Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Hollie]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.

It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims have been shot down in flames.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

ENERGY

Potato salad with diced oregano leaves and pickles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims gave been shot down in flames.

A salmon fillet with a dash of vinegar and chives, brown rice, garden asparagus and a glass of Sauvignon blanc.

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

Stumper Questions for Creationists

Introduction

This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.

We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.



A few comments about some terminology

The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".

The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.



What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

• Exposition of creationism.
• Definitions of terms.
• Evidence for creationism.
• Rules of evidence.
• Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
• Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

• evolution
• primitive
• natural selection
• theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

• What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
• What is does conventional science say?
• What is the evidence for conventional science?
• What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the sameanswers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

Summary

These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.

 

[Boss]

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.

... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,

seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.

Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without "something" to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that "something" which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature.

That is not to say that this "something" isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to?

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.

 

[emilynghiem]

After watching this cute video I had to post:
http://abc13.com/family/cute-video-...-everywhere-try-to-get-out-of-trouble/401971/

^ Now imagine: God has a little talk with M.D. and Justin,
asking whose idea it was to try to teach God and Christianity by
insulting people, calling them liars and phonies,
and expecting to be understood and taken seriously.^

All right, time out, this isn't funny. No more slams.
Time to get cleaned up. Big mess. Who's going to clean it up?

P.S. but thanks M.D. Rawlings for posting those delicious sounding references. Yum! As a timely reminder that what is universally divine to people may not be what we think is important; and what we think is important may not be universal to people. Sometimes the simplest things are what connect us and remind us of our common humanity. Hmmmmm. Thanks and praise!

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.

... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,

seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.

Dear BreezeWood: I think by the stubbornness and convictions of the people here,
you, Boss, M.D., me and others
We demonstrate that the human conscience and EGO is not like those of other animals.

I think we show a clear distinction,
and no other animals have this same component of conscience
and social/spiritual responsibility that humans have.

It's our greatest strength and our worst weakness.

Don't you agree it separates us from the other animals?

 

[emilynghiem]

The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus


1. Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

2. What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

3. What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

4. What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

5. What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

6. What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

7. What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

8. What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

9. What is the chirality of biological sugars?

10. What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

11. What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

12. What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

13. Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

14. What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

15. In a nutshell, without looking it up, given the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

16. Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

17. What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

18. What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

19. What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

20. What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

21. At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

22. In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

23. In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

24. Why are you so full of shiticus Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus?

Questions 25 and 26:
Would any of this have been necessary for
Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.

What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?

If you can tell me which of the above questions
Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
I might believe this is necessary for judging people.

Back to you, Fred!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus


1. Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

2. What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

3. What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

4. What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

5. What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

6. What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

7. What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

8. What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

9. What is the chirality of biological sugars?

10. What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

11. What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

12. What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

13. Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

14. What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

15. In a nutshell, without looking it up, given the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

16. Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

17. What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

18. What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

19. What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

20. What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

21. At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

22. In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

23. In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

24. Why are you so full of shiticus Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus?

Questions 25 and 26:
Would any of this have been necessary for
Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.

What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?

If you can tell me which of the above questions
Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
I might believe this is necessary for judging people.

That would actually be questions #26 and #27. Question #25 was asked by BreezeWood (See posts #5136 and #5137.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I know that Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus is full of shiticus.

 

[emilynghiem]

The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus


1. Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

2. What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

3. What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

4. What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

5. What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

6. What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

7. What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

8. What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

9. What is the chirality of biological sugars?

10. What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

11. What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

12. What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

13. Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

14. What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

15. In a nutshell, without looking it up, given the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

16. Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

17. What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

18. What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

19. What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

20. What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

21. At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

22. In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

23. In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

24. Why are you so full of shiticus Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus?

Questions 25 and 26:
Would any of this have been necessary for
Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.

What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?

If you can tell me which of the above questions
Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
I might believe this is necessary for judging people.

That would actually be questions #26 and #27. Question #25 was asked by BreezeWood (See posts #5136 and #5137.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I know that Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus is full of shiticus.

Well Buddha did foresee that there were many Buddhas or spiritual teachers who came before
and many after. And one day all the Buddha nature would be realized in full for all souls.

So that includes you, and BreezeWood and Boss. All the Buddhas or spiritually minded coming to fruition or maturity.
So of course you would have special wisdom to add, as do all people have responsibilities in sharing in this process.

Note: We all have weaknesses, too. And where I may lack in precision, and answering as briefly as others,
you may lack in diplomacy and restraint from beating or beaning people over the head as a seeming brute or verbal bully.

So you have limits, too. None of us is perfect without the help of others to fill in these gaps we all have.
Together, we can be made whole or perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect.

(On that note, if Buddha's teachings can explain you and your purpose within his explanations, but your teachings cannot explain or include Buddha's, I would say his teachings are closer to the universal set, and yours appear to be more a subset if you have to EXCLUDE others and cannot adequately explain them all within your constructs. Same with BreezeWood: if whatever model for God the Almighty BreezeWood uses has to EXCLUDE Christians in order to justify its premises, then something is amiss and this is NOT universal. The true way, for truth to be universal it should include all these ways without contradiction.

For example, with energy, if you understand that AC and DC both exist and work in different ways, you can include and explain both. But if you only recognize one or the other, these clash.
The pro-AC can stigmatize the DC users and say DC is dangerous, wrong and shouldn't be used. And same with the DC demonizing the AC. But those who can use both types in proper context have no conflicts with either one, but know to keep them within their proper usage and context to prevent blowups. If we recognize common Energy that both transfer then we agree.

Now, back to the Salmon fillet and Potatoes, ymmmmm. Truly a gift of the divine. I have no argument there!)

 

[G.T.]

is basket weaver supposed to be a funny line?

urrrrmmmm. no. just, no. dont quit your da....

well, you might as well just quit everything at this point, you're an epic failure.

 

[emilynghiem]

is basket weaver supposed to be a funny line?

urrrrmmmm. no. just, no. dont quit your da....

well, you might as well just quit everything at this point, you're an epic failure.

RE: MD trying to be a comedian?

Reminds me of Dr. McCoy in Star Trek, arguing with his crew mates:

"I'm a doctor, not an engineer." (TOS: "Mirror, Mirror")
...to which Montgomery Scott immediately replied, "Now, you're an engineer."

 

[orogenicman]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.

Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.

 

[BreezeWood]

Question #25:

BreezeWood: "[W]hy without the constraints of a self serving written document [as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus] would you cho[o]se that same path of vial [vile?] righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty"? ​

[as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus]

made-up oral tradition

to bad for you mdr, you choose to read what becomes your values, written by others. -

not christianity but have you noticed Jesus left nothing behind for your ... displeasure, that was not a mistake. ever ask why ?

what is reached at the apex of knowledge is not made up nor can it be replicated by text - again to bad for you ...


Antiquity knew better, oral persuasion is the path for Remission the written word is nothing but processed food.

 

[emilynghiem]

Antiquity knew better, oral persuasion is the path for Remission the written word is nothing but processed food.

^ Excuse me, BreezeWood, but if weren't for the Written Word
We wouldn't have passed down the natural laws in the Constitution,
the First Amendment principles of free speech, religious freedom
and right to petition/due process that we are all practicing now
[courtesy of the free speech internet developed by the US military] ^

A lot of what we have now is thanks to free speech and press,
not just one, but both used to check and balance the other.

We need both the letter and the spirit of the laws to align
to form a good faith contract and meetings of the heart and mind.

Good day BreezeWood I believe we agree more than we disagree.
And I trust that all the wrongs you take exception, too, so do I.
But I don't go around blaming them on the wrong people.

We all have equal strengths and weaknesses, so I am more
interested in bringing out our strong points and correcting the areas of weakness.


When we can recognize this process is MUTUAL
we can quit pretending in our minds that the other person is causing all the problems.

that is a very material and attached/conditioned way to practice either Christianity or Buddhism,
to keep focusing on changing one's neighbor!

The point is to correct our side of the fence, and this influences our neighbors to do the same.

How else can we set a better example for M.D. Justin Boss or others
unless we practice what we preach?

BreezeWood, here is a poem for you that includes "Freedom of the Press"
or liberation by free and equal access to written knowledge
as one of the saving graces we have to bring Peace and Justice to the world:
http://emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/JudgmentCall2011.AVI

 

[Hollie]

The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus


1. Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

2. What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

3. What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

4. What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

5. What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

6. What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

7. What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

8. What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

9. What is the chirality of biological sugars?

10. What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

11. What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

12. What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

13. Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

14. What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

15. In a nutshell, without looking it up, given the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

16. Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

17. What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

18. What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

19. What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

20. What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

21. At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

22. In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

23. In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

24. Why are you so full of shiticus Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus?

Questions 25 and 26:
Would any of this have been necessary for
Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.

What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?

If you can tell me which of the above questions
Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
I might believe this is necessary for judging people.

That would actually be questions #26 and #27. Question #25 was asked by BreezeWood (See posts #5136 and #5137.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I know that Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus is full of shiticus.

Stumper Questions For Hyper-Religious Stumble Bums


Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 515 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[emilynghiem]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.

It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims have been shot down in flames.

NOTE to Hollie: Then quit baiting them.
When you post your stumper points about "creation", that is like using "global warming" as green baiting.
That isn't the real issue and can't be proven, so it sends people into a feeding frenzy attacking each other in circles.

The REAL issue that could stop the arguments about global warming
is to focus on environmental clean up and restoration of natural resources.
That is independent of whether pollution causes global warming or not.
We CAN show it is killing oceans and forests and do something about that.

but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
people capitalizing on the conflict have to frame it as "Global Warming"
to INCITE conflict and make money off the carbon credit system, introducing a political conflict of interest
that DISTRACTS people from the issue of true environmental integrity, protection, and restoration of damaged areas!

The real Green movement is still fighting to save endangered species and wilderness
that needs help REGARDLESS if pollution is causing temperature changes or not.
That is not necessary to prove in order to save green turtles losing ocean habitats
or African elephants lost to poaching to fund tribal wars for politics.

All this is a DISTRACTION an dbecome a Straw Man used to attack one side or the other.

HOLLIE PLEASE
let's go back to Spiritual Healing
as something that CAN BE Demostrated and Replicated by Science

Hollie I am willing to set up a 10 million dollar bet
that Spiritual Healing can be proven first before Creation/Evolution
but if you want to I can throw in Global Warming, too.

Proving Spiritual Healing to people would do more good
by backing the idea that criminal illness and religious abuses
can be caught and corrected in advance instead of waiting until after it's too late.
Spiritual Healing has cured people of these ills, so it is important to prove
this medically as with any other disease and proposed therapy/treatment.

Hollie I see no reason to keep pushing creation/evolution
if this cannot be recreated and proven empirically
but Spiritual Healing can be, but is being ignored? Why?

The main reason I see why is that the division is not ready to be dropped.

Just like politicians don't really want to solve environmental problems
of their constituents: the solutions would redistribute power and responsibility
to the people; so instead they set up systems that depend on them being in control.
So they push global warming becuase they can control that rhetoric
and "pimp" the issue for political points. Both sides do this and it isn't
solving the problem of pollution killing the planet.

So let's not do this with God creation etc.

If we agree to focus on using science to demonstrate the validity
of Spiritual Healing, this is the next big breakthrough that can reconcile
science with religion and eradicate conflicts.

the only thing stopping us
is being ready for the change entailed.

if we aren't ready, then we stay stuck like people taking sides
over global warming to bash each other instead of focusing
on solutions that can save the planet. just not ready.

So when you ARE ready, let me know
and we can change the world by what we
gain learn and share here and taking that to a higher level.

Thanks Hollie
I hope we're ready or can get ready
We have too much work to do to fix the world
and we really cannot afford to be divided
when it is going to take all hands on board
working nonstop to solve the problems
humanity has gotten into with religion and politics making such messes

We need to focus on solutions and working collaboratively
to maximize resources; we don't have time to lose blaming
each other for problems that aren't getting solved this way.

So let's get ready and try some new approaches
and see how that changes the ball game to something we can ALL WIN!

 

[FactFinder]

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.

"For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Stumper Questions for Creationists
Stumper Questions for Creationists

Introduction
This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.
We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.
A few comments about some terminology
The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".
The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.
What is creationism?
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.
In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.
(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

• Exposition of creationism.
• Definitions of terms.
• Evidence for creationism.
• Rules of evidence.
• Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
• Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.
(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

• evolution
• primitive
• natural selection
• theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.
(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

• What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
• What is does conventional science say?
• What is the evidence for conventional science?
• What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.
(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the sameanswers.)
(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.
(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)
(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

Theological questions
It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.
(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.
Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.
(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

Summary
These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.

Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy

The author asks: "What is the evidence for conventional science?"

Whaaaaaa?

There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, conventional science according to the author means ontological naturalism, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.

Creationism proper is a theological construct, that includes some scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

Creationism proper is the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation: a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.

The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.

Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is not the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by conventional science!


The author writes: "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."

No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!

The author writes: "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"

The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls conventional science, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.

The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.


Not only does the author go on about his conventional science, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions #11, #12, #13 and #14 under the heading of How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

He writes:

Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?​

Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.

The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form.


In question #14, He writes:

If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?​

The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that all terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry. In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?

Crickets chirping

What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.

The following requires special treatment. The author writes:

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
​

Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.

 

[FactFinder]

Science has its place and God His. Science has infinite limits. God has infinity.