Creationists

[AnonymousIV]

I think the Big Picture is this: Emotions, If all is for the perfection of living on the earth, what are emotions for? Some people are very tuned to their emotions, and if you are clear headed enough, you will see, as you sit quiet, that a spirit, in our same image, know what to do, and how to do it and created man. How God brought our bodies forth may very well be from perfecting mutations. Who is certain?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

An explanation is only an opinion,you have to take opinions on faith. You can believe or not believe but your belief is reduced to faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there. A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be. That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.

Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

The TOE is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

He is not a creationist,you still don't get it. Talk about thick.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?

It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.

Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.

And yet you have never been able to offer a scientific argument for supernaturalism. All you can offer is cut and paste from Harun Yahya.

Oh boy

 

[AnonymousIV]

Satan, there's a character for you. That spirit is slicker than all of us. When you are confused, or stuck at some point, or some barrier is in your way. It's a spirit called Satan, I'm pretty good at finding his handiwork. Are You?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???

What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".

That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.

I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

Just to name a few.

YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?

1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

Just to name a few.

YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think the Big Picture is this: Emotions, If all is for the perfection of living on the earth, what are emotions for? Some people are very tuned to their emotions, and if you are clear headed enough, you will see, as you sit quiet, that a spirit, in our same image, know what to do, and how to do it and created man. How God brought our bodies forth may very well be from perfecting mutations. Who is certain?

As someone who studied mutations for eleven years, I assure you mutations destroy information not create information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Satan, there's a character for you. That spirit is slicker than all of us. When you are confused, or stuck at some point, or some barrier is in your way. It's a spirit called Satan, I'm pretty good at finding his handiwork. Are You?

We all lose some battles with him, we just have the greater spirit willing to forgive us of our mistakes.

 

[AnonymousIV]

Perfecting Spirits and Perfecting Bodies Hummm, is that similar for some reason?

 

[AnonymousIV]

Mysteries will be unveiled to you, maybe we will be able to put souls in bodies ourselves some day?

 

[UltimateReality]

"You have to have some reasonable notion of “fitness” if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, “What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?” needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all.

This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable."

Here it is.. wait for it... hopefully after reading this we can all dispense with the gravity comparisons to evolutionary theory. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't even in the same library!!!

"In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms.

And then, finally, we must be sure to pay no heed to the fact that the fitness, against which we have assumed our notion of randomness could be defined, is one of the most obscure, ill-formed concepts in all of science." http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

NP, I welcome your rebuttal.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is the faith required for the TOE...

"This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."

 

[AnonymousIV]

I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time. You got a better definition?

 

[UltimateReality]

I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time. You got a better definition?

Maybe you are confusing the TOE with the TVA. I was born in Knoxville.

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]

What this means is that current evolutionary thought teaches you came from an single cell organism, or maybe even a virus. Or as YWC likes to say, microbiologists came from microbes.

Start here to learn more...

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AnonymousIV]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

 

[newpolitics]

That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.

I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.

No it wouldn't be a.. wait. for it... circular argument, because we are not talking about logical arguments here. We are talking about demonstrable proof about a claim. You asked about fitness, and I'm not quite sure why, first of all. This is not a topic or a term of contention among evolutionists, or anybody.

I am shocked by your statement!!! The whole TOE hinges on fitness keeping random, chance mutations! Ever heard the term "Survival of the Fittest"!?!?!? How can you show natural selection is real if you can't show traits that make a species more fit are kept??? Your statement this is not a topic of contention shows the relevance of my claim students are not educated regarding the problems facing the TOE. Mass brainwashing and dumbed, down public schools that don't teach critical thinking must be responsible!!

"Lewontin was not the only central figure in evolutionary biology who long ago recognized the difficulty of assessing the fitness, or adaptive value, of traits. In 1953, the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson opined that “the fallibility of personal judgment as to the adaptive value of particular characters, most especially when these occur in animals quite unlike any now living, is notorious.”[16] And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist “can judge reliably which ‘characters’ are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.”[17]

One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits — or the mutations producing them — as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species. To pose just one question within the sea of unknowns: even if a mutation could in one way or another be deemed harmful to the organism in its current environment, what if the organism used this element of disharmony as a spur either to reshape its environment or to alter its own behavior, thereby creating a distinctive and advantageous niche for itself and others of its kind?

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. My colleague Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]"

This begs the question: Is natural selection responsible for the Giraffes long neck? If we can't come up with document-able, observable evidence to support such a claim, how can we even begin to claim the TOE is even a valid theory, much less a fact?

Nice stories about necks and bird beaks are not science!!!

"In Lewontin’s summary: “What is required is an experimental program of unpacking ‘fitness.’ This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.”[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness".

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Where in all of this babble, have you demonstrated that the concept of "fitness" is a point of contention, or one that needs to be demonstrated? It does not exist as something of itself, because it is merely a description of reality. That is all I was saying. It is a subjective qualifier about an objective reality, namely, that of certain quality that successful species contain.