Creationists

[Hollie]

No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.

You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.

How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.

Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:

Appeal to the People

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The “too strongly” mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.

There's no reason to pout. You hoped to avoid addressing my earlier comment. In connection with christian theology (under the false label of creationism or ID), being refused a presence in the public school system, The courts have heard the arguments and rejected the creationist / ID law suits. Ironically, your claim that "might doesn't make right" is both foolish and nonsensical. It was the fundie christian element that was attempting to force christianity into the public schools.

The courts have upheld the constitutional provision of separation of church and state.

Consider the upside - you now have more hate to promote.

 

[UltimateReality]

How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.

Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:

Appeal to the People

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The “too strongly” mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.

There's no reason to pout. You hoped to avoid addressing my earlier comment. In connection with christian theology (under the false label of creationism or ID), being refused a presence in the public school system, The courts have heard the arguments and rejected the creationist / ID law suits. Ironically, your claim that "might doesn't make right" is both foolish and nonsensical. It was the fundie christian element that was attempting to force christianity into the public schools.

The courts have upheld the constitutional provision of separation of church and state.

Consider the upside - you now have more hate to promote.

Yeah but where did you go to college?

 

[Hollie]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.

Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, what is your purpose in life?

Loki, what is your purpose in life?

NP, what is your purpose in life?

Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".

This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVyrvAWu-o]Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.

Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?

Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?

 

[Hollie]

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.

Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?

Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?

Why would I "refute" something that the author is not able to respond to. Instead of your usual tactic of cutting and pasting articles you scour from the web, and have no understanding of, why don't you review the article you cut and pasted and provide a detailed description of the contents.

 

[newpolitics]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.

I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.

You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.

Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.

I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.

You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.

Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.

Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie.

My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock, but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.

Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?

 

[UltimateReality]

Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.

Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?

Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?

Why would I "refute" something that the author is not able to respond to. Instead of your usual tactic of cutting and pasting articles you scour from the web, and have no understanding of, why don't you review the article you cut and pasted and provide a detailed description of the contents.

You can't refute because you can't comprehend the logic outlined in the argument. Here, I will try to make is simple so you don't get overwhelmed and can concentrate on one thing. Let's start by isolating one of the salient points in the argument. What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

I will await your rebuttal. Oh and while you are googling cut and paste material, please enlighten us on your college background.

 

[LOki]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.

"The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."

 

[newpolitics]

Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again. But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"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."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms — insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"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. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing philosophical commitment."

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”

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."

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.

I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.

You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.

Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.

Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie.

My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock, but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.

Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?

Alright, my bad. I thought you were mocking me. Yes, you can do what you did, but its not the same. You are positing a theory that requires a supernatural being. We have, scientifically, never seen this being or its effect on the world, ever. It is therefore your burden to provide proof for this being if you wish to make your theory valid. Using inductive reasoning, it is more valid to assume a natural cause for everything in the universe, as we do not regularly see supernatural causation for phenomena. If we did, that would be different. Then it would be plausible. By the way, personal testimony of god's "miracles" in someone's life do not count as evidence of supernatural causation, because there is another plausible explanation: neurological functioning. The mind has fascinating abilities to make us think we are experiencing something when we are not. This is more than likely the case for when people "feel god."

Evolution has an insane amount of evidence for it. If it didn't , it simply would not have survived this long. How you are able to deny something so logical, intuitive, and obvious is beside me.

On the other hand, I can see and admit that sometimes it does seem implausible that we came from a bacteria, and that all of this we see in fact, did. But, upon further study, evolution makes sense of EVERYTHING we see in the animal kingdom. It makes sense of gradually transitioning fossils, of which there are many. It makes sense of virology, embryology, biology, and many other fields, which actively use evolution as part of their study. I find the rejection of evolution to be of the utmost arrogance present in todays society. I simply find it sad that a preference for a certain reality which includes god because it "feels better," is chosen over a reality supported by logic, reason, and evidence. That is tragic, as far as I am concerned. But, to each their own.

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, what is your purpose in life?

Loki, what is your purpose in life?

NP, what is your purpose in life?

Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".

This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.

Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube

First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet.

Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals. It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway.

By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.

There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.

I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.

 

[Hollie]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.

As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.

When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.

learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.

There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?

 

[Gadawg73]

The creationists and ID folk, in their ultimate love of God, believe he is too stupid to implement the evolutionary processes in open view on earth today and in the past.

For those of us that have a strong Christian faith and confidence in it evolution is not a threat.

But for those of weak Christian faith it is.

 

[Gadawg73]

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.

There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?

NOT on this earth.
Your claims that you and the 2 colleges are right and 9998 other universities are wrong is absurd.
Young universe?
Please educate yourself and get back to us.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some lucky planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html

There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?

Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]

Astoundingly naive.

 

[Hollie]

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.

There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?

Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?

Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.

As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.

When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.

learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.

Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;

The Hydrologic Cycle:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.

So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.


Science and the Bible