatures. Everybody knows…They’re taking creature to ever-increasing levels of disrepair of degradation. They’re taking creatures downhill, not up. You show me a man who understands the human genome and I’ll show you a man who is pessimistic about the future of the human race because we’re building mutations at such a rate that there’s no hope, naturally speaking, apart from the Lord, in the future of man. In human populations we call mutations birth defects. I don’t know any mother who wishes that she could have lots of birth defects to evolve a better human. This is a mutant fruit fly also: http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1320/vlcsnap12015382mm1.png
Now I don’t know what part of the fruit fly you’re looking at there but that’s what mutations will do for you, alright?
This is where mutations and natural selection work together.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/transitionals_b.htm
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/woodpecker.htm
Now before you get too excited about responding to this section, I’m already aware that this is a very old creationist vs. evolution debate going on for a very long time online. In fact, the above links are creationist and evolutionist sites containing information concerning mostly about the tongue anatomy of the woodpecker and how one says it’s in the nostrils and the other says it’s in the back of the mouth or head that the tongue is simply elongated due to mutation, in terms of its evolutionary capability and ‘transitionality’. Well, it seems to me that the Evolutionist site is more accurate and technical when it comes to explaining the intricacies of the woodpecker’s tongue and how it could evolve. Very insightful and interesting because I’ve read on both sides. However, I’d like to present my personal views on it if you will. And I hope you’ll find it interesting to see this from my side.
I’m gonna take this rare opportunity to take it from an evolutionists POV: Let’s imagine how an ordinary bird evolves into a woodpecker. Ordinary bird’s flying through the woods one day and ZAP! It gets hit with a cosmic ray. Miracles of miracles it develops a favorable mutation. No one’s ever seen such a thing. For the sake of argument, let’s just say this bird is evolving. It’s on it’s way into turning into a woodpecker, alright? When we look at a woodpecker, we’re looking at a very specialized sort of critter here. When you hear that tap-tap-tap in the woods, you better believe he’s coming down on that wood real hard about 4-5g’s gravity. IOW, he’s really pounding when he does that. An ordinary bird beak would crumble under that pressure. In fact, the woodpecker has a lot of special designed features. He’s got shock absorbing tissues to keep the brain from getting rattled. He’s got a specially re-enforced skull around the back to make sure the beak doesn’t go out the back end when he hits the wood. He’s got other features including a stiff tail that props up against the tree and a very stable kind of drilling platform. He’s got eyes that blink every time he hits the wood. Every tap-tap-tap they see this in slow motion photography. The eyes blink just before he comes down. Some people say maybe it’s to keep wood chips from flying in his eyes. I think it’s to keep his eyeballs from flopping outside his head. And then he’s got one other feature that’s very important because when he drills these holes because he wants to snatch up these insects that live in there, you see. He’s got a long sticky tongue on the woodpecker. So you could really reach in there to snatch up insects. And where do you store a long sticky tongue if you’re a woodpecker? He’s got a special retracting case that wraps around the backside of his skull inserted through the right nostril (hotly debatable – see above links for anatomy of tongue). So you can really pull that tongue in and out. This, IOW, is another highly specialized bird. So let’s try to imagine this from the view of the evolutionist, here’s your ordinary bird flying through the woods, get hits by a cosmic ray, develops a long sticky tongue (didn’t have this before), but this bird doesn’t yet HAVE the other shock absorbing tissue in the skull, the blinking eyes and all the other features yet because these mutations don’t come along every day. And so you can imagine this bird that doesn’t have a case to store its tongue in yet so it’s walking around tripping over its tongue or else flying through the woods with the tongue flapping in the breeze behind him and it catches on a low branch. Down he goes. There’s not much of an evolutionary future for a bird like this. Now this is meant to be a homely example, to make a point, alright? In order for that ordinary bird to evolve into a highly specialized woodpecker you don’t need just an occasional favorable mutation, you need MULTIPLE favorable mutations all at once like you’ve never seen before in order to do this kind of thing. The chances of that happening are very slim. IOW…the evolutionist must believe in miracles. He’s got lots of faith, you see. If you can believe that woodpecker could happen by mutations and natural selection (and that’s all you’ve got) you’re BELIEVING in miracles. But…that’s just my perspective.
“One, the explosion was a period of 40 million years or so.”
I was thinking more of a cosmic scale. But such idea is also arguable to the least to Young-Earth Creationists (which I don’t hold fast steadily) to which I could compare its views from. For instance, ask almost any Geologists, and they’ll tell you they’ve never seen a rock with a little tag on it that says, “I’m 200 million years old.” Because radio-isotope dating is very theoretical, it has major problems with its dating, which they say is the ONLY way for the Earth to be measured 40 and a half billion years old. Folks they’re not ‘measured’ the age of ANY rock to be millions of years old; scientists can only interpret the age of rocks and their interpretations are only as good as the ASSUMPTIONS that go into those methods. So here’s what you got with radio-carbon. We got artifacts written records and so on and it says, “singed by the Alexander the Great.” or something like that. Well you can send it and have it radio-carbon dated and you get a pretty good correspondence between the historical date and the radio-carbon date. But here’s the funny thing that happens, according to geologists, when you get further and further back in history, you get pretty good correspondence and then you get even further back, right around 3,000-4000 B.C. when we start running out of historical records, the difference between the historical and radio-carbon dates start increasing enormously. You’d expect that as you get further back the method would breakdown IF there was a global flood in the not too distant past. The bible talks about a global flood and if a global flood really happened then it would really upset the equilibrium that radio-carbon dating method depends upon. so scientists do NOT trust most radio-carbon dates when you have no calibration standard to compare it to like historical records. The efforts have been made to use tree rings to calibrate it with, or leg sediments and all kinds of methods but they all break down. No one wants to admit that it’s guess work when you get back to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, which some don’t think it’s real. I hope to share with you very briefly, how or why a young-earth creationists adopts this particular view, but not in detail as I prefer not to get into a young/old earth debate because I’d rather lean towards an old-earth view myself. Maybe if you’d like to hear their views from a young-earth POV so that the next time you get into a debate with them you come in with an informed opinion, that is, if you’re not too bored with all this. Anyhoo, is there any reason to think the Earth might be much younger than billions of years old? Well, if you’d like to go to the ocean, they’ve got some horrible news for Christians. The rate of sediment being delivered to the oceans by the big muddy rivers like the Mississippi, the Nile, Congo, Amazon, 27 million tons of dirt is being dumped into those ocean basins. IOW, they’re filling in with sediments at an alarming rate. You can do the arithmetic and let’s assume the oceans are 1 billion years of age, even though scientists tell us they’re much older, but let’s assume their 1 billion. At that rate of input how thick would be the sediment layer be on the ocean floor? 100,000 ft. IOW, the thickness sediment layers in deep ocean basins is about 200 ft. IOW, if there was such a massive layer out there it would displace the oceans on top of the continents and we’d have another ‘global’ flood on our hands, right? Obviously, there’s no such deposits out there. It LOOKS like those ocean basins are a whole lot younger than billions. So they have no problem believing the Earth is on the order of 6,000 – 10,000 yrs old, just like the bible SEEMS to be suggesting when you read it at face value. Still, young-earths maintain the age of the earth has not been proven to be 4.5 billion years – it may be much much younger than that. They hold steadily fast that evolution, fossils, earth history doesn’t seem to be happening in the present world or in the millions scientists are assuring us of.
“Two, because not all phyla originated in that time period,
Eleven of thirty two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian explosion.”
There’s not much consensus in these theories. So here’s an alternative theory that I think should shine light on the integrity of the controversial subject which claims the abrupt appearance of almost all classes of plants and animals that known to have existed. http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/assets/PDF’s/Cambrian_Explosion.pdf
“The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma. Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier, the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.”
“The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Eugene V Koonin, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, in Biology Direct 2007, 2:21.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
Smile!
LOL When he was on the wall, he fell and started to go from order to disorder very quickly. To go from the opposite direction that’s a nasty job. The king’s horses and his men couldn’t put Humpty together again. This illustrates something around about us. You buy a new car. Does it get more shiny with time or less shiny? Does the engine operate more efficiently or less efficiently if you leave it to itself? Does your room get spontaneously ordered to disordered if you leave it alone? To get order in the room, you gotta put the socks in the drawer, the trash in the bin, you have to interfere with the natural system. Naturally things tend toward disorder. We know it’s true in galaxies. We know it’s true in molecules. In fact, there was a German scientists named Ludwitz Boltzmann. He said this: “You take a box of marbles, red and white marbles. You pull out the divider that separates the two compartments. You shake that box – how long’s it gonna take before you get a disordered mix of marbles?” Not very long right? “How long would you have to keep shaking that box to get all that red on one side and the white on the other?” You’d be shaking for a long time wouldn’t you? Pfft. :p Believe it or not that’s what scientists do, ya know? 
He said this is a fulfillment of what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics, one of the best known laws of physics. IOW, there IS a tendency towards disorder. To get order takes something radically different , you have to interfere with nature to generate order. You have to infuse it with intelligence, right? EVERYBODY knows this, who knows information theory (and I’m gonna talk about it later on). Science predicts that machines will always go from a state of order to disorder and they do. But the opposite never happens. But just think about this for just a moment………..Evolution claims what? In the beginning all there was is hydrogen gas, that’s all there was. And from this expanding Cloud of hydrogen Gas, you just give it enough time and it turns into people. And they tell you that with a straight face…That flies in the face with at least one basic law of physics that i know that says nature left to itself goes downhill, not up. and so you’ve got a decision to make: are you gonna believe science that says one thing (things are tending toward disorder) or are you gonna believe evolutionists that says the exactly the opposite? You can’t believe both. BTW, the second law of thermodynamics fits very well with my biblical world view because the Scripture seems to indicate that God made everything good. And after that, something catastrophic happened to his creation. It went downhill very fast and it’s been going downhill ever since. And that fits very well with my scientific world view. I have no problems with that.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0648l.jpg
It’s Humpty Dumpty!
Okay! I’m aware I’ve tackled this before but I wanna solidify my views on this and I don’t care too much if anyone technically disagrees with it.
The history of science and in the history of science we learn that men like Newton, Boyle, Keplar, Pascal, Maxwell, Faraday. The greatest names of science. Guess what? They love the Lord. Yeah. They were bible-believing Creationists. I’m sorry. The founders of nearly discipline of science you can name was a bible-believing Christian. You can read quotes like these in Newton’s ‘Principia’ (it’s a little old flowery old-fashioned language): “All sound and true philosophy (IOW, science) is founded on the appearances of things; and if these phenomena inevitably draw us, against our wills, to such principles as most clearly manifest to us the most excellent counsel and supreme dominion of the All-wise and Almighty Being, they are not therefore to be laid aside because some men may perhaps dislike them.” I think scientists were a little more courageous back then than they are today. IOW, even if our science leads us towards a conclusion we don’t like personally we dare not cast it aside because we don’t like it. Now contrast that quote right there wiht a modern day quote 1985, Richard Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker”, he said this: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having design and purpose.” Now Dawkins is an evolutionist and an atheist. Basically he says even though there’s an appearance of design or there’s an appearance of purpose. He says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. But DON’T miss the titanic shift that’s happening in the history of science from the days of Isaac Newton to the days of Richard Dawkins. IOW, biologists MUST acknowledge that there’s an appearance of design in that morpho butterfly. “It really LOOKS like it was designed. It really LOOKS like it’s got purpose. But it’s ALL an illusion. Nature’s really fooling you.” is what Dawkins is saying. And that’s what ALL the other evolutionists are telling you. That there’s a grand deception out there. Amazing! The times we live in today that people would SAY that, right? The founding fathers of nearly every discipline of science were bible-believing creationists. Isn’t that interesting? You can go to the universities for decades and never hear that being taught. Amazing. Do you think science began in Hindu, India? or Buddhist, China? Africa? or some other place? No. It began in Europe where systematic science is where it got going and it was on the heels of what? The Reformation which was a biblical revival. Essentially it was an outbreak of Christianity in Europe and that’s where these men of science came out of.
Enough about biology (no offense) and let’s talk about computers. Yes computers. They’re very important because we live in the information age. Computers are made up of two components: the hardware and the software. Software is the stuff we call information. You can get information in many different forms, like a book’s message or my computer can decode that message and I can understand it. You can read and pick up information from the radio broadcast, can’t you? In fact, you can get information in many different forms: there’s another kind of information that occurs on every cell in your body, which is called the DNA molecule. If the DNA molecule were to be written out in a human language form it would fill dozens of sets of encyclopedias. To bluntly put it, it’s a biological super-microchip and it’s a coded language that gives actual instructions on how to build your cells, how to stack the proteins this way to form a cell membrane, how to do this and that and all these detailed instructions are written out on these biological super-microchips which is on every cell of your body. I have a question for you: information. Does it ever happen by chance? How about if I say to you, “I read the message in this book and maybe the ink molecules arranged themselves randomly on the page?” What would you say to that kind of theory? Rubbish, no? Right? Or you walk along the beach and you see written in the sand ‘John Loves Mary’ with a heart around it? Or MAYBE the wind and waves pushed those sand grains into that fine pattern? What would you say to my theory? You KNOW that information never happens by chance. You have to deny all of information theory to say that it could. The DNA molecule is that kind of a thing except it’s taken to the hundredth degree. Remember Carl Sagan? He was the book author behind that movie, “Contact”, with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. He used to say, “We need to build more of these radio telescopes because if there’s any intelligent alien out there that wanna speak to us we wanna make sure we’re listening.” A very noble idea. And he had his criteria set, “If we get any kind of coded information coming from space, even a simple morse code signal, that would be irrefutable evidence that it came from an intelligent being from space.” Though he had his criteria set, any information automatically is an indication that it came from an intelligent being. Yet Carl Sagan would look at that DNA molecule, which represents information and it’s loaded with this stuff. And he’d said that DNA molecule happened by chance and there was no intelligence involved there whatsoever. I think Carl Sagan had a double-standard. He can SEE the signs of intelligence. He knew information automatically speaks of intelligence but he would look at that DNA molecule and say, ‘no intelligence there. it happened by chance.” He had a double standard and was a hypocrite. He was a man, I think, like many people today who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He didn’t like the idea of being held accountable to some intelligence up there and so he suppressed and pushed it aside. AFWK, he took his atheism with him to his grave. One of my personal friends once knew people who confronted him with this very argument on his death bed. And as far as we know it he never received it. So…coded information never happens by chance. It’s always the result of intelligence and that DNA molecule in every cell in your body, does it just suggest that there’s a creator? No. It demands it. Scientifically there MUST be a creator. There’s NO escaping it. You have to deny all of reality around about you to say that DNA molecule happened by chance. I don’t see where any biologists have no answer to that. So we know that time and chance produces and we know that plan and purpose produces. In regards to Anthony Flew’s parable and the morpho butterfly and so on, it REALLY speaks of genuine design. Genuine purpose. And so people say, “well that’s very nice. You share your quaint little views with us wah and that’s nice. C’mon! Do you really believe all the leading scientists are fools or they’re deceived or something like that and your little band of creationists have the truth? Is that what you’re really saying?” And my answer is always the same: “NOW, you’re beginning to understand teh level of darkness in the world today. I KNOW! I was in that darkness.”
http://www.live365.com/stations/garrett137 (Listen to while you read below)
And you know that it’s very very natural, if there’s a holy god up there and if what the bible says is true that we’re created with his image and likeness we have something in common with our creator. Think about that. If that’s the case and if I’m a fallen creature and if the bible’s also true when it it says all men are in a state of rebellion before their creator, it’s the most natural thing in the world for me to run as fast as i can away from any kind of accountability to God. It’s NATURAL ya know. I KNOW. I’ve DONE IT! But you know what the good news is this: you don’t need to run from God anymore. YOU KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS. Everyone here knows that. You don’t need to run away from Him anymore. YES He’s a holy god and you’re not holy. But you know what? He POURED OUT THE WRATH that you and I deserved on His own son on that cross. That’s the Good News. If we come to Him on faith and ask Him to be our lord and savior, He’ll radically change our lives. I believe that with all my heart. He did for me. And that’s what I call the Good News. That’s it. There’s really nothing religious about the Good News. It’s true, alright? It’s Good news that it changed my life. And I hope it’s profitable for you if you ever make that step of faith.
“Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.” -Winston Churchill
The ID vs Evo Debate:
My personal views on it. It’s a spiritual battle. The ID movement has been going strong in the past few decades. But that’s coming against the same challenges that ICR people were having in the 70s and 80s: same kinds of barriers “Separation of Church and State”. I think there are major flaws in the logic of all that but people don’t want to see that they’re being inconsistent. In Romans chapter 1 where it says the suppression of truth that’s going on to say that men will believe a lie rather than the truth and ANY kind of foolishness to escape the idea of a accountable god and I think evolution provides man with that kind of figley thickened to hide behind. And that’s why it’s the center piece of our public education system – they’re not gonna give that up so easily.
“LOL. you got it all backwards. Planes can’t materialize out of thin air. It was built from the ground up by a designer and builder.”
nah,
youll get it eventually.
“:lol: You’re kidding right?”
Nope. Not in the least.
“So you’re basically saying you don’t need God. In a nutshell.”
We don’t.
“What do you think about comparative religions?”
I don’t think about them at all.
“That maybe so from the evolutionists’ POV, but the hands-on paleontologists and ‘the data that they have accumulated tell a very different—and more objective—story.’”
That is from the paleontologists point of view.
“Below is an article on Tim Wallace’s rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Five Major Creationist Misconceptions About Evolution” concerning paleontology’s qualifications of “transitional fossils.”
What about it?
Essentially he is painting disagreements on where exactly fossils should lie into some sort of lack of transitional fossils. It’s the complete opposite, there are too many for some areas of the fossil record, so that it is difficult to place them in order correctly. Because specimens do not fit into any current groupings, it can be difficult to classify them properly, that is where the disagreements come from.
“Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully “transitioned” from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the “original” or the “descendant” system during the alleged transition.”
Here for example he makes the same error as you did previously. Thinking that transitional forms must have crippled systems that don’t work properly while they are being modified. And is also ignoreing that like they should, true scientists are discussing what they can study. Bones and teeth are the only things that really fossilise. Discussions of the evolution of soft tissues would be mostly speculative, and would not fit in with those doing hard science. Although the evolution of those things is discussed.
“Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):”
This part is simply wrong. It is preciesly the transitions between major taxa that are easiest to place and study, and which are most abundant.
And I suspect a lot of these quotes are quote mined. It seems to be usual in these cases. The gould quotes especially.
I could go on, but… it’s a little long to work through point by point.
Also…
” * Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved. ”
The first is a lie. The second is just stupid. The third is a lie. The fourth is a complete strawman, and the last is just plain stupid, again.
No source claiming these can be considered credible.
“Partially formed like the transitional forms you find between wolves and dogs but with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion some 550 million years ago.”
Those are not partially formed though, not in the sense you seem to be asking for. If you mean in the same sense that earlier dogs were “partially formed dogs”. Then an and all ancestral species would be examples of what you are looking for.
Check the page I shows you previouslly on whale evolution for a detailed series of examples.
“Which earlier versions? The ones where all the animals suddenly appeared out of nowhere?”
They don’t though.
“What ‘ya talking about? Experts from both sides always make claims, true or not.”
People make claims. We were talking about experts, which is another matter entirely.
I’ve not been able to find anything resembling that claim on anything other than creationist websites.
“Lucy is taught in publics schools that it’s the perfect missing link between apes and people. All the elementary kids learn about Lucy.”
They also learn about “orbiting electrons”. These are simplified versions of events for children.
“What is Lucy? Grossly ape-like features. 3 1/2 feet tall. Skull with very ape-like features, not even human-like. In fact, critical and analytical evolutionists don’t even claim that. Lucy had long arms, almost carried the knuckles on the ground. Strong muscles attached to the shoulders indicating Lucy was good at swinging in trees. curved fingers which are grabbing on tree limbs. Curved toes indicating that it was good at swinging in trees.”
Lucy looks nothing like that. For a start we cannot see her facial features, except in very vague detail.
“One of the most striking characteristics possessed by Lucy was a valgus knee, which indicated that she normally moved by walking upright. Her femoral head was small and her femoral neck was short, both primitive characteristics. Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human like rather than taller than the femoral head. The length ratio of her humerus to femur was 84.6% compared to 71.8% for modern humans and 97.8% for common chimpanzees, indicating that either the arms of A. afarensis were beginning to shorten, the legs were beginning to lengthen, or that both were occurring simultaneously. Lucy also possessed a lumbar curve, another indicator of habitual bipedalism.”
From the wiki.
“Personally, if you ask me, I think the “Lucy’ bones are exaggerated.”
And what of the other 150 of the same species?
“So, IMHO, human evolution is BAD NEWS, alright? If you look CRITICALLY.”
If you look “critically” enough, you can deny just about anything.
“And there’s a lot of embarrassing moments in the history of human evolution as well.”
At least as far as the creationists are concerned.
“Nebraska Man, okay?”
See my previous comments on this. Basically, this was NEVER used to support or develop the evolution of men. It was simply an error by some scientist and quickly corrected.
Only creationists ever bother to mention it.
“IMO, your missing links are missing in the millions.”
No fossil species exists in the millions. Even those lasting millions and millions of years.
You’re asking for an unreasonable level of evidence.
“Note Gould’s quote:”
Already dealt with.
“So even Gould said “the evidence is not in the fossils themselves but rather in the INFERENCE. IOW, how good is your ‘imagination’ to ‘imagine’ these missing links between these types of organisms”
You have a problem with inference then? No, inference is not about imagination. It’s about extrpolating the evidence.
“They exaggerate ape-like features of the former and exaggerate human-like forms of the latter.”
Proof please.
“Why? Based on geological sedimentary rock records using the Early Cambrian time scale, all the fully formed creatures, clams, fishes, inverberates, corals, phylum, don’t even have a hint of an ancestor below the lowest layers, underneath the earth’s crust. As we all know they call that the Cambrian Explosion because it looks like as if life just exploded into existence, as if God CREATED it that way.”
See my previous refutation of this claim.
Also, if god created them all of a sudden in the cambrian explosion… so what?
They still evolved from there.
“Now the evolutionists have drawn ‘dashed’ lines joining the base of these lines that supposedly connects all the radically types of organisms, thinking as if they have one common ancestor, which basically means they’re basing this strictly on faith. They don’t have those missing links. IOW, abruptive appearances of these fossils and stasis is what we see: ‘non-change with time’.”
Except we do see change with time. So unless god continually replaces dead species with similar ones… you’re simply wrong.
The dashed lines are simply extrapolations. Just like if we look deep enough there would be a dashed line representing unknown ancestors in your family tree. That does not mean they don’t exist.
“Bottom line, my gist on evolution is that it takes as much faith in your line of work as it does for me.”
Nice claim, but.. you have no evidence to support yours. And we have quite a lot of it (understatement) to support us.
“The simple fact is that the transition series are pure fantasies. They are basically ‘guesswork’ based on a presupposition of evolution and a comparison of specific body parts while ignoring others.”
Is this is true, then why do so many different lines of evidence match up? fossil records, genetic analysis, biochemical similarities, behavioural and anatomical similarities, etcc…
There is no reasonw hy these should all agree, if they were wrong, and yet they do.
“If you’re talking about Neanderthals, Cro-magnums or early human tribes, etc, then sure they’re related to us. But the relation between us and apes are still guess-work.”
No, I was talking of actual ancestors like Australopithicus or Homo ergastor.
“And so is making exaggerated scientific claims that humans came from apes based on evolutionary presuppositions and educated guesswork.”
Unless we’re supported by evidence. Which we are.
“And from this expanding cloud of hydrogen and gas you got stars all by accident. and planets just happen to form by chance and on this one little chunk of rock called Earth, chemicals got more complex spontaneously”
I prefer the term “gravity” myself. Which makes all of that inevitable, not chance.
The same with the next claim. It’s just chemistry, not chance. The rules of chemistry are inevitable.
“not only that but man is still evolving and man’s next evolutionary step will be an awakened consciousness and man will realize he is god himself.”
Now, even more than the rest of that, this is just plain ridiculous. That in no way resembles anything approaching anyone’s actual opinion.
“That’s what I wanna challenge by looking at things of science.”
Any particular reason why you think it’s impossible for that to happen without conscious direction?
“Exactly my point. Supernatural phenomenon is basically out of the realm of science. That’s why they fail.”
No. They have not failed because they are supernatural, they have failed because they turned out not to be.
“But the evolution theory does.”
No, only your strawman version of it does.
“Actually they do. Planes are mass-produced. Planes are revised to improve features and better models.”
neither of which is reproduction or mutation.
But if you want to go down that road, they the Jet did evolve fromt he BiPlane.
“You’re talking about God here. If he can create the cosmos by scratch I’m sure he can figure SOMETHING out.”
And thus we reach the unfalsifiability again.
Assuming that god does exist and did design all of those creatures. Then the only possible reason for retroviral DNA insertions is to fool us. So you’ll have to forgive us for being fooled.
“Because I can tell you right now that paleontologists and geologists say one thing but evolutionists say another about the evidence.”
Not really, no. Only if discussing different points.
The smoking gun you demand simply does not exist. We have creatures with human and non-human features. What else could you possibly want?
“Certain primates are said to have the intelligence of a 5 year old child but they can’t talk. They can go, “oo oo oo oo ah ah ah ah ah”
But they can’t talk like we can.”
No. They don’t have the vocal cords we have. They can be taught sign language though. Which is just as good, just not vocal.
They can clearely understand words and ideas and concepts. But no matter how smart they are, they cannot speak unl;ess they have voice boxes and speech centres capable of producing speech.
You’re being unfair to them, again.
Deliberately defining intelligence in such a way as to make it impossible for something to be intelligent unless it can hold a conversation in the usual human manner of speech.
“I don’t see why evolutionists have to ‘degrade’ ourselves down to animals.”
We are animals by any reasonable definition of the word animal.
“Again, they do. Message boards can be copied and modified.”
Then again I will say that they evolve.
“If you want to pick a real fight then try this: Charles Darwin vs Jesus Christ.”
Sure. Why not. Darwin never asked peple to hate their families, or to leave them to fend for themselves in bronzeage Israel. Or stole a horse, that we know of.
Or has 4 mutually exclusive accounts of his death.
Also we can be fairly sure he actually exsited.
“Prove it. Take me verse by verse.”
Let’s seeeee… Apparantly he deliberately gave women painful childbirth, and that’s in pre-anaesthetic days, and all he gave adam was um.. the adam’s apple?
Not very nice of him.
He also made them prizes of war for his conquering soldiers to “take”.
As for versus, meh. Google it. It’s not exactly a secret.
“The fact that you used Gould’s quote to illustrate your point, whether it was right or not.”
Errr… that’s not appeal to authority. That’s quoting what someone said.
Appeal to authority is when you claim, or imply, they’re right simply because they’re famous.
“The bible has stories (exaggerated or not) where the people and places can be reliably verified to actually happen in real history through written accounts/testimonies and archaeological verifications of items, biblical events and places. Look it up.”
And the parts that can be verified are not the parts that are under contention.
“Reasonably enough to pass Judgment Day?”
Depends on the qualities needed. Afterall, faith is also required, and I don’t have any of that. Nor would I have faith even if I had belief.
“Just admit that the lack of fossil evidence and the dearth of transitional forms composing a reasonably minimum continuum means that the fossil record is a disaster for the theory of evolution”
But it isn’t true. Why would I admit it something that is untrue?
I have linked you to the transitional forms before, and you never paid any attention to them.
““Students may very well wonder why the fossil record has so many seeming holes in it. If so, the opportunity should be seized to show the value of mathematics.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life”
Not sure why you quoted this, it merely explains that fossils are rare. Which they are.
“Yes it does explain that. Even though you are essentially correct from a general perspective, your answer basically explains how the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise in a short period of time, speciation. And because the fossil record doesn’t accommodate the slow gradual process expected by Darwinism, an alternative explanation called Punctuated Equilibrium was offered to explain the sudden appearances of organisms. Yet a scapegoat to account for lack of gradual fossil evidence.”
refining a theory to account for evidence is a good thing, not a bad thing. No matter that you wish to paint it as one.
“And what right circumstances are those?”
I stated earlier actually. When this subject was first raised.
But essentially in periods of lower competition, for various reasons, diversity increases rapidly.
“Because even geologists admit that changes in the fossil record are trivial, particularly in cases of fossil types like an ammonite”
And why exactly does the opinion of people who are experts on rocks matters over the opinions of those who are experts on fossilised animals? Just curious.
Also, cite me a source showing that geologists, as a whole, claim this please.
The lack of major change in some species is not a problem for evolution, dunno why you’re implying that it would be. Just means that they’ve not physicially changed much.
“The differences among these things are trivial!”
No, they’re not. The changes are enough that they are very different species. They are highly adapted to their niche, which has not changed much over the years.
“Nope again. My claim is true because the links you pointed me do not really account for the apparent missing gaps, which backs up the claim that the absence of these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record. IOW, the complete gapless observations from crustaceans to humans are non-existent.”
You seem to demand that we have every single creature that ever livbed fossiliesed before you’ll be happy. And then you’ll probably ask us to fill in the gaps between parent and child.
“it is mostly used as an excuse to explain any abruptive appearance of new species that gradualism can’t account for, like when there’s NO EVIDENCE.”
No. It is used to explain why there are long periods of stability with short periods of change, when that was not what is expected.
“My question is how come you can’t find a full succession of one creature turning into another fundamentally different kind of creature? If that’s out there somewhere, I wanna know about it. I’m interested in truth. But I don’t think it exists, alright?”
This entire species is represented by 8 specimens.
That is why you will never get a “full succession”, because the fossils are too rare.
But this is clearly not a bird, it has non-avian features. And clearly not a reptile, it has non-reptilian features. It is a transition between the two.
It is does not fit into either of the two groups.
It is one of what you claimed earlier do not exist. A transition between higher taxa.
“‘It should also be mentioned here that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before.’”
it may not be directly ancestral of all modern birds, but that was never the claim. Just that it was a transitional species. More likely it was a cousin lineage to ancient birds, that died out.
Regardless, it clearly shows the development from reptilian features to avian ones.
“No, it’s true. Well it could be true as much as it could be fake. There are no absolutes remember?
”
Oh, there are absolutes. And if it is real, cite me a decent source for it.
It would be a matter of historical record.
“Who else knows the weight of the earth”
Ummm… the ancient greeks did, I think. Not exactly correct, but close enough. Modern man has measured it extremely accurately though.
*Innocent smile*
“Okay. That’s an interesting point you’re trying to make but what you should be referring to is war, not genocide.”
Fighting against someone is war. Murdering their children is genocide. Raping and enslaving their young women and girls is just sick.
All were sanctioned.
“http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ (Please go through the entire presentation.)”
Ummm.. what was the point in that?
I think I passed number 2 though
Go me.
“If you actually went through the whole test then you should realize by now that the claim that absolute morality doesn’t exist is absolutely absurd because you know in your heart that at least one of those commandments is absolutely immoral for anyone, anywhere, at any time.”
At least one? Hmmm… which?
None of them seem absolutely immoral at all places and times.
“If the discussion is too ’simple’ for you and not enough intellectual then I’m sorry I can’t do anything about it.”
it’s only a problem when the simple version is wrong.
The simple idea most poeple ahve of a scientific law is that it is absolutely true. But they’re not. They’re mostly mathmatical relations or abstractions. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe how an ideal gas acts with regards to heat, preassure and volume. That’s it. They’re not even “absolutely correct”.
If they were then the universe would be a diffuse cloud of hydrogen with a bit of helium in it. It’s not.
The laws are useful, but they’re not “correct”.
That is why I often be more specific than you, because the simple descriptions are often incorrect in detail, even if they are useful abstractions.
“you’ve just condemned yourself…not because of anything that says in Scripture because NATure itself TESTifies of GOD that His existence is WRITTEN throughout nature all around about…Now if that’s the case, if that’s really true..:hmm:..that really says something to scientists. Because a scientists does what? He studies the things that are made, doesn’t he? He studies the things of nature…Scientists….I’m sorry…are without excuse. If they say, “There is no God…” ABOVE ALL people, they’re without excuse.”
If it is written there, it is not in a language I can read.
There are two main problems here. No matter who you are, study of nature will not lead you to christianity without a christian convinceing you of it. It’s simply inconceivable to think otherwise. There is nothing about christianity to distinguish it from any other religion, even if you could be convinced of the general idea of a desginer in the universe. There is nothing about that design which specifies the christian one must be it.
And secondsly, I see nothing in the universe which needs an intelligent creator. Nor do I see a necessity of the unniverse itself needing one.
“Can you I get a rock like that by time and chance? What would I say if you told me that a theory that just random process over a long ages may have produced that rock. Because it is a rock BTW. What would I say to your theory? Obviously it’s BUNK right? Obviously we can see the sharp edge, the point, we can see the base, obviously it’s an arrowhead, we might say that the invisible Indian is clearly seen being understood by the things that is made even his ingenuity and dexterity so that the archaeologists won’t have an excuse if he says that thing happen by chance”
The way nature works, such an artefact is implausible tio have happened naturally, because erosion does not make shapes like that. It blunts, rather than sharpens because it hits raised areas, like edges, easier than anywhere else. Simply maths.
You are of course making an alalogy with life. But it doesn’t work because the way nature works DOES allow life. It’s just chemistry.
“So what is to forbid us from using that same kind of reasoning when we look at the biological world around about us? Can we do that as scientists? alright? I THINK we can do that. and so on we go.”
But we don’t really.
What we know is what the natural world does. And what it does is make rocks smooth by eriosion, and make them flake apart by “onionskinning” And various other things. None of which make arrow heads.
So we know that arrowheads are not made by nature.
We also know how life works, because it is just chemistry. Nothing more than that. And life is possible.
“But can you keep breeding dogs by selection and get a porcupine or something radically different? No!”
Actually, yes. Given sufficient time.
But since we would kill anything that wasn’t sufficiently canine looking… no.
“Because there seems to be a brick wall, you can only go so far and you get this much variation and that’s it!”
because they’re trying to breed a better animal, not a different one.
Also, there is no brick wall as such. Just that the traits we desire from the animals is costly to them, so the preassures we exert are less and less able to overcome that cost.
Diminishing returns really.
“IOW, God made coc_kroaches, believe it or not, with LOTS of variations among them, ok?”
Or mutations, more likely. Given that we have observed them occuring we know they happen. A lot. And that they alter biochemistry enough to allow some individuals to survive thing that are lethal to others.
“But natural selection has no creative ability whatsoever. It CANNOT create anything new.”
Of course not. Mutations do that. Natural selection is what eliminates the bad traits and advantages the good.
“So when Darwin wrote his book on ‘Origin of Species by Natural Selection’ he made a big mistake because every biologist knows you can’t create anything new by that means. This is where mutations comes in.”
He didn’t know the source of variability, that was discovered later by other scientists. It changes nothing though.
“In fact, it’s absolutely fatal to that organism, if you don’t keep him alive in the laboratory he’ll perish. Not much of an evolutionary future in a fly like that.”
Which would be eliminated by natural selection.
Evolution in action.
How is this a problem? Only beneficial mutations would spread.
“Everybody knows…They’re taking creature to ever-increasing levels of disrepair of degradation. They’re taking creatures downhill, not up.”
Not true. The mutation that generated nylonase is an extreme advantage to the nylon-bug.
As is the mutations that increases resistance to malaria in humans. Unfortunately it also causes sickle-cell anemia. Which is why the latter is more common in areas where the former is a problem.
“The chances of that happening are very slim.”
it doesn’t happen all at once though.
Many of these things are presnt in birds already. You, for example, blink when you hit your head. Most animls probably do.
So that’s not something new.
The beak, tongue, and protective tissues, all would probably evolve concurrently. That is, slowly as a result of many mutations. No single mutation will give a normal bird a long sticky tongue. But a short sticky tongue would be useful anyway. As would being able to hit into soft wood lightly to get bugs out. Thus not needing a lot of padding or a super long tongue.
But those who do have the hardest beak can break into harder trees, and get more food than other kinds. So that’s an advantage, leading to a continual arms race in stronger beaks, and better brain padding. This is the sort of thing evolution is best at, competition.
Nothing miraculous about it.
“Because radio-isotope dating is very theoretical, it has major problems with its dating”
Very theoretical? No.
Not in the least. They’re the single most reliable thing we know of. All of our most accurate clocks are based on the decay rates of radioactive atoms, because the rates are a constant. This is due to the reason why they decay in the first place, which is due simply to probability. Nothing more complex than maths. The inside of an atom is as shielded as it gets, from everything except at super high temperatures. So the inside of an atom is stable to a specific degree, and in radioactive substances this leads to a specific half life of the substance.
And we are talking precision that is not known elsewhere. There is no instance of any substance ever decaying at a rate other than it’s half life. And we have been looking.
That was all before we learned more about subatomic physics of course. The more we learn the more certain we can be about it.
We can calibrate it by other processes of constant rate, emzyme rates for example. Or against objects of known age.
They check out.
Not “very theoretical” as you put it.
“But here’s the funny thing that happens, according to geologists, when you get further and further back in history, you get pretty good correspondence and then you get even further back, right around 3,000-4000 B.C. when we start running out of historical records, the difference between the historical and radio-carbon dates start increasing enormously.”
As far as I can tell this is untrue. Evidence please.
“You’d expect that as you get further back the method would breakdown IF there was a global flood in the not too distant past.he bible talks about a global flood and if a global flood really happened then it would really upset the equilibrium that radio-carbon dating method depends upon.”
And I fail to see how this even enters into it, to be honest.
What does flooding have to do with it?
“You can do the arithmetic and let’s assume the oceans are 1 billion years of age, even though scientists tell us they’re much older, but let’s assume their 1 billion. At that rate of input how thick would be the sediment layer be on the ocean floor? 100,000 ft. IOW, the thickness sediment layers in deep ocean basins is about 200 ft.”
Assuming that your math is correct, and the last time I actually checked a claim like this it was woefully off, that was the moon claim btw, about it’s recession.
A) You’re assuming a constant rate of deposition. B) You’re assuming that silt only enters the oceans, and doesn’t leave it. For a start the weight would depress the oceans in respect to the land, secondly, such deposits are compressed into sandstone. That’s why they’re called sedimantary rocks.
“Naturally things tend toward disorder.”
*Twitch*
Oh god you had to go here. >…<
Life is simple, at base. Just tiny little molecular machines that make copies of themselves. No more than that.
The reactions themselves are not all that complex either.
The complexity itself comes from the massive number of reactions that affect other ones. Called emergent complexity. Even incredibly simple systems result in highly complex actions. Actually an interesting area of computing… but that’s way off topic…
“YOU KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS”
No. I don’t.
And if I did, frankly to hell with him. I don’t like your god all that much.
“The ID movement has been going strong in the past few decades.”
By moving beyond all that silly science and just appealing to the public. And trying to infiltrate schools.
Silly scientists, and their need for logic and reason and evidence.
“And that’s why it’s the center piece of our public education system – they’re not gonna give that up so easily.”
As far as I know, it’s a minor module of a not particularly well taught subject. Hardly the “centre piece of our public education”.
hey Mr.X post this also for the lols
What.The.Bleep.Down.The.Rabbit.Hole.2006.LIMITED.DVDRip.XviD-iMBT
http://www.mininova.org/tor/442725
It doesn’t matter if I agree with your logic or not since you’ve failed to understand mine. Because you argued point by point from the lack of analyzing my whole argument in its broader context, your responses consequently contradict the logic of your thinking. I’ve come across many of you biologists and don’t know why you are so adament in trying to prove the General Theory of Evolution on the basis of the Biological Theory of Evolution with your irrational illogical fallacious conflations – it’s undeniably futile.
Until all your theories of everything becomes irrefutable fact, science will never satisfy its ultimate goal, you’ll never have enough evidence as it is to factualize the ToE, let alone GTE until you know absolutely everything there is to know, no matter how much more you have than anyone else’s and if you’re so sure the rest is out there, then that’s where your faith lies, okay? We have enough reliable evidence and more upcoming because that’s all is needed, even as we rest completely on the Lord’s faithfulness. IME, I find many evolutionary propagandists who are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community, and a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE is fact (when it is just a theory) simply because biological evolution refers to common descent and is true (which I don’t have a problem).
—————————————————–
“it’s only a problem when the simple version is wrong”
Well, it’s also a problem when the reader has tunnel-vision or has a habit of conflating two totally different things or debates for the GTE when a degree in evolutionary biology curriculum is completely lacking in any courses in philosophy of science, logic, critical thinking, or any other coursework which teaches the students the basis of logic and logical fallacies.
“Nope. Not in the least.”
Then the joke’s (burden of proof’s) on you, unless you can show me verse by verse how your interpretations fit with the context.
“Darwin never asked peple to hate their families, or to leave them to fend for themselves in bronzeage Israel. Or stole a horse, that we know of. Or has 4 mutually exclusive accounts of his death. Also we can be fairly sure he actually exsited.
Apparantly he deliberately gave women painful childbirth, and that’s in pre-anaesthetic days, and all he gave adam was um.. the adam’s apple? Not very nice of him. He also made them prizes of war for his conquering soldiers to “take”. Murdering their children is genocide. Raping and enslaving their young women and girls is just sick. All were sanctioned. As for versus, meh. Google it. It’s not exactly a secret.”
ROFL! Those accusations are so silly I’m not gonna even waste my time dignifying them with a proper correction, especially the Jesus hating their families – that’s one of the most weakest Jesus attacks I’ve seen. You know it’s not a secret that people grossly misinterpret the bible and publish their works via books, internet, etc because of their lack in philosophy. It apparently appears that since you are an evolutionist fundamentalist you seem to be an expert at taking allegory as literal, reading the Bible as if it was written yesterday for you personally, in English, using inappropriate generalizations, overgeneralizations, arguments from ignorance, contextual error, misinterpretation, ideology, and even strawman, and exegetical fallacies.
“There is nothing about christianity to distinguish it from any other religion”
Yes there is. Jesus Christ died for our sins. BTW, your erroneous conclusion is yet another one of the common logical fallacies of linking Christianity with other religions: universalism.
“what was the point in that?”
If you’re serious, you’re conscious is seared my friend.
“Depends on the qualities needed. Afterall, faith is also required, and I don’t have any of that. Nor would I have faith even if I had belief.”
Quality needed: perfection. There is no other way to pass JD but through JC (John 14:6).
“You seem to demand that we have every single creature that ever livbed fossiliesed before you’ll be happy. You’re asking for an unreasonable level of evidence. What else could you possibly want?”
Well that’s the kind of unreasonable evidence that the GTE demands. Even if you’ve found all 99,999 puzzle pieces (out of 100k) together, the last one makes all the difference.
“That is from the paleontologists point of view. And why exactly does the opinion of people who are experts on rocks matters over the opinions of those who are experts on fossilised animals?”
The changes you’d expect from evolution produces effects on bones and rocks. So there HAS to be a collaboration between different experts if you want to validate the science communities’ consensus of a theory that implies changes in rocks and bones.
“Basically, this was NEVER used to support or develop the evolution of men.”
And I NEVER argued that it was but to SHOW you how DESPERATE these men really ARE.
“It was simply an error by some scientist and quickly corrected.”
That’s an understatement. It may have been quickly corrected by him but the science community was FOOLED for almost a DECADE. A DECADE! and not just them – the public too.
“See my previous refutation of this claim.”
If it’s not based on geological sedimentary rock records then your refutation is invalid. Paleontologists have stopped using the tree long ago.
“Oh, there are absolutes…”
I wasn’t arguing against the absence of absolutes. By that you admit the possibility of absolute knowledge, truth, and morality. You can’t be absolutely sure about that either because your statement is not absolute (if you deny absolute knowledge) you don’t know everything, which leaves that possibility open for you.
“You’re being unfair to them, again. Deliberately defining intelligence in such a way as to make it impossible for something to be intelligent unless it can hold a conversation in the usual human manner of speech…We are animals by any reasonable definition of the word animal.”
I believe YOU’RE being unfair to US by melding us with them. You’re deliberately defining the significance of something based on something else that is less significu_nt.
“But it isn’t true. Why would I admit it something that is untrue? I have linked you to the transitional forms before, and you never paid any attention to them.”
I didn’t say ‘complete’, which means it’s still valid and you should admit it. And yes I did. There are gaps in them.
“None of them seem absolutely immoral at all places and times.”
I wasn’t arguing against that either. Keyword: ANY. And it doesn’t matter if every single one is absolutely immoral. It just takes ONE to break them all. In fact, the WHOLE commandment (in general) is absolutely IMMORAL because everyone but God fails at least once.
“No source claiming these can be considered credible…I’ve not been able to find anything resembling that claim on anything other than creationist websites…Also, cite me a source showing that geologists, as a whole, claim this please…And if it is real, cite me a decent source for it…Evidence please…You’re asking for an unreasonable level of evidence.”
Most of what you’re asking for can simply be found in pro-creationist sources or pro-evolutionary sources. Obviously you’re looking for something contrary to evolution so you should know where to look. Show me the actual bones and I’ll give you what you want. It’s not so much too ask for, is it?
“Nothing here proves anything that under contention.”
Evidently, you’re contenting your critique of the bible on so many common exegetical fallacies all at once: the evidential or superior knowledge fallacy are just a couple. You should read up on higher criticism and bible hermeneutics before attempting to properly criticize it.
“Proof please.”
Look in the school textbooks yourself. The ‘in-between’ forms ARE the exaggeration. In the end, the burden of proof is on you to prove your GTE.
“Appeal to authority is when you claim, or imply, they’re right simply because they’re famous.”
It’s not famous. It’s authority, knowledge and position (Romans 2:1).
“From the wiki.”
‘The claim that Lucy walked upright was largely based on the appearance of the leg and hip bone. However, like all australopithecines, Lucy has long forearms and short hind legs. Australopithecines also have curved finger and long curved toes. Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose other than full or part time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living Gorillas and some Chimpanzees. However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walkers. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard and neither can therefore be considered any closer to humans than the other. ‘Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis stated: “The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically reconstructed.”. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p332.) Another challenge to Lucy was discovered in the Tugen Hills of Kenya in the year 2000. The specimen was alleged to show capability for walking upright — and was dated 3 million years earlier than Lucy.’ From the Creationwiki. I don’t trust wiki or Evowiki that much, esp when they have logical fallacies in their own “list of logical fallacies.”
“Now, even more than the rest of that, this is just plain ridiculous. That in no way resembles anything approaching anyone’s actual opinion.”
Exactly. It’s ludicrous, isn’t it? But THAT’S the road evolution is approaching.
“The smoking gun you demand simply does not exist.”
That smoking gun is the GTE’s smoking gun. I didn’t demand it because it doesn’t exist, except in your mind.
“Evolution in action.”
While that proves evolutionary biology, that doesn’t prove the GTE.
“No fossil species exists in the millions.”
I know that. It’s to make a point that you’re missing so much. But if you want to get technical like you have a habit of doing, then it would be true if I was talking about molecules, or less.
“Then the only possible reason for retroviral DNA insertions is to fool us.”
Absurd! That’s the same as “The only possible reason for being born on Earth is to fool us the sun was revolving around us.”
“No. It is used to explain why there are long periods of stability with short periods of change, when that was not what is expected…..refining a theory to account for evidence is a good thing, not a bad thing.”
It was simply created as an excuse for lack of evidence while the explanation was added on LATER to justify its usage, when its creation was justified on absence of evidence.
“Ummm… the ancient greeks did, I think. Not exactly correct, but close enough. Modern man has measured it extremely accurately though.”
You weren’t reading the entire poem in context. It seems you are having a problem reading things in perspective. If that’s case, most of your responses was out of false assumptions.
“No, I was talking of actual ancestors like Australopithicus or Homo ergastor.”
Ooh. So you’re talking to sound like it’s true when it’s really not but you’ve simply convinced yourself. I see.
“Not sure why you quoted this, it merely explains that fossils are rare. Which they are.”
Rare fossils = opportunity to exaggerate claims based on numbers.
“Here for example he makes the same error as you did previously. It’s about extrpolating the evidence.”
the only error made is pointing out that the theory of evolution, mind you it’s called theory, is ultimately speculation and presuppositions.
“Any particular reason why you think it’s impossible for that to happen without conscious direction?”
Any particular reason why you think it’s impossible to debate without using a loaded question?
“It’s simply inconceivable to think otherwise.”
That’s another fallacious statement because you’re using a double standard.
“Silly scientists, and their need for logic and reason and evidence.”
True scientists don’t conflate totally different things.
“representing unknown ancestors in your family tree…And then you’ll probably ask us to fill in the gaps between parent and child.”
Yet you’re conFLATING a human family tree to the EVOLUTIONARY TREE, AGAIN!
“It’s about extrpolating the evidence. The dashed lines are simply extrapolations.”
More like logical fallacies from exaggeration out of desperation. Conflating biological evolution and the general theory of evolution. It SOUNDS meaningful but it doesn’t.
“Unless we’re supported by evidence. Which we are.”
My statement takes your evidence into account as well. Basically, you’re evidence doesn’t solidify the GTE. So what do you do? You make an exaggerated guess on what you actually have. IOW, you actually have enough only to prove evolutionary biology, but what you actually don’t have, which is only in your mind, of which you need in order to prove the totality of evolution, you use to try to prove the GTE. You’re conflating it.
“Is this is true, then why do so many different lines of evidence match up? fossil records, genetic analysis, biochemical similarities, behavioural and anatomical similarities, etcc…
There is no reasonw hy these should all agree, if they were wrong, and yet they do. And we have quite a lot of it (understatement) to support us.”
That’s like saying: “There is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. Therefore the general theory of evolution is true.” Your conflating it again through logical fallacy there my friend.
“It is a transition between the two. Regardless, it clearly shows the development from reptilian features to avian ones.”
They’re older than most of its alleged ancestors, which is a BIG problem for you. Sounds like another case of wishful thinking and illogical conflation.
“Nothing miraculous about it…Life is simple, at base. Just tiny little molecular machines that make copies of themselves. No more than that.”
Your objection to my perspective doesn’t really mean anything since you’re using a tautology fallacy to connect things where there’s already a connection to an obvious conclusion. I’m sorry but your lack of critical thinking prevents you from recognizing anything beyond the basics of simplicity. IOW, for someone who studies the scientific intricacies and complexities of theories and laws of evolutionary life, you’re unable to see anything past the narrow framework of which the science of evolutionary biology as indoctrinated you into. Where as you see a baby’s conception as just a natural biological result from sexual reproduction, which is obviously true, I also see it as a miracle from God. Metamorphically, that’s no different from you seeing a carnival as machines, electrical bulbs, woodwork and fabric, I see the amazing colorful bright lights, smell the food in the air, and feel the fun atmosphere. Even for a pessimist I can be optimistic. But for someone who studies life you sure do take it for granted. I guess you see life in monochrome as opposed to me seeing it in vibrant colors. Different strokes for different folks.
“The way nature works, such an artefact is implausible tio have happened naturally, because erosion does not make shapes like that….So we know that arrowheads are not made by nature.”
But it didn’t, you see? Of course not. That’s common knowledge and doesn’t really mean anything. You see, I never argued that it was made by nature, as was the previous comment above. It’s made by the Lord. You may try to explain it away with rationality and logic but the almighty Lord is able to ‘bend’ the rules of science; He made it after all. It’s so evident that since you were arguing against me for the same thing as I was, you’re weren’t reading it context and that’s why you ended up tautologizing. Wow. You need to learn more about critical reading and writing, let alone thinking.
The above two comments indicates that (1) in both of my original statements, I was advocating the same thing, that God was the ’special causation agent’ behind it all in both cases. (2) Both of your tautology responses contradict your logic because in your first response, you were arguing that it’s just nature and how things normally work (nothing special). Then, in your next response, you argue it’s not nature. Well it’s either nature or not nature in both cases. You can’t choose both otherwise your logic is flawed. This indicates that you have failed to read them in the proper context. Because of that, you apparently have at least one logical fallacy in your entire logic, inconsistency.
“Which makes all of that inevitable, not chance. It’s just chemistry, not chance. The rules of chemistry are inevitable…It’s just chemistry. the way nature works.”
That’s just another tautology fallacy. But I agree with you in the sense that is not simply chance, as the atheistic evolutionists hold in respect to the GTE’s view on creation. It seems you are more interested in the natural flow and processes of life rather than its actual causation. That is what the atheistic evolutionists claim in the cosmic sense before the creation of anything, by chance, not purpose. Unless you don’t adhere strictly to all these logics, your line of reasoning, atheistic world view, biological evolutionary world view and GTE world view could all well be contradicting each other. While biological evolution makes no claim as to the origin of life and allows for the possibility that it was originally created, the general theory of evolution claims that life originated by chance through abiogenesis, a speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation. Further, while biological evolution says only that life changes over time, but allows that some biological diversity may be the result of creation, the general theory of evolution holds that this change occurs without limits, and that all biological diversity is due to evolution, another speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation. I was referring to a broader perspective. Open your mind. However, my analogies pushes the ’cause in question’ beyond your straw man logic, which is also flawed once again because you’re attempting to justify a regress argument within an infinite regression. IOW, your answer basically pushes the question further back into a topic eventually outside of which evolutionary biology does not simply have a falsifiable theory, which is the ultimate cause of existence [and then on to nature, chemistry, matter, life, etc.] The first is covered by philosophical arguments beyond this debate such as ontological, cosmological, teleological and the anthropic principle, which BTW advocates that the crucial steps in the evolution of Homo Sapiens is so improbable that the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and so incinerated the Earth before it would occur and the odds against the assembly of the human genome are between 4 to the -180(110,000)th power and 4 to the -360(110,000)th power! But such assertions, accurate or not, are not up for debate.
“If you look “critically” enough, you can deny just about anything.”
Aspiring PhDs in evolutionary biology programs are not taught anything of the nuances of philosophy of science, logic, logical fallacies, critical thinking, or metaphysics. What you are taught is a great number of facts about evolution, and in order to pass your exams, you must be able to repeat all the facts about evolution you have been taught. You need not think critically. You need not evaluate analytically. You need only repeat what you have been told. What critical thinking does occur (in your dissertation research, for instance) is always done within the materialistic and evolutionistic paradigm. You may think critically, but not too critically. And when you graduate and face creationists on the field of philosophy of science, you are steeped in the ideas of evolution, convinced it is the truth and science, and become infuriated by creationists who have not earned a PhD who somehow feel entitled to question your dogmas. Many philosophers of science, even evolutionists, recognize this problem, and frequently point out the foolish arguments made by even the most prominent evolutionists. That’s on the order of, Homer Simpson’s “facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!”
“This part is simply wrong…The first is a lie. The second is just stupid. The third is a lie. The fourth is a complete straw man, and the last is just plain stupid, again…They don’t though….Lucy looks nothing like that…Except we do see change with time….Nice claim, but.. you have no evidence to support yours…No. They have not failed because they are supernatural, they have failed because they turned out not to be…No, only your straw man version of it does…neither of which is reproduction or mutation…Not really, no. Only if discussing different points…Then again I will say that they evolve….No, they’re not…Actually, yes…..Or mutations, more likely….Not true….Not “very theoretical” as you put it……”
I bluntly disagree with ALL those points. I am not going to argue on them because not only is your logic emphatically flawed in some of your responses (just to name some like non sequitur, tautology, circular reasoning, double standard, manufacturing facts from a theory), I’d simply be stating the opposite for the rest. But that’s not to exempt creationists, such as myself, from logical fallacies as well, like proof of assertion (only because either it was first used by you or the burden of proof was on me, or vice versa). As for biology students, IME they appear to learn a great deal about grant-writing, but absolutely NOTHING about philosophy of science and it is clearly evident throughout your argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science). All your logical fallacies, while not entirely yours, have rendered your entire position in vain which is expected coming from someone of your background. So stop trying to lure me to the ‘dark side’ or convince me that the GTE is fact. Arguing with me will not hide the light which has already exposed your denial. Personally I’d agree to disagree altogether.
“Not in the least. They’re the single most reliable thing we know of…physics of course. The more we learn the more certain we can be…against objects of known age. They check out.”
Of course it’s reliable when you’re talking about the comparable measurement of things that are already known but that doesn’t mean anything when you’re using the radiocarbon dating for the purpose of measuring the unknown age of dead bones and rocks. While you’re correct in what you actually said, they’re both totally different and conflating both of them will not help your case. I find it surprising that many scientific authors cite their agreeable determinations as ‘proof’ of their beliefs considering the way radiocarbon method is generally used to yield inaccurate and unreliable results, gross discrepancies, uneven and relative chronology and selected dates actually being accepted dates, all in the field of the GTE science (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Basically, radiocarbon dating is a joke when it comes to the GTE because many times scientists contradict themselves with collected data, or even worse in Gould’s case, become inconsistent in what they actually say rather than what the evidential data states. There are many examples where geologists, paleontologists and archeologists who physically test the evidence found in the field and then onto the lab themselves whose data reflects differently than that of the evolutionists’ interpretations. That is why we get one group of scientists who work behind the desk come to a different conclusion and tell the public schools that this means that proves everything versus the other group of scientists who actually work with the evidence and corrects them and says no this only means that but not everything. At McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic, carbon-14 tested the blood of a seal, freshly killed, and showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago. Carbon dating results stated that a lake Bonney seal, known to have died only a few weeks before, had died between 515 and 715 years ago. Carbon-14 dating showed that the hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was 26,000 years of carbon-14 age but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was only 5,600 years of carbon-14 age. Two Hawaiian lava flows, which happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801, was measured by scientists to be 164 million and 3 billion years. The shells of Melanoides tuberculatus snails living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada are indicated to have an apparent age of 27,000 years by it’s Carbon-14 contents. If you base your argument upon those kind of dates on unknown things and theories instead of laws, it would be wise to ignore them because they simply imply pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels.
Does science prove there is a Creator or no Creator? The answer to both is an astounding ‘no.’
“It doesn’t matter if I agree with your logic or not since you’ve failed to understand mine.”
I can understand it, and pick out it’s flaws. Which is the problem you seem to be having.
“Because you argued point by point from the lack of analyzing my whole argument in its broader context, your responses consequently contradict the logic of your thinking.”
Responding to individual points brought up, to expose their flaws for the msot part.
There is no real overall context needed when the points are wrong.
“I’ve come across many of you biologists and don’t know why you are so adament in trying to prove the General Theory of Evolution on the basis of the Biological Theory of Evolution with your irrational illogical fallacious conflations – it’s undeniably futile.”
What is the “General Theory of Evolution” and “Biological Theory of Evolution”?
Seems another pointless creationist distinction based on what you can no longer deny
“you’ll never have enough evidence as it is to factualize the ToE, let alone GTE until you know absolutely everything there is to know, no matter how much more you have than anyone else’s and if you’re so sure the rest is out there, then that’s where your faith lies, okay?”
Again, the use fo the word “faith”. For someone who dislikes conflation so much, you do a lot of it yourself.
There is a difference between “faith” as used to describe my faith that reality is real and that my chair won’t suddenly turn into a chicken, and religious faith.
“A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.”
That is evolution. That is what the term means. Change over time, or more technically the change in alelle frequency ina given population over time.
That is what the word means, so when we observe this in the field, or a lab, or int he historical records, we can safely say that it is a fact that species evolve.
From there we can look at all of the historical data, and see how life evolved from extremely primitive forms into the modern day.
“You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community, and a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE is fact (when it is just a theory) simply because biological evolution refers to common descent and is true (which I don’t have a problem).”
Yes, damn those scientists and their logic. Evidence and reason is such a chore when you have a reality you want to deny.
You also conflate secular and atheistic. Shame on you.
“a degree in evolutionary biology curriculum is completely lacking in any courses in philosophy of science, logic, critical thinking, or any other coursework which teaches the students the basis of logic and logical fallacies.”
What university would this be? They all have different courses, afterall. So I’ll need something to support this claim as being representative of at least the majority.
“:) Then the joke’s (burden of proof’s) on you, unless you can show me verse by verse how your interpretations fit with the context.”
Just read it dude. It was a joke mostly, and I can’t be bothered to go into it.
“Those accusations are so silly I’m not gonna even waste my time dignifying them with a proper correction, especially the Jesus hating their families – that’s one of the most weakest Jesus attacks I’ve seen.”
Not really an attack, so much as things he said/did.
“taking allegory as literal”
So it’s not an historical record then? Goood. Glad we agree
“Yes there is. Jesus Christ died for our sins. BTW, your erroneous conclusion is yet another one of the common logical fallacies of linking Christianity with other religions: universalism.”
That only matters if we first assume it’s true. Which I’m not gonna. So again, there is nothing to distinguish yours from everyone else’s. Your religion is linked with othe peoples, in so much as they are all religions. That’s not a fallacy dude.
“Well that’s the kind of unreasonable evidence that the GTE demands. Even if you’ve found all 99,999 puzzle pieces (out of 100k) together, the last one makes all the difference.”
So you admit to demanding an unreasonable level of evidence. Nothing in science has that kind of evidence, not even the existence of gravity. Not even the reality of reality is proven to that level.
“The changes you’d expect from evolution produces effects on bones and rocks. So there HAS to be a collaboration between different experts if you want to validate the science communities’ consensus of a theory that implies changes in rocks and bones.”
Not really, unless physicists need to agree with biologists on the workings of mitochondria before we can accept cell theory. Which is a moot point, your claim is unfounded, as well as irrelevent.
Evolution makes no changes to rocks, it just requires them to be dated properly. That’s the geologists contribution to it.
“And I NEVER argued that it was but to SHOW you how DESPERATE these men really ARE.”
But they’re NOT. They, at that time, had many fossils. They did not require one, and did NOT present this one as some sort of human ancestor.
“That’s an understatement. It may have been quickly corrected by him but the science community was FOOLED for almost a DECADE. A DECADE! and not just them – the public too.”
And this part’s just a lie.
Or you were lied to, either/or.
“If it’s not based on geological sedimentary rock records then your refutation is invalid. Paleontologists have stopped using the tree long ago.”
You really should go read it.
“I believe YOU’RE being unfair to US by melding us with them. You’re deliberately defining the significance of something based on something else that is less significu_nt.”
By your definition people who cannot talk are not intelligent. This shows your argument is flawed.
“There are gaps in them.”
There are gaps between you and your parents, that doesn’t mean you’re not descended from them.
“because everyone but God fails at least once.”
God killed many many people. So he fails them too.
“Most of what you’re asking for can simply be found in pro-creationist sources or pro-evolutionary sources. Obviously you’re looking for something contrary to evolution so you should know where to look. Show me the actual bones and I’ll give you what you want. It’s not so much too ask for, is it?”
Yeeesh, a mixed bag of quotes there. You want the bones? How about the fossils? They’re good enough. A basic overview is easily available in any biology text or website.
So um. do you have any responses to my actual points there or are you just conceeding them?
“Look in the school textbooks yourself. The ‘in-between’ forms ARE the exaggeration. In the end, the burden of proof is on you to prove your GTE.”
Been there, done that. You’ve had your evidence, and admitted that no amount of evidence is good enough for you.
“From the Creationwiki.”
uh-huh…
“Exactly. It’s ludicrous, isn’t it? But THAT’S the road evolution is approaching.”
It’s not though. It’s a made up claim of where it’s going, it in no way resembles the reality of it.
“That smoking gun is the GTE’s smoking gun. I didn’t demand it because it doesn’t exist, except in your mind.”
bah. It doesn’t exist because you define it out of existence. You define it as a single piece of evidence, while at the same time repeatedly stating that no single piece of evidence is enough, you need huge amounts of it.
It doesn’t exist because your definition of it ensures that it could never exist.
“While that proves evolutionary biology, that doesn’t prove the GTE.”
Which only exists in your mind
“Absurd! That’s the same as “The only possible reason for being born on Earth is to fool us the sun was revolving around us.””
I fail to see how the two are in any way connected.
“It was simply created as an excuse for lack of evidence while the explanation was added on LATER to justify its usage, when its creation was justified on absence of evidence.”
There is evidence though, as I have said repeatedly. Mostly between higher orders, and not at the species level, which is where punctuated equilibrium is dealing with.
“Rare fossils = opportunity to exaggerate claims based on numbers.”
Or it represents how rare fossils are.
Which is the more parsimonious explanation, I wonder.
“Any particular reason why you think it’s impossible to debate without using a loaded question?”
Because they’re useful at times.
Now answer the question please.
“That’s another fallacious statement because you’re using a double standard.”
Really? So if you had never seen or read a bible, and had never spoken to someone about one or in any way been exposed to that material ro those who believed in it, how would studying the universe lead you to Christianity?
It’s a ridiculous idea.
“More like logical fallacies from exaggeration out of desperation. Conflating biological evolution and the general theory of evolution. It SOUNDS meaningful but it doesn’t.”
Good thing that fossil finds fill in those gaps then, isn’t it?
The tiktallik, for example.
might be spelt wrong.
“you use to try to prove the GTE. You’re conflating it.”
Only you make any distinction. I’ve never heard a scientist use the term “General theory of Evolution”.
Seems that you’ve split the theory fo evolution into two parts, and then accuse us of conflating the two. Nice trick.
“Your conflating it again through logical fallacy there my friend.”
No difference between the two, answer the question or conceed.
“They’re older than most of its alleged ancestors, which is a BIG problem for you. Sounds like another case of wishful thinking and illogical conflation.”
Older than what?
You seem to be talking nonsense here.
“Metamorphically, that’s no different from you seeing a carnival as machines, electrical bulbs, woodwork and fabric, I see the amazing colorful bright lights, smell the food in the air, and feel the fun atmosphere. Even for a pessimist I can be optimistic.”
It is coloured lights and machines and such. And if we were discussing how a carnival works, I would be discussing those things, at another time i might just enjoy it. Same with life, I can both discuss how it works and enjoy it. The discussion moves towards somewhere where discussion of what life is at the molecular level and you turn this into me not enjoying life, somehow.
“But for someone who studies life you sure do take it for granted. I guess you see life in monochrome as opposed to me seeing it in vibrant colors. Different strokes for different folks.
”
You guess wrong. I simply don’t look at it from behind your comfortable blinders
“Wow. You need to learn more about critical reading and writing, let alone thinking.”
Agreed, you do.
lol
I can do it too.
“I never argued that it was made by nature”
No, you made an argument based on the appearance of design, ignoreing that the only real hallmark of design is that it defies the natural order of things, and that’s not conclusive. Life does not defy any natural order, and thus the argument from perceived design fails.
“Well it’s either nature or not nature in both cases. You can’t choose both otherwise your logic is flawed. This indicates that you have failed to read them in the proper context. Because of that, you apparently have at least one logical fallacy in your entire logic, inconsistency.”
Again you fail to comprehend.
Rocks do not erode into such shapes, thus intelligent intervention is encessary. Life is merely chemistry, thus none is needed.
No fallacy, just your lack of understanding.
I think you need to learn the meaning of the word “tautology”.
“But I agree with you in the sense that is not simply chance, as the atheistic evolutionists hold in respect to the GTE’s view on creation.”
They don’t think that though.
Again with the conflation of atheism and evolution. *Sigh*
For someone who seems to have found a new wod to throw around a lot, you make a lot of fallacies yourself. For example this strawman, and most of the following paragraphs.
“the general theory of evolution claims that life originated by chance through abiogenesis”
Care to cite a source for this?
‘cos… seems to me.. you’re making this all up
Evolution and abiogenesis are seperate theories in no way connected, except in the trivial manner that all theories are connected.
Then we have some more confusion with your “GTE”, and various other things. Ho-hum.
“IOW, your answer basically pushes the question further back into a topic eventually outside of which evolutionary biology does not simply have a falsifiable theory, which is the ultimate cause of existence [and then on to nature, chemistry, matter, life, etc.]”
No, I think your reasoning is to keep pressing back until you find a nice gap you can push the word “god” into. No mine.
Mine is to answer things as best we can.
“The first is covered by philosophical arguments beyond this debate such as ontological, cosmological, teleological and the anthropic principle, which BTW advocates that the crucial steps in the evolution of Homo Sapiens is so improbable that the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and so incinerated the Earth before it would occur and the odds against the assembly of the human genome are between 4 to the -180(110,000)th power and 4 to the -360(110,000)th power! But such assertions, accurate or not, are not up for debate.”
pah! None of those make any such advocacy. And I find your numbers suspect, care to prove them?
Then care to explain why a low probability matters? I can make big numbers too, if you like, toss a coin a thousand times. The chances of you getting that particular order is incredibly low, does that mean god specifically chose it for you? Not low enough? Toss one a million times, the numbers will be astronomical then.
Also, would you like to explain why you miss the point of probabilities? To predict the unknwon. The REAL probability for life being exactly as it is now is 1. It’s a known.
The 3 argument you mentionned have been the subject of debate for hundreds of years, and they’re no stronger now than when they were first uttered. All of them fail to do what they set out to do, prove the existence of god. As for the anthropic principle, I really doubt you understand it.
“Aspiring PhDs in evolutionary biology programs are not taught anything of the nuances of philosophy of science, logic, logical fallacies, critical thinking, or metaphysics.”
P{ossibly true, they would have learned that in previous years and should really have studied those on their own anyway. If you want to enter a field some independant research is expected of PhD students.
But again, I doubt it. Critical thinking is pushed hard in all science degree courses.
“I bluntly disagree with ALL those points. I am not going to argue on them because not only is your logic emphatically flawed in some of your responses (just to name some like non sequitur, tautology, circular reasoning, double standard, manufacturing facts from a theory)”
pah. I didn’t expect much, but a little honesty would be nice.
A large section of counter points you decide you dont want to (or can’t) deal with. Which you decide to simply blanketly dismiss. I could do that too, I suppose, but I value honesty a little too much.
“So stop trying to lure me to the ‘dark side’ or convince me that the GTE is fact.”
Ya know I would love to know more about this “GTE” you seem so afraid of.
Sounds like an interesting strawman, probably burns quite nicely. We could make anight of it! A few beers some bbq, and a big heap of burning fallacy!
“Personally I’d agree to disagree altogether.
”
Nah. I don’t think so. I’m not interested in a draw
“radiocarbon dating is a joke”
Proof please.
Unless it’s used improperly, it is very reliable.
Of course creationists love to use it improperly, so that they can then crow about how it didn’t give the right answer. When used properly there is no documented case of it being “wrong”.
“At McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic, carbon-14 tested the blood of a seal, freshly killed, and showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago. Carbon dating results stated that a lake Bonney seal, known to have died only a few weeks before, had died between 515 and 715 years ago.”
As I said, if not used improperly. Like these cases.
You can’t use it for recent things, because the amounts of C-14 on earth have been changed massively by both atomic bombs and by the burning of fossil fuels.
“Carbon-14 dating showed that the hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was 26,000 years of carbon-14 age but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was only 5,600 years of carbon-14 age.”
This one threw me for a bit, but given the numbers, I think you mean the Vollosovitch or Dima mammoths. In which case this is a known case of creationist lies.
Unless you don’t mean this case, so um.. feel free to cite a source.
“Two Hawaiian lava flows, which happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801, was measured by scientists to be 164 million and 3 billion years.”
Another case of improper use of dating methods.
For a start the lava itself was NOT dated, but the xenoliths within it, which contain excess Argon. Secondly the lava itself was known to be too young for K-Ar dating to give accurate results.
The lava “can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.”
Accurate results could have easily been obtained via intellectually honest methodology.
“The shells of Melanoides tuberculatus snails living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada are indicated to have an apparent age of 27,000 years by it’s Carbon-14 contents.”
again with the misuse of carbon dating. It’s fun isn’t it
And very close to nuclear testing sites too.
“it would be wise to ignore them because they simply imply pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels.”
Or you could date them properly.
“Does science prove there is a Creator or no Creator? The answer to both is an astounding ‘no.’”
has anyone been claiming that it did?
“What is the “General Theory of Evolution” and “Biological Theory of Evolution”?”
You don’t know the difference because you’ve been indoctrinated into believing that biological evolution (fact) is the same concept as the theory of evolution (theory).
http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm
The theory is formally known as GTE, derived from atheistic, naturalistic presupposition, although some theists now espouse the idea. The theory encompasses the processes of biological evolution, the origin of life, and aspects of cosmic evolution via the Big Bang. The GTE holds to the following historical claims: BB, Abiogenesis, Com. Desc. Cosmic Chronology. The GTE should not be confused with biological evolution, which is simply the process whereby characteristics change within a population over time (natural selection, speciation, genetic diversity). While this process is a demonstrable, repeatable, observable fact acknowledged by both creationists and evolutionists, the theoretical aspect of common descent is an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions, and is disputed by creationists as a non sequitar logical fallacy.
“Seems another pointless creationist distinction based on what you can no longer deny”
I never denied that theory is theory and fact is fact. Theory and fact aren’t the same and it appears you don’t want to deny that truth. What I’ll deny is the evolutionary atheistic worldview and the theories that go along with that, except for what is largely accepted as fact from a Christian theistic worldview.
“Again, the use fo the word “faith”.”
Faith is only good as in what the object is being placed in. You have faith that life came from non-life w/o external intervention or that the theory will be proven someday. I have faith in that God did create life and already sacrificed Himself for us on the cross to give us eternal life.
“From there we can look at all of the historical data, and see how life evolved from extremely primitive forms into the modern day.”
It shows how life evolves. That’s no dispute. Just don’t use all that scientific data as historical proof that life ultimately came from non-life.
“You also conflate secular and atheistic.”
That’s hardly detrimental compared to evolutionists who do the same thing and tell everyone else that fact and theory should be treated as one concept.
“So I’ll need something to support this claim as being representative of at least the majority…Critical thinking is pushed hard in all science degree courses.”
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/eeb/grad/phddegree.html
But not hard enough. The course that comes closest, Scientific Skills, is described as follows: “Exposes graduate students to teaching skills, understanding the scientific method, searching and organizing literature, grant proposal writing, data management and presentation, and scientific speaking. Students are evaluated on their participation and the quality of a written research proposal.” The students appear to learn a great deal about grant-writing, but absolutely nothing about philosophy of science. The vast majority of evolutionary biology programs are similar to this one. Harvard’s program is even less structured than this one, and like this one, requires no coursework in philosophy of science, logic, or critical thinking.
“So you admit to demanding an unreasonable level of evidence. Nothing in science has that kind of evidence, not even the existence of gravity. Not even the reality of reality is proven to that level.”
What I admit to is demanding the same amount of evidence that the theory demands to be proven fact and no longer a theory. If that day arrives where the theory is no longer unfalsifiable and officially called a fact or law, then there would be no more experiments to test in that particular field. It’s not so much as I’m demanding that much as it is that the theory claims that life spontaneously came into existence from nothing, so, in essences, we have to test an experiment to create life in order to observe the theory in action. The demand of evidence (or conceivable experiments) speaks for itself in the theoretical claim.
“Evolution makes no changes to rocks, it just requires them to be dated properly. That’s the geologists contribution to it.”
Sedimentary rocks contains fossils and ammonites species found in them haven’t been found to reflect evolutionary changes, unless you want to use punctual equilibrium as an excuse to explain that. Nonetheless, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution as much as special creation.
“and did NOT present this one as some sort of human ancestor.”
But they sure made up a picture of it and its wife to make it look like or imply it’s human-like. “Well, we’re not gonna present this one as some sort of human ancestor but we’ll draw a picture for you that makes it look like it’s part human and we’ll let the public decide for themselves based on our speculation.” Seems like passive-aggressive suggestion.
“And this part’s just a lie. Or you were lied to, either/or.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man
Until the correction was made official, some parts of the community and the public was generally uninformed of the new correction and remained ignorant. Still, it was 8 long years that had passed until the mistake was revealed and another 2 years to publicly make it official. Basically, it was an official mistake that took ten years to officially correct, even though the science community generally knew it was a mistake after 8 years of its discovery.
“You really should go read it.”
I have. And it doesn’t matter because paleontologists who have any sense dropped the evolutionary tree.
“By your definition people who cannot talk are not intelligent. This shows your argument is flawed.”
Not really. Monkies aren’t people.
“There are gaps between you and your parents, that doesn’t mean you’re not descended from them.”
There are no gaps between child and parent. They’re a direct physical link between each other. You can’t get any closer than that.
“God killed many many people. So he fails them too.”
God can’t contradict His own nature, even His morals. The Lord has to carry out justice to punish the wicked as just as a court judge who has justified authority to sentence a child molester or crime offender to death/prison by the law.
“Been there, done that. You’ve had your evidence, and admitted that no amount of evidence is good enough for you.”
i’ll admit as soon as you admit there’s no evidence for the theory of evolution. Where? I don’t see anyone creating a perfect fully functional human hand from nothing or mutating a fish into a human. Admit that the Lord will not allow man to be god.
“It’s not though. It’s a made up claim of where it’s going, it in no way resembles the reality of it.”
actually it does. Experiments to prove the theory of evolution that life can evolve from non-life means scientists will have to conduct an observable experiment where we can create life. IOW, be god ourselves. In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life
tells us that man is attempting to create life to support abiogenesis, an evolutionary origin of life model that’s one of the historical claims of the theory of evolution. Creationists believe that only God can create and give life for in Jesus Christ, He has already given us everlasting life through His death on the cross for those who willingly give their life to Jesus they will receive life, for those who keep theirs will lose it.
“Care to cite a source for this?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Lee Strobel in his book, A Case for Faith quotes William Bradley, “The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 International Conference on Origin of Life was described as grim-full of frustration, pessimism and desperation.”
The thing is – scientists do not see either abiogenesis or intelligent design instantly creating life in front of their eyes happening in nature when observations take place, but rather what is attempted to see abiogenesis is through controlled expirmentation. Controlled expirementation which has not to date ultimately produced what is consistent with the evolutionary origin of life model. What this implies in the context of both origin of life models, abiogenesis and intelligent design by God for evolution and creationism respectively are no more scientific than the other. Each have a profound reliance on faith since neither can be observed in nature by science and neither have been succesfully been shown to work through expirementation. If indeed the process of abiogenesis is formed in the lab and life creates, it’s plausibility and actual manifestation of a mechanism for the origin of life was only possible through deliberate design of intelligent minds. There will still be no known process acting naturally producing life from non-life, abiogenesis cannot be considered scientific in anymore of a way than a supernatural act even if expirementation produces results consistent with abiogenesis. IOW, despite repeated attempts under every reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have been unable to reproduce a reasonable method for the origin of life without a creator, nor do they have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved. Believe it or not, many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will frequently try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
When the theory was formally known as GTE, it was coupled with abiogenesis officially but now they are dodging it and replacing and mixing biological evolution with common descent. The history of evolutionary theory never makes up its mind. Too wishy washy.
“Really?”
Yes. You’re charging that someone coming to saving knowledge of Christianity is inconceivable but in the OT there have been non-Christians who were directly approached by the Lord Himself and upon acting upon their faith in the God of Isreal without knowing anything about Him, Christianity or Judaism they were declared righteous in God’s eyes. When God came down and chose the Israelites to be His people and used them to sanctify them from other people and religions. When the Holy SPirit came down on Paul to spread the Good News. That’s observable fact according to historical-legal-documentation. Historical claims backed with historical evidence. Its reliability tested as well. On the other hand, the GTE makes an historical claim that life came from non-life and over time life evolved from particles to humans by natural means is conceivable if we travel back in time to see it actually happen in natural observance but that concept of falsifiability fails since anyone can think of anything subjectively. Instead, an experiment needs to be conducted to test the idea on an objective basis but even trying to prove a historical claim by scientific method is not effective as providing a solid witness to testify its claims. Even evolutionists admit that fossil records don’t’ support the theory. So that leaves experiments to be tested to prove or disprove it. Thus making the theory reliable scientific knowledge or not. The GTE has many obstacles to jump over. It seems you’re getting closer to proving it in the near future but God won’t allow it and this theoretical paradigm will fade away. Christianity has been around for thousands of years while modern science has been around for no more than
a few centuries. The book of Daniel prophecies the time when people increase in knowledge, and so the Scientific Revolution happened around a biblical revival in Europe and Christianity’s influence upon it. Of course now modern science in the days of Richard Dawwkins has deviated science from its original meaning of God’s creation to a new way of thinking that is perfectly fits well with atheism.
“bah.”
yah. For the GTE to be falsifiable you need to ‘conceive’ the experiment but that’s only subjective because one person may conceive it today but tomorrow another person may not. OR, more preferably, conduct an experiment under today’s scientific knowledge, not yesterdays’ or tomorrow’s. So far, the theory is being scientifically tested but inconclusive to make it fact or otherwise false. Either way, the smoking gun is in your head as in theoretical thinking and not empirically observable like biological evolution.
“Which only exists in your mind….There is evidence though, as I have said repeatedly. Mostly between higher orders, and not at the species level, which is where punctuated equilibrium is dealing with.”
Evidence supporting biological evolution, not the theory. I don’t see the natural creation of life from nothing without external intervention. You seem to conflate evidence for biological evolution as supported evidence for the GTE and insist that very same evidence supports the theory. The evidence you need to support the theory falls outside of the realm of evidence in fossils. It needs to be repeatedly observable in nature (or in a controlled experiment) that life came from nothing and all life came from a slimy pond. To this day, no one has been able to scientifically prove the theory of evolutionary origin of life model or special creation for that matter, so evolutionists ignore the ‘evolutionary origin-of-life story’ by ‘playing dumb’. Aside from the ‘creation accounts’, particularly from the bible, there has not been any legal-history-records documenting a story so consistent with the description of God’s nature and divine plan for human kind uniquely found in Scripture.
“rare fossils are”
rare fossils are rare and it certainly proves species evolve into different varieties of its species kind but don’t treat it as if it proves the entirety of GTE. The GTE is more like a philosophical world view that challenges the Christian world view rather than a scientific theory, even though it’s heralded as one.
“Because they’re useful at times.
Now answer the question please.”
A loaded question is a logical fallacy and the answer won’t prove anything, unless you want to answer it yourself to make a meaningless point.
“Good thing that fossil finds fill in those gaps then”
fills in the gaps for the former not the latter.
“No difference between the two, answer the question or conceed.”
There is a difference. There are matches because the process of biological evolution exists but since that is not the same as common descent, in its ultimate evolutionary conclusion, or even abiogenesis, it doesn’t support the theory one bit. They’re not the same. You’re trying to conflate the two as if they are the same. You’re saying: “There is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. Therefore the general theory of evolution is true.” This argument is fallacious, because while biological evolution makes no claim as to the origin of life and allows for the possibility that it was originally created, the general theory of evolution claims that life originated by chance through abiogenesis, a speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation. Further, while biological evolution says only that life changes over time, but allows that some biological diversity may be the result of creation, the general theory of evolution holds that this change occurs without limits, and that all biological diversity is due to evolution, another speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation.
By conflating biological evolution with the general theory of evolution, these evolutionists make arguments that sound meaningful, but are actually meaningless. They note changes in the size of finch beaks, and infer (without evidence) that bears can evolve into whales. They note superficial changes in structure change by natural selection, and infer that the structure itself evolved by the same mechanism. Or, more generally, they prove biological evolution (an idea nobody disputes), fail to provide evidence for the general theory of evolution, and then claim that their evidence for biological evolution supports the general theory.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/true_or_false_darwinian_evolut.html
“I’ve never heard a scientist use the term “General theory of Evolution”.”
G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK Pergamon, 1960), p 157. The idea is ancient in origin, being held by Greek philosophers such as Anaxagorus, but was recently revived in Europe and America during the secularization of the 19th century.
Darwin observed changes in the shape and size of the beaks of finches. From this observable and very minor example of biological evolution, he created a general theory of evolution, that all species diversity is a result of biological evolution. As he stated in The Origin of Species: “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. (On the Origin of Species (1859), original edition, p. 184)” Darwin omitted this story in other editions of Origin (because it was received as preposterous), but regretted his revision: “I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear’s mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits. (”More Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1903, page 162).
“No, you made an argument based on the appearance of design, ignoreing that the only real hallmark of design is that it defies the natural order of things, and that’s not conclusive. Life does not defy any natural order, and thus the argument from perceived design fails.”
Then you’re really arguing against Richard Dawkins because I was simply pointing out that he made that argument which he himself basically says that biologists must admit that there is a design, falsely made by nature. But you and I knows it’s absurd even though evolutionists tell us that in public school by inference. Your views basically contradicts his, thereby inconsistent with your own logic.
“Again you fail to comprehend.
Rocks do not erode into such shapes, thus intelligent intervention is encessary. Life is merely chemistry, thus none is needed. No fallacy, just your lack of understanding. I think you need to learn the meaning of the word “tautology”.”
No I have not. We simply have different views of the metaphysical underpinnings of evolution: you are a deterministic evolutionist. After life begins then everything naturally flows without any external intervention. It’s all part of how life works and chemistry. I know you don’t want to push the question further back into an area that is just theoretical according to evolution: like life does not just come into existence without some kind of intelligent intervention. So you must admit that it’s possible that life is created by external intervention.
“Mine is to answer things as best we can.”
Creationism has an answer for that which biological evolution doesn’t. But the theory of evolution is now being used in an attempt to provide an alternative answer. A new answer that is philosophically inferior to the answer given by the Christian world-view.
“They don’t think that though.
Again with the conflation of atheism and evolution.”
Think again. It’s not a conflation by my opinion. It’s a fact that atheism and evolution are a married couple since their views are very similar. That’s why they make a good couple. The scientific community, above any other subgroup of the population, has become overwhelmingly atheistic. According to a 1998 report in Nature, a survey by Edward Larson found that, “among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever; almost total”. Interestingly, the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html This decline in belief in biologists strongly indicates the nature of the cause, and the ability of the teaching of evolutionary biology to turn people away from a belief in God. The views of the general population over the last couple of decades remain largely unchanged with regard to creation vs. evolution. Also the number of people becoming atheists or agnostics in the USA has not changed in the last ten years according to social researchers. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_25_121/ai_n8583017 However, a Gallup Poll found a clear trend demonstrating that higher education, and belief in evolution as the source of human existence were concurrent. From these statistics it would appear that higher education, and particularly specialization in the natural sciences will indoctrinate students into naturalism or an atheistic view of the world. http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm
Shown here is the percentage in each country which responded that “they believe there is a god”.
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/3/3e/Europe_belief_in_god.png/150px-Europe_belief_in_god.png Education in these naturalistic philosophies, and the pervasive teaching of evolution is almost certainly the principal influence affecting the rise of atheism in our scientific community. Evolution may be better called evolutionism as it is considered a religion by many. Evolution is the champion theory of secular humanism, and a scientific community now totally under the control of an atheistic majority. Sounds like an agenda don’t it?
“pah!”
yah! Look up Barrow and Tipler yourself. Life can never happen until God adds the last ingredient. From then on the rest is cake. Tons upon tons of prophecies was fulfilled in Jesus Christ but scientific study showed that just 8 prophecies would take a scientific probability of 1 in 10 to the 27th power. Look up H. Harold Artzler’s review of Peter W. Stoner’s ‘Science Speaks’. The sources are certainly not without its criticisms or unbiased reviews. But that’s mostly a physics debate which is a different story….
“The 3 argument you mentionned have been the subject of debate for hundreds of years, and they’re no stronger now than when they were first uttered. All of them fail to do what they set out to do, prove the existence of god. As for the anthropic principle, I really doubt you understand it.”
Obviously. And the rival arguments failed to do the opposite. You don’t know every crack in the universe so you can’t disprove it. But these arguments haven’t failed as much as modern man’s failure to acknowledge God. They appeared around the time when Christian skepticism began but a century more or less before modern atheism as it is known today arrived on the scene. As for as anthropic principle I know a great deal on it more than you think and I don’t care about proving it to you either. Sorry no treats for you this time. You’re gonna have to take my word for it or just simply ignore what I just said. And by saying, “Ignored.” is not a form of unacknowledgment either.
“pah. I didn’t expect much, but a little honesty would be nice. A large section of counter points you decide you dont want to (or can’t) deal with. Which you decide to simply blanketly dismiss. I could do that too, I suppose, but I value honesty a little too much.”
Yah. You calling me a liar now? You should critique your own comments. They’ll show you. And all those comments are simply “No” or “yes” coupled with an opposite answer for a response. So it’s futile. IOW, it’s like you saying, “No. There is no God.” and you can figure what I would respond to that.
“Proof please.”
Considering that it can be used improperly and IS by both sides is proof.
“Of course creationists love to use it improperly, so that they can then crow about how it didn’t give the right answer. When used properly there is no documented case of it being “wrong”.”
Even creationists use radio-carbon to date the DSS’s. The objects on which it is tested on determines the reliability of the test more than the method itself. That’s why historical documents are more reliable for a certain range of years, after that it becomes unreliable.
“because the amounts of C-14 on earth have been changed massively by both atomic bombs and by the burning of fossil fuels.”
Too bad that’s not the only reason why it is so.
“Unless you don’t mean this case, so um.. feel free to cite a source.”
“Dry bones and other fossils” by Dr. Gary Parker
LOL. And that’s a kids book too! It’s elementary common scientific knowledge. Everybody should know that, unless they’re a hermit hiding in a cave. LOL. I can’t believe I’m referring you to a pre-school kids book. My Gosh REDEM. are you that uninformed?! haha.
“Another case of improper use of dating methods…again with the misuse of carbon dating.”
Actually, no. Improper use can give inaccurate results but doesn’t mean it’s not possible to get inaccurate results from proper use since it’s been recorded. Seems like that would the case as well as using the improper use of methods to explain away the unreliability of dating. It was properly applied according to Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966. and Alan C. Riggs, Scbuience, vol 224 (1984) 58-61
“So it’s not an historical record then? Goood. Glad we agree”
Some stories are allegorical. The bible is mostly an historical record.
“That only matters if we first assume it’s true.”
We don’t have to assume it’s true to recognize its uniqueness because no other religion makes that exclusive claim that is supported by more historical-legal-documentation. IOW, even if it’s not true, for the sake of discussion, it is still unique in its claims.
“So again, there is nothing to distinguish yours from everyone else’s. Your religion is linked with othe peoples, in so much as they are all religions. That’s not a fallacy dude.”
It’s a fallacy to link Christianity with other religions because essentially at its core it is not so much a religion as it is having a personal relationship with God the Creator through the person of Jesus Christ, the One who died for us on the cross, resurrected and conquered death and gives eternal life for anyone who believes on Him. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique. The life, death and ressurrection of Jesus of Nazereth doesn’t compare to any other religion on the same theologically divine level. If we would say that Christianity is not unique just because two or more religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. People making this argument against Christianity would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of their worldview. But people can and do make Christianity into a religion though but if you look closer and hear what God is really saying to us in the bible is that He desires a relationship with you, not a religion. That’s what distinguishes it from all other religion unless you can theologlically point out the exact same set of traits without sounding too ignorant.
“Nah. I don’t think so. I’m not interested in a draw”
oh. I’m sorry. Does one of us HAVE to agree with the other? I didn’t call for a stalemate if that’s what you’re implying. We simply are on different sides of the spectrum. You’re an atheist (or agnostic) and I’m a biblical theist. Evolution and creationism can’t reconcile, even though that’s what the whole ID is vying for but I personally don’t buy that. I’d rather stay where I’m at and have you come over to our camp so you can enjoy God’s salvational blessings and be the person that God has called you to be but I think that’s never going to happen ever. Neither am I going to concede into a life of hopelessness and meaninglessness driven by atheistic and secular evolutionism views that we are biological machines rather than the creation whom God deems worthy to His calling. So where do we stand now? Where we stood before this online charade. Why we’re both stubborn. Luckily I have the Lord on my side (and you could too of course) and if I’m with Him then who can be against the Creator of the Universe? know what i mean green jelly bean?
“Just read it dude. It was a joke mostly, and I can’t be bothered to go into it.”
.
Lol. Yea. sure. You weren’t kidding. Not in the least. right? If you can’t be bothered to go into something like the bible then why am I bothering myself to go into evolution? Just bear with me here it’s not that difficult to endure. Mark 11 is basically about God’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. So the Lord came down to Earth in the flesh, in the person and life of Jesus Christ, and calling upon those who will believe on Him to be used for His purposes. Since it’s rather long and arduous I’ll take the liberty of allowing an intermission for the time being and will further address this message last in conclusion after your next rebuttal, to which I will try to respond in one lump proceeding the final comments from you of this. I feel it’s more edifying in ministering to speaking people through the heart rather than the mind. Like it or not pal you’ve opened ‘a can of sweet n’ sour fruits’
“So um. do you have any responses to my actual points there or are you just conceeding them?”
bones and fossils don’t support the theory that humans actually did evolve from apes; it just proves how life evolves, the process of biology. Keep on fooling yourself. LOL. I concede that you are determined as I am, maybe more. As for responses to any of your actual points: I’ll just flat out deny them all and say, “No!” LOL. because honestly they don’t really speak to me internally but it gives me an external headache — too many intellectual thought that’s vain, it doesn’t hit home at all one bit. I’m sorry man. Arguing with you on your points that you make, is fruitless, lifeless and blessless and brings no joy to my heart at all but death. I only concede to the notion that you are more ‘enlightened’ or ‘edified’ or even ‘entertained’ from this experience than I because it appears you’re enjoying this more on a egotistical level. I’ve never seen so many smugs in one line of conversation in my life. LOL.
Dude. No matter what you say I’m gonna say exactly the opposite. You say the sky is blue. I’ll say it’s green or aqua. LOL. I imagine us running around in circles chasing our own tails. Hehe. Do you actually enjoy this? I know what you’re going to assert next in your responses; something that will correct my *quote* mistakes *unquote* right? And guess what I’m gonna respond next after that? Yes that’s right i’m going to say something that will in turn correct what you said to make me look right and then you’re gonna say something back to make yourself sound right. You don’t see it? We’re just throwing ideas of opposing worldviews out to see which one of us has more determination. It’s a game of who’s going to back down first or the last one to get the last word. LOL. Anything you will ask of me further like proof, sources, information, inquiries, etc, etc I’ve decided at this moment I’m no longer liberated to entertain you because I won’t, not because I can’t. Every other question or statement that denies or contradict my views will be ignored because my response to that would be quite the opposite. And no, it’s not a matter of honesty. Me choosing to disagree with you on all your statements in one blanket or refusal to answer your questions isn’t a matter of integrity or giving up; it’s a question of “should we continue, or why are we, to waste our time?” Maybe I have too much free time on my hands. Maybe you don’t have much of a social life. Maybe I need to get out more. Maybe you don’t have any friends. I don’t know. Through all of this, have you learned from me anything beneficial for you personally? I hope so but I really doubt so. Because I haven’t learned anything substantial or edifying for that matter from you either, at least anything that changes my views on things. We need to end this “thing we have” soon because it looks like we’re wasting our time on each other.
“The GTE holds to the following historical claims: BB, Abiogenesis, Com. Desc. Cosmic Chronology. The GTE should not be confused with biological evolution, which is simply the process whereby characteristics change within a population over time (natural selection, speciation, genetic diversity).”
So basically you define “GTE” as the entire history of the universe, as opposed to other people, who don’t.
Ok for you I suppose, but no one else uses those terms in that way, this is probably where a lot of your confusion comes from.
“http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm”
You link to another creationist who seems to have been the one to coin the term, and not a scientist using the term. I think this is proof enough of what ths term is for.
“the theoretical aspect of common descent is an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions, and is disputed by creationists as a non sequitar logical fallacy.”
Except for the pesky fossil record which could falsify common descent, but instead supports it entirely.
Also, all philosophical assumptions are unfalsifiable, fyi.
“You have faith that life came from non-life w/o external intervention or that the theory will be proven someday.”
Actually, no. I simply see no reason to say that it hasn’t been. I’ve not been advocating any theory of abiogenesis in here, afterall.
I can accept “I don’t know yet” as an answer, I don’t need to fill those gaps with the word “god”.
“It shows how life evolves. That’s no dispute. Just don’t use all that scientific data as historical proof that life ultimately came from non-life.”
It’s not, I think I said a few times that none of this has anything to do with the origin of life. Indirectly, admittedly. We are discussing the theory of evolution here, with some religion sidelines, not the origin of life.
“That’s hardly detrimental compared to evolutionists who do the same thing and tell everyone else that fact and theory should be treated as one concept.”
I’ve seen no one say that.
“The students appear to learn a great deal about grant-writing, but absolutely nothing about philosophy of science. The vast majority of evolutionary biology programs are similar to this one. Harvard’s program is even less structured than this one, and like this one, requires no coursework in philosophy of science, logic, or critical thinking.”
Nor do the physics or chemistry faculties, I checked.
Seems that these things are covered in the science skills section, under the scientific method.
And also, grant writing is an important skill all scientists need to learn. They can do no work without a grant.
“What I admit to is demanding the same amount of evidence that the theory demands to be proven fact and no longer a theory. If that day arrives where the theory is no longer unfalsifiable and officially called a fact or law, then there would be no more experiments to test in that particular field. It’s not so much as I’m demanding that much as it is that the theory claims that life spontaneously came into existence from nothing, so, in essences, we have to test an experiment to create life in order to observe the theory in action. The demand of evidence (or conceivable experiments) speaks for itself in the theoretical claim”
That’s not a claim of the theory of evolution, however.
So why would any scientists in that field be interested in “proving” it?
The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and has not been despite continual rigorous attemps to do so.
“Sedimentary rocks contains fossils and ammonites species found in them haven’t been found to reflect evolutionary changes, unless you want to use punctual equilibrium as an excuse to explain that.”
No need to. This is simply wrong.
There are no changes because they didn’t change, evolution doesn’t require them to.
“Nonetheless, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution as much as special creation.”
Only in the sense that it is possible that every fossil was the result of god continually replacing species that die out with new ones that look similar to them, but not quite exactly like them. it does not support an explicit biblical genesis account. Noah’s flood and all that.
“But they sure made up a picture of it and its wife to make it look like or imply it’s human-like.”
An artist working for a non-scientific magazine equals “they” now?
“Basically, it was an official mistake that took ten years to officially correct, even though the science community generally knew it was a mistake after 8 years of its discovery.”
Did you read your own link?
The man who discovered the tooth and made the initial wrong classification called the drawing “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate”
And later it says “Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted after ten years of its discovery, creationists are using this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they say undermine the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution.”
It was in NO way an “official” mistake, and was never widely accepted by the scientific community, who didn’t care much about it, let alone be desperate to promote it as a “missing link” as you claimed earlier.
“I have. And it doesn’t matter because paleontologists who have any sense dropped the evolutionary tree.”
By which you mean “Those who agree with me”.
“Not really. Monkies aren’t people.”
Your definition of intelligence is flawed.
“There are no gaps between child and parent. They’re a direct physical link between each other. You can’t get any closer than that.”
Really? So you can look at two bodies and easily see if they are parent and child?
No.
You cannot.
“God can’t contradict His own nature, even His morals. The Lord has to carry out justice to punish the wicked as just as a court judge who has justified authority to sentence a child molester or crime offender to death/prison by the law.”
You’re avoiding the issue. Which is that by his own defintions and laws he is a sinner.
Of course you will say he is not bound by those rules, but I’ve never considered “do as I say, not as I do” to be a particularly laubible trait.
“i’ll admit as soon as you admit there’s no evidence for the theory of evolution.”
But there is
Lots of it.
“I don’t see anyone creating a perfect fully functional human hand from nothing or mutating a fish into a human.”
Neither of which are should be possible under the theory of evolution, so why their lack is a problem I dunno.
“Experiments to prove the theory of evolution that life can evolve from non-life means scientists will have to conduct an observable experiment where we can create life. IOW, be god ourselves.”
That’s abiogenesis, not the thoery of evolution.
And it is a work in progress, yeah. It’s really just a technical problem though, there’s no conceivable reason why it won’t work eventually, it is just chemistry afterall. We have managed artificial viruses, a good start.
“In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life
tells us that man is attempting to create life to support abiogenesis, an evolutionary origin of life model that’s one of the historical claims of the theory of evolution”
That article needs serious editing.
But anyway, most of those were not “human attempts to create life” but were studies in creating organic molecules from non-organic processes.
In the next bit you respond to me question by linking to the abiogenesis wiki page. I had asked you for a source showing that abiogenesis was a part of the theory of evolution. This wiki page does nothing of the sort, it merely explains abiogenesis.
Try again?
Also, please note the 2nd law of thermodynamics section, it supports on of my earlier refutations >.<
A really annoying one.
“What this implies in the context of both origin of life models, abiogenesis and intelligent design by God for evolution and creationism respectively are no more scientific than the other.”
They’re still not equal though. As abiogenesis is a science in which experimentation is done and hypothesis discarded/supported in the process. ID does no research, and creates no hypothesis to test.
“If indeed the process of abiogenesis is formed in the lab and life creates, it’s plausibility and actual manifestation of a mechanism for the origin of life was only possible through deliberate design of intelligent minds.”
Nothing we do in labs would be impossible outside of them. That’s kinda the whole point.
It would show quite plainly that no supernatural intervention would be needed for life to exist. And there would be a difference between two different kinds of experiments. Those where we engineer new life forms, and those were we simulate pre-biotic relicating biochemical machines to see how they act in various environments. The former not supporting abiogenesis much but showing that life does not require a supernatural creator, and the latter showing that it is explicitly possible for it to have happened in nature.
“IOW, despite repeated attempts under every reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have been unable to reproduce a reasonable method for the origin of life without a creator, nor do they have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved.”
Every reproducable circumstance? There’s been how many, a dozen that I know of, experiments ont he subject. hardly every possible circumstance. And if, as you say, we don;t fully understand the chemistry involved, then how can we know if that is all of the possible circumstances?
Obviously we cannot and have not exhausted the possibilities.
“Believe it or not, many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will frequently try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.”
It’s not though. It’s in YOUR special definition that includes the big bang and a few other scientific theories all rolled into one, but it’s not included in the one scientists use.
The clue is in the title. Theory of evolution, the explanation for how life changes.
“You’re charging that someone coming to saving knowledge of Christianity is inconceivable but in the OT there have been non-Christians who were directly approached by the Lord Himself”
Well that kinda breaks the “no knowledge” clause of my question, in that they were led towards christianity by someone. That is not what I asked.
Without any sort of knowledge, do you really think someone would become a christian?
“That’s observable fact according to historical-legal-documentation. Historical claims backed with historical evidence.”
There is historical evidence for the holy spirit visiting paul now? This I gotta see.
“Either way, the smoking gun is in your head as in theoretical thinking and not empirically observable like biological evolution.”
The smoking gun is defined as to be non-existent. While you stick with taht, the rest of the world will move on with the real evidence.
I would consider the entire mountain of supporting evidence to BE the smoking gun
And to repeat again, the theory of evolution is entirely falsifiable, you just gotta do so, and earn yourself a nobel prize.
“Evidence supporting biological evolution, not the theory.”
Not the theory you’re talking about, but the one everyone else is talking about.
The theory of evolution.
“rare fossils are rare and it certainly proves species evolve into different varieties of its species kind but don’t treat it as if it proves the entirety of GTE. The GTE is more like a philosophical world view that challenges the Christian world view rather than a scientific theory, even though it’s heralded as one.”
On the matter of common descent, to describe the ancestors of whales as being the same “kind” of animal is to stretch the definition to absurdity.
“You’re saying: “There is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. Therefore the general theory of evolution is true.” This argument is fallacious, because while biological evolution makes no claim as to the origin of life and allows for the possibility that it was originally created, the general theory of evolution claims that life originated by chance through abiogenesis, a speculation for which there is neither evidence nor comprehensive explanation.”
To repeat myself, I have always been talking about the theory of evolution, not your “GTE”, I’ve made that clear through repitition, and explicitly stating it. So no, I haven’t been saying anything like that.
“They note changes in the size of finch beaks, and infer (without evidence) that bears can evolve into whales. They note superficial changes in structure change by natural selection, and infer that the structure itself evolved by the same mechanism.”
Short term, relatively small observed changes are proof of concepts. The larger scale of the fossil record is where support for larger changes is found.
““I’ve never heard a scientist use the term “General theory of Evolution”.”
G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK Pergamon, 1960), p 157. The idea is ancient in origin, being held by Greek philosophers such as Anaxagorus, but was recently revived in Europe and America during the secularization of the 19th century.”
I doubt the term is greek in origin, it’s not in greek for a start, and uses fairly modern terminology. Perhaps the idea that you are talking about is, that of a naturalistic history of the universe, but that’s another matter entirely, and not something anyone but you has been talking about.
“Darwin observed changes in the shape and size of the beaks of finches. From this observable and very minor example of biological evolution, he created a general theory of evolution, that all species diversity is a result of biological evolution.”
No. From that and many other observations and experiments he derives the theory of natural selection, and derived the common descent of species from that and from the fossil record.
“As he stated in The Origin of Species: “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. (On the Origin of Species (1859), original edition, p. 184)” Darwin omitted this story in other editions of Origin (because it was received as preposterous), but regretted his revision: “I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear’s mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits. (”More Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1903, page 162).”
Which is not the same as saying that whales evolved from bears.
Also, I agree with him. There is no special difficulty with his view of how things could go for a bear.
Seems entirely reasonable.
“Then you’re really arguing against Richard Dawkins because I was simply pointing out that he made that argument which he himself basically says that biologists must admit that there is a design, falsely made by nature. But you and I knows it’s absurd even though evolutionists tell us that in public school by inference. Your views basically contradicts his, thereby inconsistent with your own logic.”
Nope. I agree there is an appearance of complexity which may be mistaken for design by some people, and is. And that the appearance in no way means it was designed.
This is in no way contradictory.
“So you must admit that it’s possible that life is created by external intervention.”
Yes, as I stated before. But whether it did or not has no bearing on the subject at hand, how live changed over time.
“Creationism has an answer for that which biological evolution doesn’t. But the theory of evolution is now being used in an attempt to provide an alternative answer. A new answer that is philosophically inferior to the answer given by the Christian world-view.”
Not all answers are equal. Some are based on things like evidence, and some are based on the make-believe of cattle-sacrificing israeli primitives.
“Think again. It’s not a conflation by my opinion. It’s a fact that atheism and evolution are a married couple since their views are very similar. That’s why they make a good couple.”
All of science is related to atheism in the same way that evolution is, in the “this is how the world works” sense.
“The scientific community, above any other subgroup of the population, has become overwhelmingly atheistic. According to a 1998 report in Nature, a survey by Edward Larson found that, “among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever; almost total”. Interestingly, the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God.”
This is a surprise how? Religious people in america tend to grow up with the notion that evolution is evil or wrong implanted in their minds by pastors and parents. Many won’t be able to overcome these ideas and study the evidence with a clear mind. Science in general, but evolution in particular. Religious people select against themselves in high level science positions.
“This decline in belief in biologists strongly indicates the nature of the cause, and the ability of the teaching of evolutionary biology to turn people away from a belief in God.”
Or is a symptom of the creationists rejection of modern biology.
“From these statistics it would appear that higher education, and particularly specialization in the natural sciences will indoctrinate students into naturalism or an atheistic view of the world.”
Or would indicate that smarter children are less likely to buy into the creationist rhetoric and lies.
“Evolution may be better called evolutionism as it is considered a religion by many.”
All of those “many” are creationists.
“Sounds like an agenda don’t it?”
No, sounds like paranoia, to be honest.
“Life can never happen until God adds the last ingredient.”
Oh? Proof of this claim please.
It seems to me that we have never found any “magical” ingredient that makes life special.
“Tons upon tons of prophecies was fulfilled in Jesus Christ but scientific study showed that just 8 prophecies would take a scientific probability of 1 in 10 to the 27th power.”
LMAO, no.
Many many messiah figures arose in the world over time, many also claiming to fulfill a lot of the same criteria as Jesus. He is by no mean unique, or even the first.
And the odds cited here are supported by what exactly?
“You don’t know every crack in the universe so you can’t disprove it.”
Even if we did, you would simply claim that god was undetectable by our senses. Hence totally unfalsifiable.
“As for as anthropic principle I know a great deal on it more than you think and I don’t care about proving it to you either.”
Oh, it needs no proof, I agree with it totally. I just think you don’t understand it
“IOW, it’s like you saying, “No. There is no God.” and you can figure what I would respond to that.”
For some fo them that might hold, but not for them all. Besides which my claims are rarely specific enough to warrant actual citations.
“Considering that it can be used improperly and IS by both sides is proof.”
Proves nothing more than some people misuse it for various reasons.
“LOL. And that’s a kids book too! It’s elementary common scientific knowledge. Everybody should know that, unless they’re a hermit hiding in a cave. LOL. I can’t believe I’m referring you to a pre-school kids book. My Gosh REDEM. are you that uninformed?! haha.
”
Maybe, or maybe the text is wrong. Google has no records of it either.
Also, I’m not american, so chances are we grew up with different text books.
“We don’t have to assume it’s true to recognize its uniqueness because no other religion makes that exclusive claim that is supported by more historical-legal-documentation. IOW, even if it’s not true, for the sake of discussion, it is still unique in its claims.”
No more unique than any other sufficiently complex religion.
“It’s a fallacy to link Christianity with other religions because essentially at its core it is not so much a religion as it is having a personal relationship with God the Creator”
Uh-huuuuhhhh…
Nah, it’s still a religion. Attempts to redifine it notwithstanding.
“Jesus Christ, the One who died for us on the cross, resurrected and conquered death and gives eternal life for anyone who believes on Him. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.”
Only in the irrelevant details. Apart from that it’s a reitteration of ealier messiah claimants, like Krishna or a few dozen others.
“oh. I’m sorry. Does one of us HAVE to agree with the other? I didn’t call for a stalemate if that’s what you’re implying.”
That was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, really.
“I’d rather stay where I’m at and have you come over to our camp so you can enjoy God’s salvational blessings and be the person that God has called you to be but I think that’s never going to happen ever.”
All I ask is a little.. proof. If that’s too much then… *shrug*
“Neither am I going to concede into a life of hopelessness and meaninglessness driven by atheistic and secular evolutionism views that we are biological machines rather than the creation whom God deems worthy to His calling.”
I would prefer the ugly brutal truth to a comfortable lie any day of the week.
“Lol. Yea. sure. You weren’t kidding. Not in the least. right?”
Kidding in the sense that it was amusing to say it, and isn’t something I particularly wanna debate. A throw away comment, rather than a joke, if you prefer that phrasing.
“I feel it’s more edifying in ministering to speaking people through the heart rather than the mind. Like it or not pal you’ve opened ‘a can of sweet n’ sour fruits’
.”
And I prefer to speak to people’s minds, trusting them to use it.
“bones and fossils don’t support the theory that humans actually did evolve from apes; it just proves how life evolves, the process of biology.”
What are we missing? We have the fossils of transitional forms from early apes to modern humans, a whole long series of them. We have the knowledge that animals evolve. We know our genetics and biochemical and anatomical and behavioural similarities. The only reasonable conclusion is that we share a common ancestor with modern apes.
“I only concede to the notion that you are more ‘enlightened’ or ‘edified’ or even ‘entertained’ from this experience than I because it appears you’re enjoying this more on a egotistical level.”
Trust me I am not in the least entertained by these posts. They’re a chore to be honest, especially given the clumsiness of the medium.
“Through all of this, have you learned from me anything beneficial for you personally? I hope so but I really doubt so. Because I haven’t learned anything substantial or edifying for that matter from you either, at least anything that changes my views on things. We need to end this “thing we have” soon because it looks like we’re wasting our time on each other.”
Learned nothing more than how easy it is to deny the obvious
Irony notwithstanding.
“I don’t need to fill those gaps with the word “god”.”
The natural world that biology and the other scientific disciplines describe is part of God’s revelation to man, with or
without gaps.
“I agree there is an appearance of complexity which may be mistaken for design by some people, and is. And that the
appearance in no way means it was designed.”
I believe some people mistake the appearance of complexity and design for randomness.
“I’ve seen no one say that.”
I have.
“I simply see no reason to say that it hasn’t been.”
And I see no reason it has.
“Your definition of intelligence is flawed.
Not so. My intelligence does not originate from apes. Maybe yours do.
“as the entire history of the universe”
correction: entire theoretical history
“You link to another creationist who seems to have been the one to coin the term, and not a scientist using the term.”
creationists are scientists
“supports it entirely.”
except for its ultimate evolutionary conclusion.
“Seems entirely reasonable.”
..philosophically…
“We have the fossils of transitional forms from early apes to modern humans, a whole long series of them.”
Incomplete succession.
“There are no changes because they didn’t change,”
So you admit. Evolutionary changes never took place.
“Proof of this claim please.”
And why would an atheist need that sort of proof if he doesn’t believe in God at all?
“Seems that these things are covered in the science skills section, under the scientific method.”
The course that comes closest to those things, Scientific Skills, is described as follows: “Exposes graduate students to
teaching skills, understanding the scientific method, searching and organizing literature, grant proposal writing, data
management and presentation, and scientific speaking. Students are evaluated on their participation and the quality of a
written research proposal.” I don’t see anything in that that sufficiently teaches them the philosophy of science, logic,
logical fallacies, critical thinking, or metaphysics.
“So why would any scientists in that field be interested in “proving” it?…most of those were not “human attempts to create
life” but were studies in creating organic molecules from non-organic processes….in creating organic molecules from
non-organic processes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life
Essentially, they are attempts to create life from non-life. IOW, “create life.” That’s just roughly.
“On the matter of common descent”
The philosophical notion that human life historically originated or began (to evolve) from lifeless cells is simply
unobservable and untestable. Even when you consider Darwin’s “tree of life”, which is not borne out in scientific
observation, abiogenesis, and morphological gaps in the fossil record.
“evolution doesn’t require them to.”
A fossil is by definition a rock or mineral. It is not essentially a rock, it is a rock. Fossil changes = rock changes.
“it is possible that every fossil was the result of god continually replacing species that die out with new ones that look
similar to them, but not quite exactly like them.”
Unless you’re looking at it from a baraminological POV, despite its criticisms from the scientific community.
“Really? So you can look at two bodies and easily see if they are parent and child?”
You’re using a non-sequitur fallacy because one comparison is the link between two or more totally different species while
the other comparison is the link between two human beings within one species.
“this is probably where a lot of your confusion comes from…..Theory of evolution, the explanation for how life
changes…..Not the theory you’re talking about, but the one everyone else is talking about. The theory of evolution…..We
are discussing the theory of evolution here….That’s not a claim of the theory of evolution, however….Only in the sense
that it is possible that every fossil was the result of god continually replacing species that die out with new ones that
look similar to them, but not quite exactly like them….But there is
Lots of it…..Neither of which are should be
possible under the theory of evolution, so why their lack is a problem I dunno…That’s abiogenesis, not the thoery of
evolution…..This wiki page does nothing of the sort, it merely explains abiogenesis…..just chemistry afterall….in
creating organic molecules from non-organic processes….I have always been talking about the theory of evolution, not your
“GTE”,….Perhaps the idea that you are talking about is, that of a naturalistic history of the universe, but that’s another
matter entirely, and not something anyone but you has been talking about….Not all answers are equal. Some are based on
things like evidence….All of science is related to atheism in the same way that evolution is, in the “this is how the world
works” sense…..Religious people in america tend to grow up with the notion that evolution is evil or wrong implanted in
their minds by pastors and parents. Many won’t be able to overcome these ideas and study the evidence with a clear mind.
Science in general, but evolution in particular. Religious people select against themselves in high level science
positions…..Or would indicate that smarter children are less likely to buy into the creationist rhetoric and lies.”
Personally, I don’t really have a problem with the theory in and of itself, because, as you suggested that it is simply an
explanation for how life changes. However, it is by the theory’s support of those ideas and advocacy from the atheistic and
secular community that has created this ‘general worldview’ of what evolutionary theory represents and how evolutionists
perceive reality and the natural world to be different the theistic worldview. The term refers to those ideas that the
evolution theory implies. They are not the same, aren’t part of each other BUT that’s what evolution theory is basically
saying in a nutshell. On the surface, evolution theory doesn’t claim them but ultimately, if you think critically about the
implications of evoluton theory, it explains an alternate universal truth to the naturalistic history of the universe
contrary to Scripture, thereby supporting those ideas. Beneath the surface, the theory of evolution advocates the idea of
origin of life, among the other claims listed, because what other explanation does it have? None. So the logical explanation
is to say the origin of life came from non-life by chemisty or natural law. IOW, life originally came from nothing because
where else did nature and chemistry originally come from? the big bang? singularity? You see, none of that is evolutionary
theory but that is the only alternative to explain how Evolution (capitol ‘E’) came into existence. And while they are not
evolution theory, they are exactly what the theory evolution is implying. But since there’s no historical evidence, fossil
record or testable experiment to suppot those claims, evolutionists simply circumvent these ramifications by refining the
theory and denying that evolution theory claims them. Nevertheless, the evolutionary theory’s worldview, coupled with
atheistic influence, advocates, if not based on, those ideas. Basically, this ‘evolutionary faith’, for lack of a better
term, is an extrapolation of the hypothetical speculations within the scientific community’s naturalistic assumptions about
how the world is understood, understood to be damnable heresy by Scripture. It goes back to the roots of evolutionary theory
in the former centuries, when it was revived in naturalistic opposition to the Christian worldview around the biblical
revival in Europe. That is an example of man rejecting the truth of God for the truth of science and now in modern day
science has become the ulitimate validation in social discourse or, IOW, the supreme social authority for truth and today,
despite the menace of H-bombs and serious ecological problems, social trust in science as a way of salvation does not seem
about to disappear. It is considered ‘good’ but God’s truth ‘evil’, which is illustrated by……..
“I would prefer the ugly brutal truth to a comfortable lie any day of the week.”
……..Romans 1:18-23. Paul addresses this to naturalist philosphers (who were considered scientists back in their day),
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation
of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power
and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed
animals and creeping things. In verse 25 Pauls goes on to say they exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Radical ain’t it? What God was speaking
to the Greeks through Paul then is what He is now speaking to you. To all atheistic evolutionists and secular scientists. To
all mankind. Today. That we have turned our backs to God and have looked to the evidences. The things of this world. Away
from the One who created these very same things for our enjoyment. We have looked to them for a truth that makes us feel
comfortable. As long as it’s away from sin. Away from our accountability to God. He’s speaking to you now that you are guilty
of sin before the Almighty Lord who personally created you in your mother’s womb. We have separated ourselves from God. No
longer in communion with Him. No longer enjoying His blessings. No longer being —- in a personal – intimate – spiritual –
relationship with God. We’re living by our flesh. We’re living by our OWN rules our OWN ways our OWN pleasures. And that’s
what sin is: not being with God. Whatever separates us from Him. That’s what it is. ANd because the wages of sin is death,
spiritual death now in this life and after, we ARE held accountable to God through Judgement Day. Whether you believe it or
not. But He – WANTS – you – back. God wants to reconcile you back to Him. To restore the relationship to what He originally
planned for you. And God made that possible by sacrificing His Son to pay for your sins. John 3:16 says that “For God so
loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting
life.” God Himself became flesh — in the person of Jesus Christ and sacrificed Himself *on that* cross so that YOU can be
given life. So that YOU can receive His blessings of peace and assurance that HE HAS conquered death when He ressurected and
so too will we be renewed in newness of life. IF – you believe on the Lord. Now where was I? Oh yeah, the roots of the theory
of evolution. It also goes back when once after the theory was officially adhered to such claims but have abandoned them due
to their unfalsifiabilitiness, among other criticisms. By this, the theory became falsifiable by default. Modern
evolutionists deny that the theory ever claimed such things but that is exactly what the theory supports, not IS, but
implies. It is by these structures of scientific thought that shape your current understanding of the world as well as
evolution’s original meaning and modern idea of how life works. But the evolutionary theory you know now is still speculation
based on naturalistic assumptions, both entirely fallible, since those unscientific claims, although dropped from it, are
already ingrained into the ideology that’s behind evolution theory, exasperated by the atheistic and secular community. THIS
IS the scientific worldview many have placed their trust, belief (or faith) on. The theory and inherent idea of how the
modern science community is “innocent until proven guilty” itself, yet guilty itself for being intolerantly dogmatic of
alternative ‘paradigms’ as opposed to the tolerance of the fathers of nearly every discipline of science. But scientific
knowledge does not monopolize Truth in any sense. I do not accept evolution as dogmatic Truth (with a capitol ‘T’) and if
you’re a responsible person, or a scientists in any respect, you should concede that it isn’t. Now how do you explain life
outside of Evolution? That includes chemistry, matter, nature, etc.
“Also, please note the 2nd law of thermodynamics section, it supports on of my earlier refutations”
Actually, it doesn’t, if you were refuting that the entropy of the law is equivalent to disorder. Although it mentions that
critics have a misconception that ‘entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of “disorder”‘, it does
not specifically state that creationists use that strawman. AFAIK, entropy is not the same as disorder, but entropy is
logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is
a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The theory of evolution requires some extremely large
increases in order and therefore an extremely large decrease in entropy. Order from chaos requires energy to be applied to
the system in an organized manner. The problem for evolution is that it lacks a mechanism for applying energy in an organized
manner, and this is particularly the case with regard to the origin of life.
“The man who discovered the tooth and made the initial wrong classification called the drawing “a figment of the imagination
of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate””
Read the website again, critically. Cook discovered it in 1917 and mistakenly classified it *BUT* that false identification
was NOT revealed *until* 1925, AND, it says “its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.” What
does that mean? It means the tooth was classified as an ape for 8 years UNTIL 1925 AND it was considered by the journal
science to be scientific knowledge – revolutionary knowledge — UNTIL 1927. That means the science community generally
accepted the original classification for 8-10 years. Now, it goes on to imply that the science community rejected the
original classification AFTER its retraction in 1927 BECAUSE the statement (the statement that the science community did not
generally accept it, the retraction after 10 years and creationists’ undermining it) takes place AFTER the fact that the
tooth was thought to be from an ape. So, for 8-10 years, everyone was fooled. Just concede my original claim, that these men
made a mistake out of desperation. BTW, the one who rejected the drawing, Osborn, did not discover it.
“Nothing we do in labs would be impossible outside of them. That’s kinda the whole point. It would show quite plainly that no
supernatural intervention would be needed for life to exist. And there would be a difference between two different kinds of
experiments. Those where we engineer new life forms, and those were we simulate pre-biotic relicating biochemical machines to
see how they act in various environments. The former not supporting abiogenesis much but showing that life does not require a
supernatural creator, and the latter showing that it is explicitly possible for it to have happened in nature.”
Not really. IF that was the case that life was created in the lab, it, as well as your hypothetical assertions, still does
not provide a sufficient answer for the cosmic origin of life. That would be on the same level as humans creating life
through sexual reproduction in nature, which, in fact, still pushes the cosmic question further back. Therefore, the
hypothetical situation should not automatically dismiss the notion of a possible supernatural intervention outside of nature.
“All I ask is a little.. proof. If that’s too much then…”
The bible calls us to walk by faith, not by sight.
“Attempts to redifine it notwithstanding.”
It’s not a subjective redefining of it. That’s what Christianty *really* is at its core: an agape relationship with a
personal intimate god who speaks to you spiritually through your conscience to your heart. Categorically, it’s a religion
just like Catholicism. But essentially, it’s not religious like Catholicism or Buddhism, where you do endless chants, 50 hail
mary’s, mantras, repetitive tasks, empty prayres or the look and feel of religiousity. It’s the spiritual presence of the
Holy Spirit that one can actually feel if your ’spiritual antenna’ is up. It’s subtly MOVING!
“Even if we did, you would simply claim that god was undetectable by our senses. Hence totally unfalsifiable.”
And that’s outside the realm of scientific –
Actually no. We have an extra sense: it’s called spiritual sense.
naturalistic worldview. And AFAIB, science is not the arbiter of Truth.
“it does not support an explicit biblical genesis account. Noah’s flood and all that.”
All depending on what literary device you use.
“No more unique than any other sufficiently complex religion….. Only in the irrelevant details. Apart from that it’s a
reitteration of ealier messiah claimants, like Krishna or a few dozen others.”
LOL. Another typical skeptical response. It seems you’re just grasping at straws. Sure all religions are different from one
another. Each is like no other. In fact, their cores contradict each other. Now Christianity is unique in the sense that it
is superiorly different. For instance, the Christian God is personal while others are impersonal. Jesus was perfect and
sinless. He was a perfect God who became fully man and dwelled with us until He ascended into heaven. Other messiahs were
imperfect men who became perfect gods. The list goes on but the major doctrine and theology is far inferior to Christianity.
That’s why it’s the most popular world religion in the world. Even compared to Islam Buddhism or Confucianism. It’s unique in
its grand story of redemption to mankind that God the Creator is intimate and personal and keenly interested in the affairs
of mankind. Furthermore, the bible is the only religious book on Earth that teaches that space and time and matter had a
beginning and that God as a being which is fully independant of the space time domain never began but is eternal. The easter
religions essentially teach at its deep core that the universe is infinite in age, that god is the universe, the universe is
god, matter, space and time is god. I’m god. you’re god. the chair’s god. the trees are god. Shirley McClaine’s god.
Everybody’s god. The following website contrasts Christianity with other religions although it is theologically unbiblical.
http://www.comparativereligion.com/god.html
“Many many messiah figures arose in the world over time, many also claiming to fulfill a lot of the same criteria as Jesus.
He is by no mean unique, or even the first.”
That is simply false and a typical answer from a skeptic, unless you can show me some historical proof that they are exactly
the same as Jesus theologically AND that their historical documentation and reliability is sufficient enough compared to New
Testament documents. These kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades
ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes
still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding
traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom
of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary
with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to
make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the
terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.
Consider the first paragraph on the website
http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:
“What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient
Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down
and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the
power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”
So the facts are:
1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.
Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these
kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so
Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)
Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of
nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the
story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.
So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were
derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.
C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the
fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back
(in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the
ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone
to destroy death.
They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the
end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.
Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying
out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and
Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes,
that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this
vicious cycle of death.
it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations – like they
believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are
some pretty exact details – and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study
it:
1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely
defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and
resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we
simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this
argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that
wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of your worldview.
“The Horus Heresy.”
I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus. And it seems many skeptics use this character to
dismiss Jesus as ‘just another messiah’.
First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure
“horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.
Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended,
but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.
Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband.
But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis – so he was not born of a virgin.
In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by
his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.
On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in
what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was
born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ – he was born in a swamp.
This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples – I doubt
this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a
specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.
I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is – besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no
grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if
anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” – or use its blatant falsehoods to
kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.
In fact, here was a list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who
lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen
was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his
“virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are
nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking
for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.
Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.
born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25
born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)
star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first
prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.
adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus
teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”
had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel
performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good
shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.
crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets
And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.
There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births,
sons who die and resurrect, fullfilled prophecies, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe
these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” which are prophetic BTW makes it sound like there is a strong
similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g.,
somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this
“resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably
actually start laughing at these claims.
“Without any sort of knowledge, do you really think someone would become a christian? There is historical evidence for the
holy spirit visiting paul now? This I gotta see.”
If anyone becomes a Christian it is because the Holy Spirit initially draws them nearer to God to willingly hear what the
Lord needs to speak to their hearts and their responding to God’s invitation. John 6:43-45 states: Jesus therefore answered
and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has
heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” Paul became a Christian without being preached to by any human but the Holy
Spirit spoke to him and he responded in obedience. Because of Paul’s submission to God, the Holy Spirit changed Saul to Paul
for the better. To know that the Holy Spirit visited Paul you should understand that Paul’s radical conversion is testimony
that the Holy Spirit not only visited him but changed his life. He was anti-Christian before but then something happened to
Paul (he was visited by the Holy Spirit) and later he eventually became the founder of Christianity. IOW, Saul became Paul.
He changed. His testimony testifies the radical changes Paul experienced in his personal life. Any Roman history textbook
describes Paul’s life before (Saul of Tarsus) and after (apostle Paul), while Acts 9 explains Christ’s postressurection
appearance to Paul (visited by the Holy Spirit), the turning point in Paul’s personal life. So basically, the bible is
historical proof that the Holy Spirit visited Paul because the Book of Acts describes Jesus’s spirit (Holy Spirit) visiting
Paul.
“Of course you will say he is not bound by those rules, but I’ve never considered “do as I say, not as I do” to be a
particularly laubible trait.”
That is because you are lawless. Wouldn’t a parent forbid a child from doing certain things that they do anyway, like staying
up late, smoking, sex, drinking, cursing, etc?
“Which is that by his own defintions and laws he is a sinner.”
It is not a sin for God to take someone’s life. It is a sin for a human to take another’s life. The fact of the matter is
that God isn’t human, He isn’t bound by the covenant stipulations that were given to Israel. He is bound by His end and He
keeps up His end despite all of the times we break our end. He isn’t under the Law. He causes tsunamis that kill countless
innocents. He encourages Satan to persecute Job, a righteous man. He killed the first born of numerous people in Egypt. Some
must have been infants who couldn’t have covered the door if they wanted to. Innocents put to death by God. We, as humans,
are NEVER to do such things to our fellow humans. God does not follow the same rules we do because He isn’t human. He is the
Lord God Almighty. We SIN by breaking the law. God isn’t under the law and thus isn’t sinning when He does things that would
be wrong if we did them. We as humans, because of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, are no longer under “the law” either. We are
under grace. Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. So right there
we must throw our ideas of law out the window. It is not a set or rules, but a life dedicated to following the Father
wherever He leads us. Sin becomes not breaking a law, but disobeying whatever God has commanded of you. God does not have a
list of rules that He follows. The father has control over life and death of every one of us. It is wrong for us to murder
because that is taking authority where the authority has not been given us. Murder is done often out of revenge, and God said
that Revenge is His. If the Father was under the law, then He could not take revenge, as it would be breaking His own law.
However He DOES take revenge, pour out wrath, and punish the wicked. He has commanded us to forgive those who hate us, yet if
those who hate go to their death hating God… He sends them to hell. He does not forgive them of this treachery, even if
they beg Him.
“Yes, as I stated before. But whether it did or not has no bearing on the subject at hand, how live changed over
time….Trust me I am not in the least entertained by these posts. They’re a chore to be honest, especially given the
clumsiness of the medium….Learned nothing more than how easy it is to deny the obvious
Irony notwithstanding.”
Call the media! Report this to the news papers! We finally agree on something.
“I don’t need to fill those gaps with the word “god”.”
The natural world that biology and the other scientific disciplines describe is part of God’s revelation to man, with or without gaps.
“I agree there is an appearance of complexity which may be mistaken for design by some people, and is. And that the appearance in no way means it was designed.”
I believe some people mistake the appearance of complexity and design for randomness.
“I’ve seen no one say that.”
I have.
“I simply see no reason to say that it hasn’t been.”
And I see no reason it has.
“Your definition of intelligence is flawed.
Not so. My intelligence does not originate from apes. Maybe yours do.
“as the entire history of the universe”
correction: entire theoretical history
“You link to another creationist who seems to have been the one to coin the term, and not a scientist using the term.”
creationists are scientists
“supports it entirely.”
except for its ultimate evolutionary conclusion.
“Seems entirely reasonable.”
..philosophically…
“We have the fossils of transitional forms from early apes to modern humans, a whole long series of them.”
Incomplete succession.
“There are no changes because they didn’t change,”
So you admit. Evolutionary changes never took place.
“Proof of this claim please.”
And why would an atheist need that sort of proof if he doesn’t believe in God at all?
“Seems that these things are covered in the science skills section, under the scientific method.”
The course that comes closest to those things, Scientific Skills, is described as follows: “Exposes graduate students to teaching skills, understanding the scientific method, searching and organizing literature, grant proposal writing, data management and presentation, and scientific speaking. Students are evaluated on their participation and the quality of a written research proposal.” I don’t see anything in that that sufficiently teaches them the philosophy of science, logic, logical fallacies, critical thinking, or metaphysics.
“So why would any scientists in that field be interested in “proving” it?…most of those were not “human attempts to create life” but were studies in creating organic molecules from non-organic processes….in creating organic molecules from non-organic processes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life
Essentially, they are attempts to create life from non-life. IOW, “create life.” That’s just roughly.
“On the matter of common descent”
The philosophical notion that human life historically originated or began (to evolve) from lifeless cells is simply unobservable and untestable. Even when you consider Darwin’s “tree of life”, which is not borne out in scientific observation, abiogenesis, and morphological gaps in the fossil record.
“evolution doesn’t require them to.”
A fossil is by definition a rock or mineral. It is not essentially a rock, it is a rock. Fossil changes = rock changes.
“it is possible that every fossil was the result of god continually replacing species that die out with new ones that look similar to them, but not quite exactly like them.”
Unless you’re looking at it from a baraminological POV, despite its criticisms from the scientific community.
“Really? So you can look at two bodies and easily see if they are parent and child?”
You’re using a non-sequitur fallacy because one comparison is the link between two or more totally different species while the other comparison is the link between two human beings within one species.
“this is probably where a lot of your confusion comes from…..Theory of evolution, the explanation for how life changes…..Not the theory you’re talking about, but the one everyone else is talking about. The theory of evolution…..We are discussing the theory of evolution here….That’s not a claim of the theory of evolution, however….Only in the sense that it is possible that every fossil was the result of god continually replacing species that die out with new ones that look similar to them, but not quite exactly like them….But there is
Lots of it…..Neither of which are should be possible under the theory of evolution, so why their lack is a problem I dunno…That’s abiogenesis, not the thoery of evolution…..This wiki page does nothing of the sort, it merely explains abiogenesis…..just chemistry afterall….in creating organic molecules from non-organic processes….I have always been talking about the theory of evolution, not your “GTE”,….Perhaps the idea that you are talking about is, that of a naturalistic history of the universe, but that’s another matter entirely, and not something anyone but you has been talking about….Not all answers are equal. Some are based on things like evidence….All of science is related to atheism in the same way that evolution is, in the “this is how the world works” sense…..Religious people in america tend to grow up with the notion that evolution is evil or wrong implanted in their minds by pastors and parents. Many won’t be able to overcome these ideas and study the evidence with a clear mind. Science in general, but evolution in particular. Religious people select against themselves in high level science positions…..Or would indicate that smarter children are less likely to buy into the creationist rhetoric and lies.”
Personally, I don’t really have a problem with the theory in and of itself, because, as you suggested that it is simply an explanation for how life changes. However, it is by the theory’s support of those ideas and advocacy from the atheistic and secular community that has created this ‘general worldview’ of what evolutionary theory represents and how evolutionists perceive reality and the natural world to be different the theistic worldview. The term refers to those ideas that the evolution theory implies. They are not the same, aren’t part of each other BUT that’s what evolution theory is basically saying in a nutshell. On the surface, evolution theory doesn’t claim them but ultimately, if you think critically about the implications of evoluton theory, it explains an alternate universal truth to the naturalistic history of the universe contrary to Scripture, thereby supporting those ideas. Beneath the surface, the theory of evolution advocates the idea of origin of life, among the other claims listed, because what other explanation does it have? None. So the logical explanation is to say the origin of life came from non-life by chemisty or natural law. IOW, life originally came from nothing because where else did nature and chemistry originally come from? the big bang? singularity? You see, none of that is evolutionary theory but that is the only alternative to explain how Evolution (capitol ‘E’) came into existence. And while they are not evolution theory, they are exactly what the theory evolution is implying. But since there’s no historical evidence, fossil record or testable experiment to suppot those claims, evolutionists simply circumvent these ramifications by refining the theory and denying that evolution theory claims them. Nevertheless, the evolutionary theory’s worldview, coupled with atheistic influence, advocates, if not based on, those ideas. Basically, this ‘evolutionary faith’, for lack of a better term, is an extrapolation of the hypothetical speculations within the scientific community’s naturalistic assumptions about how the world is understood, understood to be damnable heresy by Scripture. It goes back to the roots of evolutionary theory in the former centuries, when it was revived in naturalistic opposition to the Christian worldview around the biblical revival in Europe. That is an example of man rejecting the truth of God for the truth of science and now in modern day science has become the ulitimate validation in social discourse or, IOW, the supreme social authority for truth and today, despite the menace of H-bombs and serious ecological problems, social trust in science as a way of salvation does not seem about to disappear. It is considered ‘good’ but God’s truth ‘evil’, which is illustrated by……..
“I would prefer the ugly brutal truth to a comfortable lie any day of the week.”
……..Romans 1:18-23. Paul addresses this to naturalist philosphers (who were considered scientists back in their day), “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. In verse 25 Pauls goes on to say they exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Radical ain’t it? What God was speaking to the Greeks through Paul then is what He is now speaking to you. To all atheistic evolutionists and secular scientists. To all mankind. Today. That we have turned our backs to God and have looked to the evidences. The things of this world. Away from the One who created these very same things for our enjoyment. We have looked to them for a truth that makes us feel comfortable. As long as it’s away from sin. Away from our accountability to God. He’s speaking to you now that you are guilty of sin before the Almighty Lord who personally created you in your mother’s womb. We have separated ourselves from God. No longer in communion with Him. No longer enjoying His blessings. No longer being —- in a personal – intimate – spiritual – relationship with God. We’re living by our flesh. We’re living by our OWN rules our OWN ways our OWN pleasures. And that’s what sin is: not being with God. Whatever separates us from Him. That’s what it is. ANd because the wages of sin is death, spiritual death now in this life and after, we ARE held accountable to God through Judgement Day. Whether you believe it or not. But He – WANTS – you – back. God wants to reconcile you back to Him. To restore the relationship to what He originally planned for you. And God made that possible by sacrificing His Son to pay for your sins. John 3:16 says that “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” God Himself became flesh — in the person of Jesus Christ and sacrificed Himself *on that* cross so that YOU can be given life. So that YOU can receive His blessings of peace and assurance that HE HAS conquered death when He ressurected and so too will we be renewed in newness of life. IF – you believe on the Lord. Now where was I? Oh yeah, the roots of the theory of evolution. It also goes back when once after the theory was officially adhered to such claims but have abandoned them due to their unfalsifiabilitiness, among other criticisms. By this, the theory became falsifiable by default. Modern evolutionists deny that the theory ever claimed such things but that is exactly what the theory supports, not IS, but implies. It is by these structures of scientific thought that shape your current understanding of the world as well as evolution’s original meaning and modern idea of how life works. But the evolutionary theory you know now is still speculation based on naturalistic assumptions, both entirely fallible, since those unscientific claims, although dropped from it, are already ingrained into the ideology that’s behind evolution theory, exasperated by the atheistic and secular community. THIS IS the scientific worldview many have placed their trust, belief (or faith) on. The theory and inherent idea of how the modern science community is “innocent until proven guilty” itself, yet guilty itself for being intolerantly dogmatic of alternative ‘paradigms’ as opposed to the tolerance of the fathers of nearly every discipline of science. But scientific knowledge does not monopolize Truth in any sense. I do not accept evolution as dogmatic Truth (with a capitol ‘T’) and if you’re a responsible person, or a scientists in any respect, you should concede that it isn’t. Now how do you explain life outside of Evolution? That includes chemistry, matter, nature, etc.
“Also, please note the 2nd law of thermodynamics section, it supports on of my earlier refutations”
Actually, it doesn’t, if you were refuting that the entropy of the law is equivalent to disorder. Although it mentions that critics have a misconception that ‘entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of “disorder”‘, it does not specifically state that creationists use that strawman. AFAIK, entropy is not the same as disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The theory of evolution requires some extremely large increases in order and therefore an extremely large decrease in entropy. Order from chaos requires energy to be applied to the system in an organized manner. The problem for evolution is that it lacks a mechanism for applying energy in an organized manner, and this is particularly the case with regard to the origin of life.
“The man who discovered the tooth and made the initial wrong classification called the drawing “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate””
Read the website again, critically. Cook discovered it in 1917 and mistakenly classified it *BUT* that false identification was NOT revealed *until* 1925, AND, it says “its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.” What does that mean? It means the tooth was classified as an ape for 8 years UNTIL 1925 AND it was considered by the journal science to be scientific knowledge – revolutionary knowledge — UNTIL 1927. That means the science community generally accepted the original classification for 8-10 years. Now, it goes on to imply that the science community rejected the original classification AFTER its retraction in 1927 BECAUSE the statement (the statement that the science community did not generally accept it, the retraction after 10 years and creationists’ undermining it) takes place AFTER the fact that the tooth was thought to be from an ape. So, for 8-10 years, everyone was fooled. Just concede my original claim, that these men made a mistake out of desperation. BTW, the one who rejected the drawing, Osborn, did not discover it.
“Nothing we do in labs would be impossible outside of them. That’s kinda the whole point. It would show quite plainly that no supernatural intervention would be needed for life to exist. And there would be a difference between two different kinds of experiments. Those where we engineer new life forms, and those were we simulate pre-biotic relicating biochemical machines to see how they act in various environments. The former not supporting abiogenesis much but showing that life does not require a supernatural creator, and the latter showing that it is explicitly possible for it to have happened in nature.”
Not really. IF that was the case that life was created in the lab, it, as well as your hypothetical assertions, still does not provide a sufficient answer for the cosmic origin of life. That would be on the same level as humans creating life through sexual reproduction in nature, which, in fact, still pushes the cosmic question further back. Therefore, the hypothetical situation should not automatically dismiss the notion of a possible supernatural intervention outside of nature.
“All I ask is a little.. proof. If that’s too much then…”
The bible calls us to walk by faith, not by sight.
“Attempts to redifine it notwithstanding.”
It’s not a subjective redefining of it. That’s what Christianty *really* is at its core: an agape relationship with a personal intimate god who speaks to you spiritually through your conscience to your heart. Categorically, it’s a religion just like Catholicism. But essentially, it’s not religious like Catholicism or Buddhism, where you do endless chants, 50 hail mary’s, mantras, repetitive tasks, empty prayres or the look and feel of religiousity. It’s the spiritual presence of the Holy Spirit that one can actually feel if your ’spiritual antenna’ is up. It’s subtly MOVING!
“Even if we did, you would simply claim that god was undetectable by our senses. Hence totally unfalsifiable.”
And that’s outside the realm of scientific – naturalistic worldview. And AFAIB, science is not the arbiter of Truth.
Actually no. We have an extra sense: it’s called spiritual sense.
“it does not support an explicit biblical genesis account. Noah’s flood and all that.”
All depending on what literary device you use.
“No more unique than any other sufficiently complex religion….. Only in the irrelevant details. Apart from that it’s a reitteration of ealier messiah claimants, like Krishna or a few dozen others.”
LOL. Another typical skeptical response. It seems you’re just grasping at straws. Sure all religions are different from one another. Each is like no other. In fact, their cores contradict each other. Now Christianity is unique in the sense that it is superiorly different. For instance, the Christian God is personal while others are impersonal. Jesus was perfect and sinless. He was a perfect God who became fully man and dwelled with us until He ascended into heaven. Other messiahs were imperfect men who became perfect gods. The list goes on but the major doctrine and theology is far inferior to Christianity. That’s why it’s the most popular world religion in the world. Even compared to Islam Buddhism or Confucianism. It’s unique in its grand story of redemption to mankind that God the Creator is intimate and personal and keenly interested in the affairs of mankind. Furthermore, the bible is the only religious book on Earth that teaches that space and time and matter had a beginning and that God as a being which is fully independant of the space time domain never began but is eternal. The easter religions essentially teach at its deep core that the universe is infinite in age, that god is the universe, the universe is god, matter, space and time is god. I’m god. you’re god. the chair’s god. the trees are god. Shirley McClaine’s god. Everybody’s god. The following website contrasts Christianity with other religions although it is theologically unbiblical.
http://www.comparativereligion.com/god.html
“Many many messiah figures arose in the world over time, many also claiming to fulfill a lot of the same criteria as Jesus. He is by no mean unique, or even the first.”
That is simply false and a typical answer from a skeptic, unless you can show me some historical proof that they are exactly the same as Jesus theologically AND that their historical documentation and reliability is sufficient enough compared to New Testament documents. These kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.
Consider the first paragraph on the website
http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:
“What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”
So the facts are:
1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.
Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)
Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.
So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.
C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death.
They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.
Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.
it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations – like they believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are some pretty exact details – and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study it:
1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of your worldview.
“The Horus Heresy.”
I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus. And it seems many skeptics use this character to dismiss Jesus as ‘just another messiah’.
First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.
Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.
Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis – so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.
On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ – he was born in a swamp.
This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples – I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.
I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is – besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” – or use its blatant falsehoods to kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.
In fact, here was a list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his “virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.
Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.
born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25
born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)
star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.
adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus
teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”
had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel
performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.
crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets
And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.
There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births, sons who die and resurrect, fullfilled prophecies, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” which are prophetic BTW makes it sound like there is a strong similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g., somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this “resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably actually start laughing at these claims.
“Without any sort of knowledge, do you really think someone would become a christian? There is historical evidence for the holy spirit visiting paul now? This I gotta see.”
If anyone becomes a Christian it is because the Holy Spirit initially draws them nearer to God to willingly hear what the Lord needs to speak to their hearts and their responding to God’s invitation. John 6:43-45 states: Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” Paul became a Christian without being preached to by any human but the Holy Spirit spoke to him and he responded in obedience. Because of Paul’s submission to God, the Holy Spirit changed Saul to Paul for the better. To know that the Holy Spirit visited Paul you should understand that Paul’s radical conversion is testimony that the Holy Spirit not only visited him but changed his life. He was anti-Christian before but then something happened to Paul (he was visited by the Holy Spirit) and later he eventually became the founder of Christianity. IOW, Saul became Paul. He changed. His testimony testifies the radical changes Paul experienced in his personal life. Any Roman history textbook describes Paul’s life before (Saul of Tarsus) and after (apostle Paul), while Acts 9 explains Christ’s postressurection appearance to Paul (visited by the Holy Spirit), the turning point in Paul’s personal life. So basically, the bible is historical proof that the Holy Spirit visited Paul because the Book of Acts describes Jesus’s spirit (Holy Spirit) visiting Paul.
“Of course you will say he is not bound by those rules, but I’ve never considered “do as I say, not as I do” to be a particularly laubible trait.”
That is because you are lawless. Wouldn’t a parent forbid a child from doing certain things that they do anyway, like staying up late, smoking, sex, drinking, cursing, etc?
“Which is that by his own defintions and laws he is a sinner.”
It is not a sin for God to take someone’s life. It is a sin for a human to take another’s life. The fact of the matter is that God isn’t human, He isn’t bound by the covenant stipulations that were given to Israel. He is bound by His end and He keeps up His end despite all of the times we break our end. He isn’t under the Law. He causes tsunamis that kill countless innocents. He encourages Satan to persecute Job, a righteous man. He killed the first born of numerous people in Egypt. Some must have been infants who couldn’t have covered the door if they wanted to. Innocents put to death by God. We, as humans, are NEVER to do such things to our fellow humans. God does not follow the same rules we do because He isn’t human. He is the Lord God Almighty. We SIN by breaking the law. God isn’t under the law and thus isn’t sinning when He does things that would be wrong if we did them. We as humans, because of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, are no longer under “the law” either. We are under grace. Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. So right there we must throw our ideas of law out the window. It is not a set or rules, but a life dedicated to following the Father wherever He leads us. Sin becomes not breaking a law, but disobeying whatever God has commanded of you. God does not have a list of rules that He follows. The father has control over life and death of every one of us. It is wrong for us to murder because that is taking authority where the authority has not been given us. Murder is done often out of revenge, and God said that Revenge is His. If the Father was under the law, then He could not take revenge, as it would be breaking His own law. However He DOES take revenge, pour out wrath, and punish the wicked. He has commanded us to forgive those who hate us, yet if those who hate go to their death hating God… He sends them to hell. He does not forgive them of this treachery, even if they beg Him.
“Yes, as I stated before. But whether it did or not has no bearing on the subject at hand, how live changed over time….Trust me I am not in the least entertained by these posts. They’re a chore to be honest, especially given the clumsiness of the medium….Learned nothing more than how easy it is to deny the obvious
Irony notwithstanding.”
Call the media! Report this to the news papers! We finally agree on something.
“I believe some people mistake the appearance of complexity and design for randomness.”
Randomness certainly can look complex, and vice versa.
“creationists are scientists”
Not as the term is usually used. Most creatioists have never gone beyond highschool science.
“except for its ultimate evolutionary conclusion.”
By which you mean abiogenesis, I assume.
And again I must repeat, that no more matters to the theory of evolution than who pushd the rock matters to the the study of how a rock falls.
“Incomplete succession.
”
Without every single living thing being fossilised, it could not be otherwise.
“So you admit. Evolutionary changes never took place.”
Well, no massive physical changes. Assuming your characterisation of the fossil record for them is correct. Which I’ve not checked.
“And why would an atheist need that sort of proof if he doesn’t believe in God at all?”
It bears on the validity of any future experiment that might create living things via nano-assembly of one. Which should be possible inside 20 years or so, given how our progress goes.
It should be noted that that would not prove abiogenesis, merely that life requires no magic ingredients.
“I don’t see anything in that that sufficiently teaches them the philosophy of science, logic, logical fallacies, critical thinking, or metaphysics.”
“Sufficiently” is fairly subjective. I would think that it covers it in the sense that they will have to undertake coursework that will be judged for flaws.
The scpeticism part of science.
“Essentially, they are attempts to create life from non-life. IOW, “create life.” That’s just roughly.”
The early ones, yes. Based on nothing mroe than a hunch about how the early earth was like.
Later ones are much simpler, creation of organic from inorganic. I think we’ve created all known amino acids now using these methods. At least most of them.
“The philosophical notion that human life historically originated or began (to evolve) from lifeless cells is simply unobservable and untestable. Even when you consider Darwin’s “tree of life”, which is not borne out in scientific observation, abiogenesis, and morphological gaps in the fossil record.”
The notion that if life can branch out through evolution into different forms, that it is probable that it did so in the past. And thus the fossil record is arranged into the “tree”.
It can be observed “scientificially” through the fossil record. And has nothing to do with abiogenesis, except in the sense that if you extrapolate back far enough you reach a single line.
“A fossil is by definition a rock or mineral. It is not essentially a rock, it is a rock. Fossil changes = rock changes.”
But we differentiate between the fossil and the rock surrounding them. They’re formed in different ways. The rock by.. whatever it is forms that particular rock, and the fossil by mineral dsposition.
“Unless you’re looking at it from a baraminological POV, despite its criticisms from the scientific community.”
Whaddaya know! I actually LEARNED something from conservapedia XD
new term to me :p
Essentially this is the tree of life with the deeper branches cut off :p
The problem for young earth creationists is that (ignoreing all the fossil and other evidence of common ancestry) yhey then require “super-evolution” in order for the “kinds” to diversify in such a short length of time. Evolution that rapid would be lethal to the species.
For old earth creationists there is another problem, they, essentially, agree entirely with the theory of evolution, and with common descent, and only disagree with the idea of universal common ancestry. Thus their objections to the theory of evolution itself come accross as… schizophrenic.
Also, disagrements on what “kinds” mean is amusing.
“You’re using a non-sequitur fallacy because one comparison is the link between two or more totally different species while the other comparison is the link between two human beings within one species.”
Actually it would be reduction ad absurdum, no a non-sequitur. In that I am extrapolating the idea of smaller and smaller gaps to show why it is not necessary to have an entirely smooth lineage to represent things, because gaps are only a problem if they’re too large.
“Personally, I don’t really have a problem with the theory in and of itself, because, as you suggested that it is simply an explanation for how life changes. However, it is by the theory’s support of those ideas and advocacy from the atheistic and secular community that has created this ‘general worldview’ of what evolutionary theory represents and how evolutionists perceive reality and the natural world to be different the theistic worldview.”
The basic idea of a scientific theory is like this. After you first make the theory, you use it to understand more about the universe, the practical use to which science is put. From your use of the theory you gain more knowledge and can then refine the theory further, or revise it entirely if you must. In the worst case, you discard entirely. Repeat until infinity.
What you are objecting to is not the theory, but the use to which it has been put, that is the study of the traces of ancient life, using this theory and others, to paint an image of how life used to be.
The image is necessarily patchy, but is as complete as it can be made currently.
You object to that picture because it disagrees with that which your religion paints.
“On the surface, evolution theory doesn’t claim them but ultimately, if you think critically about the implications of evoluton theory, it explains an alternate universal truth to the naturalistic history of the universe contrary to Scripture, thereby supporting those ideas. Beneath the surface, the theory of evolution advocates the idea of origin of life, among the other claims listed, because what other explanation does it have? None.”
I agree entirely, the rational conclusion of the study of life in this manner is that of a naturalistic explanation. Not the only possibility, but certainly the most parsimonious one.
Basically you don’t object to the theory, you object to the conclusion. Thus you reject the theory.
“IOW, life originally came from nothing because where else did nature and chemistry originally come from? the big bang? singularity? You see, none of that is evolutionary theory but that is the only alternative to explain how Evolution (capitol ‘E’) came into existence.”
Yes, I agree. Those all together form what might be termed “the natural history of the universe”. You would prefer I stick the word theory in there somewhere probably.
But anyhoo, those are all completely separate theories in a scientific sense. Abiogenesis, baryogenesis, etc..
As for the iltimate cause of the big bang… *Shrug*
I don’t know. That level of physics is beyond me, but to those who do study such things, there is little evidence to study, and little to go on, other than mathematical models. As we delve further into the nature of the quantum universe we may find more, but for now the only answer is “I don’t know”.
Could have been something that matches the Chrsistian deity, or some other one. Or the Deist’s God. Or Spinoza’s. Or could have been nothing at all that we can comprehend.
“Basically, this ‘evolutionary faith’, for lack of a better term, is an extrapolation of the hypothetical speculations within the scientific community’s naturalistic assumptions about how the world is understood, understood to be damnable heresy by Scripture.”
But none of this is related to evolution, so another term should be used. And again, all of science is naturalistic, it is the search for an explanation, and all the possible explanations science can come to are naturalistic by definition. Anything that wasn’t natural couldn’t be studied.
“IOW, the supreme social authority for truth and today, despite the menace of H-bombs and serious ecological problems, social trust in science as a way of salvation does not seem about to disappear. It is considered ‘good’ but God’s truth ‘evil’, which is illustrated by……..
“I would prefer the ugly brutal truth to a comfortable lie any day of the week.””
The only solutions to both nuclear weapons and ecological devastation will be scientific. I doubt you care for the distinction, but the problems of ecological harm are caused by industrialisation and the drive to lower costs, not by science.
I never called your religion evil, btw, I just don’t think it is true. Although people have certainly used it in a way that I, in my subjective morality, would call “evil”.
“Whether you believe it or not. But He – WANTS – you – back. God wants to reconcile you back to Him. To restore the relationship to what He originally planned for you.”
Perhaps. But seeing as I don’t believe in him…
It is not a matter of “wanting” to believe, it is a matter of being convinced of it. And I am not.
“God Himself became flesh — in the person of Jesus Christ and sacrificed Himself *on that* cross so that YOU can be given life. So that YOU can receive His blessings of peace and assurance that HE HAS conquered death when He ressurected and so too will we be renewed in newness of life.”
And that whle thing just seems so… nonsensical.
“The theory and inherent idea of how the modern science community is “innocent until proven guilty” itself, yet guilty itself for being intolerantly dogmatic of alternative ‘paradigms’ as opposed to the tolerance of the fathers of nearly every discipline of science.”
Of course scepticism can appear as hostility, especially to those not prepared for the rigorous doubt that scientists are trained in.
The simple fact is, it is hard to get the scientific community to accept any explanation, if one is propsed they set out to destruct-test it. That is they set out to prove it wrong, and in the process they learn new things about the unvierse.
Probably another reason why the orthodox religious are underrepresented in the scientific community, such a level of scepticism is hard for something which relies on no testable evidence to survive.
“But scientific knowledge does not monopolize Truth in any sense. I do not accept evolution as dogmatic Truth (with a capitol ‘T’) and if you’re a responsible person, or a scientists in any respect, you should concede that it isn’t.”
I have never claimed that it was.
“Now how do you explain life outside of Evolution? That includes chemistry, matter, nature, etc.”
Are you asking for me to explain what I called above the natural history of the universe? That’s.. a lot of information to type out merely to even describe it all, let alone support.
“if you were refuting that the entropy of the law is equivalent to disorder. Although it mentions that critics have a misconception that ‘entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of “disorder”‘, it does not specifically state that creationists use that strawman. AFAIK, entropy is not the same as disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound.”
Entropy bears no resemblance to “disorder”, even in a logarithmic sense.
It is simply, as stated in the article, energy not available for work.
The superficial resemblance to disorder follows only in terms of the following example.
Imagine a specific volume, with all of the air molecules concentrated in one corner but not at absolute zero, after a period of time the molecules will be spread out randomly throughout the volume.
However, think of a glass of sugar water. Over time the 2nd law implies that the sugar would crystalise out fo the water. Most people would classify the glass with the crystals in it as more ordered than the one with the sugar randomly dispersed throughout the liquid, yet it has a higher entropy.
“The theory of evolution requires some extremely large increases in order and therefore an extremely large decrease in entropy. Order from chaos requires energy to be applied to the system in an organized manner. The problem for evolution is that it lacks a mechanism for applying energy in an organized manner, and this is particularly the case with regard to the origin of life.”
And yet evolution obviously occurs.
The problem is in the added baggage that the word order carries from the english language when it is used very specifically in the above example I gave, that gives rise to such misunderstandings.
There is also the problem that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Like the above example. Energy from outside allows entropy to decrease. There is the additional problem that when we talk about entropy like this, we are talking about the total entropy, the entropy at any given point can go up or down as much as it likes, as long as the entropy in total increases.
“Cook discovered it in 1917 and mistakenly classified it *BUT* that false identification was NOT revealed *until* 1925, AND, it says “its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.” What does that mean? It means the tooth was classified as an ape for 8 years UNTIL 1925 AND it was considered by the journal science to be scientific knowledge – revolutionary knowledge — UNTIL 1927.”
As I said before, it was a minor fossil that the scientific community never paid any attention to, or accepted as a whole. The final analysis wasn’t released until someone actually identified the fossil. In fact, Osbourne’s work contain no references to it being anything other than a primitive ape, and no mention of it being an ancestor of man.
“That means the science community generally accepted the original classification for 8-10 years.”
The article specifically states that it never gained any real acceptance in the scientific community.
Also, from what I can see, was it Osborne who misidentified it first? That would be in 1922, and so it was revealed to be a mistake just 3 years later.
“BTW, the one who rejected the drawing, Osborn, did not discover it.”
True true, he was the dude who first misidentified it, my mistake.
“Therefore, the hypothetical situation should not automatically dismiss the notion of a possible supernatural intervention outside of nature.”
I was trying to be careful in my wording as to say exactly that. I’ll try again. If we create an entirely artifical life from, we shown only that life does not NEED a divine spark to come from non-living matter.
“The bible calls us to walk by faith, not by sight.”
I will not. Such claims lead people to follow blindly with anything their are brought up to hold dear. That includes your religion, yes, but also all of the other ones, and any number of political/social ideologies.
“It’s the spiritual presence of the Holy Spirit that one can actually feel if your ’spiritual antenna’ is up. It’s subtly MOVING!
”
lol. Nice imagery there.
But I’m sure those in other religions would make similar claims about the core of it being a relationship with god, even if not in those exact words. Their theologians would probably describe the chants and repitition as being a traditionalised ritualised representation of the worship that goes with that relationship. The “keeping holy” part f the third commandment.
“And AFAIB, science is not the arbiter of Truth.”
Granted. Just the best method for discovering it.
“The list goes on but the major doctrine and theology is far inferior to Christianity. That’s why it’s the most popular world religion in the world.”
And I’m sure the sword and gun had nothing at all to do with that
“Furthermore, the bible is the only religious book on Earth that teaches that space and time and matter had a beginning and that God as a being which is fully independant of the space time domain never began but is eternal.”
I doubt this to be honest, though I’m not aware of any unrelated text that is like this.
Tried reading through some, and… no. Not making that effort, not at 8am >.<
“That is simply false and a typical answer from a skeptic, unless you can show me some historical proof that they are exactly the same as Jesus theologically AND that their historical documentation and reliability is sufficient enough compared to New Testament documents.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_claimants
Take your pick. Obviously none of the others have a bible written about them, but the evidence of their existence is about as independalty viable as Jesus’ extra-biblical support.
Some less so, some more so.
“The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life.”
You gotta admit, the similarities between the stories of jesus and many other religious figures are… interesting.
Details differ of course, but the themes remain.
“So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.”
You just described them as derived from christianity, kinda. The life of Jesus at least. So you admit the correlation at least, if not the direction of causation.
“1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways.”
Both similar and different. The same could be said of the rest of them, though.
“2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion.”
There si a difference between one religion coming from another, as in christianity from judaism, and the myths of one area spreading around to other areas, before developing into a seperate religion.
“I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.”
I’m no etymologist, but I suppose it should be easy to check those assertions. Look at when the terms came into use, if it was in ancient times then… there’s a fair possibility, if it’s only recently then I really doubt it.
“So basically, the bible is historical proof that the Holy Spirit visited Paul because the Book of Acts describes Jesus’s spirit (Holy Spirit) visiting Paul.”
All that is required is the belief, not the actuality of a visit by a holy spirit to change someone’s life.
Thus a mere fever dream or drug induced hallucination could make someone believe strange things. Of course nowadays we are aware of the effect these things can have, and can protect ourselves from them with that knowledge, but in the past?
Possibilities for why people may think they were visited by a holy presence, or force, or demonic force for that matter.
Did this happen? I dunno, maybe. maybe he was visited by the holy spirit as you claim, or it could be something else neither of us thought of. It could even be a case of lies. All of these are possible, and with the info I have available I can make no choice between them.
“That is because you are lawless. Wouldn’t a parent forbid a child from doing certain things that they do anyway, like staying up late, smoking, sex, drinking, cursing, etc?”
A bad parent would forbid them doing something and declare it to be a “sin”, and do it themselves.
A good parent would lead by example, and explain things.
“We SIN by breaking the law.”
Thus a sin is not a moral “wrong” but a broken rule.
Would you agree that his actions are immoral in those cases you describe?
Given that you think morality is objective.
“Call the media! Report this to the news papers! We finally agree on something.
”
We probably agree on a lot more than you think, just little that has come up much so far.
“Actually it would be reduction ad absurdum, no a non-sequitur.”
Either way it does not follow, including the extrapolation of the idea.
“Entropy bears no resemblance to “disorder”, even in a logarithmic sense…..There is also the problem that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Like the above example.”
No I’m sure it does; as long as you have a competent physicist and/or mathematician who can properly apply the correct logarithmic calculations and mathematical functions (inverse) to measure entropy logarithmically.
“Most creatioists have never gone beyond highschool science.”
I’m certain that all the creation scientists out there who’ve earned college degrees would disagree with that. There are plenty of people in this world who have quite a bit of scientific training who believe in a young/old earth. Most atheists or secular people or ‘evolution enthusiasts’ have never gone beyond highschool science either.
“The article specifically states that it never gained any real acceptance in the scientific community.”
Only after the fact. Only after the entire fiasco because according to the sentence it said creationists made fun of this event and since that didn’t happened within those 10 years but AFTER, then that concludes that the scientific community not accepting the tooth was AFTER that fact. Get it? Read the sentence again, in context. That would mean from 1922 to 1927 many scientists publicly rejected it by publishing works dismissing Osborn’s other findings but as for the Nebraska man tooth it was accepted by a prominent portion of the community until 1927. It may seem like this showed science’s best at correcting mistakes and their ability to implement a ’self-correcting’ system but it also showed that experts in science community make mistakes on something so trivial. In fact, such a mistake was easily distinguishable that it was either the incompetence of scientists or the expertise of the verification process. Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if the science community encountered a ‘harder-to-reveal-mistake’ that passed ‘under their radar’ if you catch my meaning. On top of that, between 1917 and 1922 it’s highly probable that rumors spread around that a tooth belonging to an ape-man was supposedly found but wasn’t verified. Many scientists were hoping that it was true even though when asked they’d respond with very skeptical answers. The entire fiasco only proved that scientists are only good at correcting mistakes as much as being susceptible to a ‘trojan horse.’
“As I said before, it was a minor fossil that the scientific community never paid any attention to, or accepted as a whole.”
I beg to differ. Since it was discovered, I’m sure it turned people’s heads, asking “Could this be real? We don’t’ know but we should wait until it’s classified.” So however long it took to verify, it was during those years that they really hoped that it was real. Even though they weren’t sure or some may have already assumed it was true or some may have already dismissed it before any initial classification but I know the heart of a scientist in that situation. There would be speculation about it being true OR NOT and it would still spread. And there was a period where it was falsely classified as an ape but that mistake wasn’t revealed until years later. So for that time being, however many years it was, I’m sure a large part of the community accepted it as much as there were credible experts who rejected it. Let’s be realistic here. It wasn’t something people ignored. I mean if this thing was really true then I’m certain the entire community would’ve been excited about this and talking and gossiping whether this is true or not because this discovery had the potential to revolutionize science, even if it was a hoax but it wasn’t. it was a genuine attempt at finding out if it was true or not. And all this fiasco took years to figure out. So even if it wasn’t accepted as a whole, it couldn’t be initially ignored.
“Also, from what I can see, was it Osborne who misidentified it first? That would be in 1922, and so it was revealed to be a mistake just 3 years later.”
Um. Not as I see it. The page should be re-edited. It says that the mistake was revealed in 1925 but that was the year the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ happened but I don’t think it had nothing to do with the mistake being revealed at all unless there are more non-biased sources confirming that, considering wiki’s record. It should be noted to that “as a Marxist in his views and prominent member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Osborn was aware that plans were being made by the union to challenge the Christian-backed legislation that forbade the teaching of evolution in American schools. He likely saw the tooth as precious evidence for the 1925 ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ but the tooth was not brought in as evidence it was dismissed by the judge.” So in this case, the tooth wasn’t used to support evolution, which I never argued in the first place but that the science community gave their hopes up on this one since it was ’special’. But I admit, evolutionists do try to play this down as if it was nothing. Yeah. Right. If I was a scientist back then, even being skeptical of the tooth being from an ape-man, I’d be ‘Darn. That’s too bad it’s a mistake. We’re hoping it was really an ape-man. Oh well.” You see? Not only that, “a further search was made at Snake Creek, the site of the original discovery, and by 1927 it was begrudgingly concluded that it was from a pig. These facts were not considered generally newsworthy but did appear in “Science” (1927, 66:579). The fourteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1929, 14:767) coyly admitted that a mistake had been made and that the tooth belonged to a ‘being of another order’. The burden of embarrassment was thus eased for the now retired Henry Fairfield Osborn.” I’m not sure the mistake was revealed in 1927 either. But whether the initial classification lasted for 3 or 5 years that still says to me that any other scientist out there today could make the same mistake he did but on a much less trivial scale if you catch my meaning.
“In fact, Osbourne’s work contain no references to it being anything other than a primitive ape, and no mention of it being an ancestor of man.”
Now here’s my point: even if you are right in everything you still admit it was an quick and easy mistake that was quickly and easily corrected in the span of 3-5 years. BTW, the mistake wasn’t corrected because it was examined and scrutinized by other scientists; more bones were simply discovered. If you can look at a tooth’s pig and mistake it to be an ape-man how much easier would it be to mistake a fossil, that looks 99.99% identical to an ape-man, to be ape-man, but not quite? IOW, despite it showing that science’s ability to correct mistakes coming its way, how much harder is it to detect a ‘trojan horse?’ We can rely only so much that our science is really good at correcting mistakes but we must admit that that mistake was way too easy to correct. The fiasco reaffirms the flaws of man’s nature no matter how much we improve and refine our methods, standards and worldview. That leads me to believe that there’s no good reason to remove any doubt that the bones we have may in fact be what we claim it to be. Facts and evidence are only as good as the logic behind it.
But that doesn’t mean he didn’t believe that the tooth was related to man at one time or another. According to Sir Arthur Keith’s, “The Antiquity of Man, Vol. II,” Williams and Norgate, London, p. 475, 1925, “Then on Saturday, 25 February 1922, Cook contacted Dr Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. ‘I have had here, for some little time,’ Cook told Osborn, ‘a molar tooth from the upper or Hipparion beds, that very closely approaches the human type.’ When Osborn received the tooth, he excitedly dashed off a note to Cook. ‘The instant your package arrived’, he said, ‘I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid … . We may cool down tomorrow, but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America had been found’.” Both Dr W.K. Gregory, a tooth authority, and Osborn, then, believed that the Nebraskan tooth was an upper molar from an anthropoid. They believed this indicated the first find of man’s ancestors in America.” Now some claimed that Osborn didn’t say or believe so by using Osborn’s quote: “I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae),… Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae.” That was Osborn’s rejection against Gould’s charge that Osborn himself thought the tooth to be from an ape, which basically means Osborn’s quote was simply in denial or setting Gould up to use a strawman. But the fact of the matter is, however, that Osborn did believe that the tooth was clear evidence of human evolution from apes. If he did not believe this, then why did he chide Williams Jenning Bryan, the prosecutor for the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’, by saying, “This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape.” even if he simply said that in support of the evolution case? In fact he wrote the following in the press concerning Bryan, “The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear… This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape.” So your statement maybe true or not. I don’t know. I highly doubt that though. BTW, Osborn shunned the drawing not because he didn’t believe the ape belonged to an ape-man but because the drawing didn’t meet scientific standards of what an ape-man would like look like. The wikipage needs to be re-edited heavily with my comments. For sure.
“Anything that wasn’t natural couldn’t be studied…And that whle thing just seems so… nonsensical…which relies on no testable evidence to survive….You object to that picture because it disagrees with that which your religion paints.”
Well, the Christian should presuppose that God has been actively involved with His creation. Therefore, what is commonly referred to as supernatural, is really completely natural, but it is simply divine. Anyway, my big problem with theistic evolution is that it borrows faulty naturalistic presuppositions. When we look at the universe, it only appears to be billions of years old if we presuppose things occurred naturally. The only reason we would have to explain away why stars appear to be millions of light years away if we presuppose that the light had to come to earth naturally. As a Christian, I should reject that sort of presupposition. Why? Because they’re contrary to what I believe. If I don’t believe the earth was created through natural means, why would I look to the universe using naturalistic presuppositions? It doesn’t make sense. Its like playing a “what if” game in my mind and then letting my mind get the best of me. And I’m not certain how making predictions about the age of the universe is in the same ball park as looking through a telescope and realizing the sun is in fact not the center of the universe. Further, I’m really not concerned with explaining why figurative language shouldn’t be taken literally or why a book written 2000 to 3000 years ago doesn’t conform to 21st century western science textbook standards. And most Christians reject certain evolutionary theories and other scientific explanations because they come from secular science rather than Scripture. Sure I can interpret Genesis to be figurative, but if I do so I’m doing so because of secular science not because the Bible does so. I’m letting science interpret Scripture instead of letting Scripture interpret science.
“Basically you don’t object to the theory, you object to the conclusion. Thus you reject the theory.”
Well I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater if that’s what you’re implying. But in the general sense, I shun the theory! Why would I take extremely fallible science that has been determined by a mere human observing a cursed universe and take that idea and adding it to the Bible, the infallible word of God? Why should I tell God what he did with our “great” science and not listening to what He is saying? The issue is over deciding what will be my final authority for my beliefs. Is it scripture? Or is it science? If I believe all scripture is the true word of God and is my FINAL authority, then I know as told by Moses, that man was made from the dust of this earth. And when we die we shall return. Which is what happens.
1 The soul leaves the body at death
2 The flesh decays
3 bones are exposed and depending on how long you give it, those will decay and crumble into dust.
“It can be observed “scientificially” through the fossil record…..it is not necessary to have an entirely smooth lineage to represent things, because gaps are only a problem if they’re too large….The basic idea of a scientific theory is like this…”
The fossil record is not the scientific method. And that goes just to show you that evolution is a theory, not a fact really. Pure speculation and hypothetical assumption about the world. The theory of evolution has more holes in it than the back-nine at Augusta. I know that the theory of evolution violates every single one of the laws of physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. In fact,and it’s really very sad, actually… a decade ago Johnson and Behe pointed out these interesting holes (via irreducible complexity, among other micro/macro issues dealing with different roles mutations play) in evolutionary theory, but drew all these really strong conclusions from such small observations. Then these proved to be somewhat interesting areas for research, and there are dozens of papers giving reconstructions of how we might reduce the complexity of these apparently irreducibly complex organs per cited instance of irreducible complexity. But now that all these papers have been published they’re not being recognized by the proponents of irreducible complexity, and the same arguments about “No one has tried to answer these questions…” are getting tossed around. Irregardless, I’m not going to get into another pointless debate about that since people who believe in evolution are generally closed-minded to the idea of creation and that they also contort the evidence to fit their theories. So, I’m not going to enter into a debate that would prove pointless. Furthermore, for something to be a valid scientific theory, it must meet three criteria:
1. It must be observable.
2. It must be testable.
3. The tests must be repeatable with the same outcomes resulting.
Yes, we know the biological mechanism of evolution occurs. No doubt. We have fossil records to support that idea. Now —- when we’re talking about a complete full successive gapless fossil record clearly and irrefutably showing that the first non-living cells to evolve to a human being all in one straight line without any room for ‘imagination’, in every single step there is to absolutely know, then evolution meets none of those requirements in that sense. Depending on who you listen to (Dawkins or Gould, for example), evolution is either too slow to observe, or too fast to observe. How convenient. Other than what I already know, I don’t know of any other model or theory that says so in which I can really put my trust in. Continuing on with the same scenario that I was referring to earlier, evolution, in its universal sense, is also an untestable theory that cannot be replicated in either the laboratory or in the field. Basically, the universal theory that explains the naturalistic history of the universe, which BTW is the consensus worldview for science AND evolution theory as well, is a nice, tidy, little story that atheists made up to explain how the world could have created itself without any help from God.
Furthermore, if we look at this from a theological perspective, the evolutionary worldview does not exactly qualify as a scientific theory. Hear me out: in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be verified by consistent repeatable experiments. The “Theory” of Evolution, in its naturalistic worldview of the universe, has not been documented and indeed cannot be documented in this fashion or the previous notion of a perfect fossil record. Remember, evolution is explains the idea of NATURAL selection, etc, so even if scientists were to force some kind of evolutionary process in a lab, then it would just be a case of someone playing God. However, there are obviously external ramifications that conflict with this theological perspective of the former fashion in which I personally feel I should deal with the next two points:
(1) While I admit that the former fashion is a very elementary understanding of what a theory is and that the vast majority of trained scientists (even biased Christians who believe in creation, like myself) regard evolution as a scientific theory, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that understanding of it and in addition I think these scientists are hardly unbiased. It would be very difficult to try to hold onto the intellectual and rational high ground if they admitted that their “theory” didn’t actually meet the criteria to be a scientific theory. Even so, one should still rethink their position on such. The “theory” of evolution, in its naturalistic worldview of the universe, is nothing more than a plausible explanation of what happened given the limited information we have, which hardly makes it worthy of being a theory. The word has simply been redefined (as it has been alluded) to make it fit the explanation. It’s no surprise that the majority of trained scientists accept evolution as theory, is it? After all, they all have so much invested in it. There’s really only two choices: God’s Word or man’s word. Is it really a surprise they choose the latter, given their almost universal anti God bias?.
(2) On the other hand, despite that a fairly common definition of theory among scientists is that a theory is a systematic, logical, testable, predictive explanation or expression of all previous observations pertaining to a given system — ‘a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”‘ it would still seem to me that in order for something to be considered a theory you don’t actually have to prove anything but rather just build up a large enough body of work in order to come up with plausible, rather than accurate, explanation, only because I see people on this board claiming that evidence proves the theory of evolution presumably that they interpret the theory of evolution based on a naturalistic worldview of the history of the universe. It seems to me that the definition of theory has “evolved” over the years to “lower the bar” so to speak, as to what a theory is, even though I understand that one of the stronger points for the theory of evolution, taken as a whole, is that it must stand the scrutiny of repeatable experiments with consistent results. Sorry about the pejorative tone, but I suppose I am just tired of the dogmatic tone of many “scientists” concerning evolution.
Even so personally, as a Christian, I’m not really that bothered over the theological problems with the theory of Evolution as I am on the actual scientific evidence – or the lack thereof, referring to the gapless record. The book of Genesis tells us that God created man last of all the creatures. Evolution seems to be telling us the same thing – man is a major recent creation in relation to the rest of the world. Every single piece of so-called evidence for evolution can be interpreted to support special creation. Scientists see what they want to see, and not necessarily what is really there. Moreover, and I don’t mean this to undermine evolution theory itself at all since it’s not really that evolutionary theory accounts for the world naturalistically but to somebody like you who is already committed to naturalism that evolutionary theory accounts for the world naturalistically anyway, but it’s just peculiar that there’s simply too much info that the evolution’s worldview of the naturalistic history of the universe cannot account for, like the odd absence of numerous missing links, considering that we’ve searched for the human missing link for years when there should be thousands/millions of fossilized missing links between multiple species that simply aren’t being found – even if we take into account the fossilization process, the rarity of fossils, the discovery of transitional fossils, the fact that fossils are being found all the time and these missing links may be found years from us – EVERY single species should have a missing link with its ancestor I think. We have fossils of the things that are called ancestors and we have the current species today. Why, pray tell, would there not also be fossils of the missing link? Fossils are not all that hard to make. Nevertheless, even if you make a valid point to explain this, it sure is taking a while though.
“If we create an entirely artifical life from, we shown only that life does not NEED a divine spark to come from non-living matter.”
I don’t see it your way at all unless it takes place from that point onward then life at that point forward doesn’t need a divine spark as long as the creation of free will and a soul isn’t required. Otherwise, IMO, it only shows us that life requires an intelligent mind/being to intervene to create that spark so that nature, chemistry or other natural mechanism can begin to work to create life. That’s it. Whether that intelligent mind is a natural being within the realm of nature or a supernatural being outside of the realm of nature is a whole another matter when you’re talking about the absolute sense of life’s prerequisites. Extrapolating your point further won’t change my views in the absolute cosmic sense of things. Since I take the doctrines of Creation or Incarnation seriously, I don’t need any idea of “supernatural”. In fact, I’m not slightly at all threatened by the fact that evolution theory (in and of itself) accounts for the changes of life on earth since it doesn’t account at all for the idea of the origin of life without the direct intervention of the supernatural. And since you seem to suggest the latter, your problem is your interpretation of Evolution based on a naturalistic worldview of the history of the universe.
“The problem for young earth creationists…For old earth creationists there is another problem…Randomness certainly can look complex, and vice versa.”
They’re no more problematic than the flaws scientists find in evolution. Creationists move from theory to theory, just like anyone else. They even debunk their own arguments. For example the refutation of Setterfield’s C-decay cosmology or Gentry’s Po interpretation. IMO, the entire young earth / evolution debate is a huge waste of time. The age, old or not, of the earth doesn’t seem, to me, to invalidate any of the Scriptural creation account, regardless of how literally you read it. God did not create a baby man or baby animals; why should He have created a baby planet? The only way that an “old earth” science threatens Christianity is if we falsely read into the creation account that God’s creation of the Earth entailed the creation of a “new” planet. This is why I do not think it is ever fair to consider it folly to believe in a young earth with no evolution as well. If you looked at the first humans born on Earth (assuming a literal Genesis account), you would conclude that all humans start as babies and then grow, but this would be false because Adam and Eve did not. The same could easily be true on a global scale. When God created the world, it had the appearance of age. Adam and Eve, for example may have appeared to be in their 20’s, when in fact they were 1 day old. 100-foot tall trees would have also had the appearance of age, when in fact they also were a couple of days old. When God created the stars, He made it so that we could see them even though they are billions of light-years away. Again, this is only the appearance of age. Even apart from that notion, still, at first blush it seems quite possible. E.g., when Jesus turned water into wine I’m sure that the wine “appeared” to have gone through a long process of fermentation, etc. When we experience the world he created, we are getting a glimpse of the creativity of God. God is revealed in the beauty of His creation, in the wisdom of His creatures, in intricacies and complexities of living things and the interactions between them. That’s what matters, not the question of how long it took. As a Christian, I really enjoy learning about science. The more I learn about science the more awe I feel. So I’m very thankful to science for discovering so many of the wonders of the world that God created. For me, learning more about the natural world is a worship experience. I don’t see ‘faith’ and ’science’ as opposites. As a Christian, I don’t have to be afraid of being open-minded, because God is real, and the more I experience, the more real He will be to me. I don’t need to be afraid of doubt, and I don’t need to try to believe without questioning, because my faith is strong enough to survive the questions (and if it isn’t, it’s not worth much anyways, and losing it is a step forward). Few things disgust me more than Christians who behave like our faith is a lie, an elaborate facade that we have to keep up just by refusing to expose ourselves to anything that makes us question our beliefs. God is real; I don’t need to feel threatened by science or evolution theory (in/of itself). The ramification is when people interpret Evolution based on naturalistic assumptions. But there are much deeper questions to be asked by both evolutionists and creationists. For instance, what kind of naturalistic assumptions go into science, and how can we work to do a non-naturalistic science? How do the structures of scientific thought shape our understanding of the world, and how should we reshape them? Since science has had such terrible, unexpected side effects, how can we work to cultivate a scientific humility that will help us avoid these ill effects? Etc. And I could be judging the naturalistic worldview in light of the actions of some of its adherents, since the same angle could be taken on religion, and quite specifically Christianity but I doubt anyone will deny that there are two sides to every technological coin. E.g., American television allows for speedy mass-communication, but it also pushes simplistic, quippy, emotive discourse. The Internet now allows for loads of user participation, but its cyber-communities also engender 1337 and text-message lingo. Nonetheless, we’ve benefited a great deal from discoveries made by those with naturalistic views, and suffered a great deal. Same is true for those with Christian views (I don’t see why I would have any more vested interest in the views of Deists than I would Secular Humanists) who have shaped national policies and public morality.
“It is not a matter of “wanting” to believe, it is a matter of being convinced of it….”
That’s called obstinate unbelief. We “want” from our heart but we are “convinced” through our mind. Mark 8:16-18 records the Pharisees’ and Herodians’ needing to be convinced. “And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have no bread.” But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?” These mens’ hearts were so hardened that they had to be convinced through their minds. It didn’t matter to “want” as much as it was to be convinced. If you were convinced, you wouldn’t want to I reckon. IOW, the heart precedes the mind. The heart is where your emotions, wants, feelings and desires are and the mind is where your logic, reasoning, conscience and thinking are. And we know that from a biological, physiological, and evolutionary perspective that the “emotional part” of our brain is hardwired to be more “controlling” than the thinking part of the brain. So even if Jesus Christ Himself showed you supernatural miraculous signs doesn’t mean you’d want to. John 12:39-41 records the Jews’ unbelief, “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “ Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them. These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” Basically, it’s more of a matter of “wanting” than being convinced. Unless you want to but is not convinced. If you do then what’s stopping you? Evidence? But I highly doubt that. You see, God doesn’t “convince” or “persuade” people into believing or loving Him. God works through the hearts of men. He draws them to Him by causing them to want and desire from their hearts. Christians don’t convince people to convert. They lead them to the truth of God through the Gospel and the Holy Spirit speaks to their hearts through the Word of God. The only way you can be convinced is by yourself, not by anyone. There were many people who sought out to disprove the Bible but ended up Christian because of the overwhelming evidence for it so they were convinced not by God but through their own research. And so it was the Holy Spirit that caused that desire in their hearts by speaking to it after the fact. In such case, God works that way as well as Jeremiah 17:10 says, “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.” Now, I can do pre-calculus. The tress outside can not. So, its a really big leap for me to go from speciation with plants to speciation with mammals. You don’t see why its a HUGE leap to go from slight changes in plants to humans (who were able to land on the moon, create computers and the internet) came from apes? This is a very large leap. If you can show significant changes in animals then you might start sound convincing to me. How about an example of an animal giving birth to an animal with a different number chromosomes? What I’m getting at is the idea of an animal giving birth to an animal of a different species (different genetic make up). Is there an example of a dog giving birth to a new species? A dog that gave birth to a new creature which is very similar to a dog except it can’t reproduce with dogs (which calls into question how this new species would continue to exist.)
“Such claims lead people to follow blindly”
In such cases, that may be true but that’s not how Christianity really works by “blind faith”. As a Christian my faith is not “blind” as you put it. That is a Kierkegaard idea. Personally, my heart can’t rejoice in what my mind rejects. My heart and head were created to work and believe together as harmony. Christ commanded us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind“. When Jesus Christ and the apostles called upon a person to exercise faith, it was not a “blind faith” but rather an “intelligent faith.” The apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed”. Jesus said, “You shall know [not ignore] the truth, and the truth shall make you free”. The belief of an individual involves “the mind, the emotions, and the will.” I like the way F.R. Beaatie puts it: “The Holy Spirit does not work a blind and ungrounded faith in the heart.” Paul Little wrote, “Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.” So faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence. And I don’t see why it wouldn’t fit well with “walking by faith, not by sight.” For those mentioned above who sought out to disprove Christianity but ended up Christian, Christianity was not a “leap into the dark,” but rather “a step into the light.” They took the evidence that they could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as