Creationists

[Hollie]

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.

 

[UltimateReality]

And let me add to this:"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that "the present is the key to the past." Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."

Nonsensical cut and paste.

Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.

You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? Your posts have become totally irrelevant.

 

[UltimateReality]

And let me add to this:"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...

--PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED--​

... historical sciences."

The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.

Really? You have reduced yourself to Ad Hominem attacks and Strawman building? The ID argument doesn't claim an "explanation for everything". You have already been cold busted in numerous lies, totally shredding your already severely lacking credibility. Instead of continuing with your trickery, it's time for you to run along now.

 

[UltimateReality]

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, “Humans only use 10% of their brain.” Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.

FURTHER READING:


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)

one more just for fun 3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
you ignorant asshat!

Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?

I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.

You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?

By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?

 

[newpolitics]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

 

[newpolitics]

I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

You need a reason for these traits to form and/or increase in quality. They will not simply develop because you think they are better. There is no objective mind here guiding this process, as far as the theory goes. You would need a selective pressure, whether it is natural selection, or sexual selection, or a combination of the two. If members of a species are able to survive with a given set of traits, and there is no pressure to increase the quality of those traits, then this is as evolved as the species will become, until a greater selective pressure arises, simply because those that survive are passing on their DNA. It is all about the passage of DNA to the next generation. Hence, why I asked, how do you propose these animals simply get faster, when the gene pool is dominated by individuals with genes encoding for traits that allow survival. Animals, including humans, can simply be seen as vehicles for passing on DNA. If that animal is fit enough to pass on its DNA, then that genetic information stays. You wouldn't expect cheetahs to simply get faster and faster because to you, being faster is better. The question is, are those that run at 60 mph surviving and passing on their DNA? If yes, then there is no pressure to make them increase their speed. By "pressure," i basically mean death to any that no longer fall within trait parameters that allow survival, and hence, the passage of DNA. It is all about the presence of the information held in the DNA. . There is no objective "fitness." It is all relatively to the organisms environment. You are coming at this as if it a calculated by a mind, and this is because you are subconsciously harboring this notion as a presupposition, which is disallowing you to asses evolution on its own grounds. This is my guess, anyways, inferred form your expectations here about evolution.

 

[LOki]

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...

--PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED--​

... historical sciences."

The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.

Really? You have reduced yourself to Ad Hominem attacks ...

And what of it?

... and Strawman building?

Obviously not. You can't but help making up nonsense.

The ID argument doesn't claim an "explanation for everything".

"Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."​

You have already been cold busted in numerous lies, totally shredding your already severely lacking credibility.

Except you cannot demonstrate a single one, can you pumpkin? Why is that Mr. Ad-Hominem Argument?

Instead of continuing with your trickery, it's time for you to run along now.

Why? Because you cannot stand having the the fact of reality pointed out that Intelligent Design Theory is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science?

As long as you try to assert otherwise, I'll be happy to expose you.

 

[Hollie]

And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that "the present is the key to the past." Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."

Nonsensical cut and paste.

Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.

You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? Your posts have become totally irrelevant.

It's not surprising that you're unable to defend ID creationism.

 

[Hollie]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

Religious beliefs, all 1001 of them, are not supposed to be "logical".
Faith is not about logic. Faith, unlike science, can never be proven or disproven.
That is why they use it against evolution.
The only argument they have.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.

 

[Hollie]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of. Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.

A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?


I know better?

Better than what?

You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.

Psalm 118:8

 

[newpolitics]

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game. The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "faith", which is the only thing that allows you make statements like this.

Faith, with respect to religion, refers to belief in a very specific epistemic claim: god exists.

Faith, when used casually, simply refers to trust.

These two meanings are worlds apart, and defenders of faith equivocate on these two definitions constantly to try and show that faith is justified. This is logically fallacious, because you are sneakily switching definitions of faith, interchanging them as needed.

Faith: belief in something without evidence. Trust: a state of confidence in something. Being that trust and faith are not identical, they are not interchangeable, which is what you are doing. Hence, the equivocation fallacy here.


A state of trust can be earned, based on evidence and the formation of reasonable expectations. It is therefore, a state of belief that can be justified (i.e., trust in a neighbor, trust in the chair you are sitting in). We are justified in "trusting" and using inductive reasoning to say that universal physical laws, on which science and our everyday experience depends, will be here tomorrow because these constants have been here everyday prior since the beginning of time, whatever you think that beginning is.

However, Trust in an unseen entity, for which there is no evidence aside from personal interpretation of reality, is not justifiable to anyone except the person making those interpretations. Inherently then, this trust is subjective, and can not be justifiable to anyone else but the direct observer or believer, which calls into question the subjective nature of theistic belief. Inherently, this subjective interpretation is not objective, and this discrepancy is validated by the fact that there is no physical, empirical, or logical evidence or proof of god. So far, a strong case can be made that god merely exists in the brain.

For example, just because someone interprets an event as miraculous, and assigns the cause of that event to god, does not mean they are correct. Yet, they may live their life according to this sort of heuristic, where any events beyond explanation are deemed as having a supernatural cause. In this mindset, any events that seem incredible or unlikely and are deemed to have being caused by a god, strengthen their faith and the action of this heuristic. What I am describing is the psychology of faith. It's like a muscle. The more it gets used, the stronger and more convincing it gets, but all it is are neuronal connections that manifest as interpretations of reality, where god is left open as an explanation for anything that is inexplicable. That doesn't mean it reflects reality. Simply that it is a comfortable, oft used pattern of thinking.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of. Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

 

[Hollie]

It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of. Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. I.D.er's have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of. Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.

 

[Hollie]

Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct? I didn't think so.

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.

Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make.

My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)

If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No. There is no requirement for faith in science.

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation

That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.

Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make.

My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)

If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).

If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.

Make claims are not bellicose. Why do you think they are?

The reason there is so many variations is quite simple. The Bible, in my opinion, is meant to speak to each person individually. Two people reading the same verse may come away with two very different interpretations. That doesn't mean one is wrong, on the contrary, both may be right.

Yes it's true we all claim to be on the right side of God. But perhaps no one or everyone is.

God does not make me feel superior. And only those that are on the losing side needs revenge.

I can with all certainty say that there is a God and I have a personal relationship with Him and He has never let me down. What I am certain of cannot be proven in this stage of life. God has nothing to prove.