for one there is no way life can be brought by "chance" if you shake a box of linking logs will you by "chance" get a log cabin? NO you have to put it together. something as simple AS a log cabin cannot happen by chance, thus LIFE is utterly impossible to happen by chance. God put us all together there is no way a bang could have occurred so perfectly, usually when i hear a bang it is usually bad.PLUS there is no scientific proof that a bang could've occurred or even evolution over millions of years. if the earth was here for 1 million years the celestial dust would cover the earth's atmosphere and would end up caving in on us, the moon doesn't even have an atmosphere because its low gravity(1/6 of the earths gravity) so the dust would've literally acted like quicksand to the astronauts which landed on the moon, instead it is about an inch thick! which means we couldn't have even been around 35,000 years! and according to the Bible we have traced back to creation and it dates to 6-10,000 years the earth has been here. and you ask:"who could've created GOD?" God is a celestial being, when i go to heaven i will ask him, when you go to hell maybe the demons will tell you.
if you agree post here, if ya don't leave this topic unless you have scientific proof of your THEORY.
The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof.
| cody4camp wrote: |
| if you agree post here, if ya don't leave this topic unless you have scientific proof of your THEORY. |
LOL..and you think what you have posted is in some way scientific do you? What you have posted is a mishmash of creationist propoganda, pseudo-science and plain nonsense. The log-cabin analogy is a famous creationist analogy, for example, which has been refuted time after time. It is based on a complete (deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is NOT random - it is actually almost the diametric opposite of random. Any analogy that relies on the 'random' nature of evolution is fundamentally flawed.*
You don't really know what Big Bang theory states so there is little point discussing that with you unless you want to do some reading first.**
The celestial dust argument is old hat and even creationists have stopped using it now... | Quote: |
Lunar craters are interpreted by Morris (1978) as the result of a cosmic battle between Satan's angels and those of the Archangel Michael (Figure 2). NASA has not yet accepted this model. In addition Creationists allege that lack of thick dust on the moon and it its craters indicates a young earth. This argument continues to be made despite a recent Creationist technical paper (Snelling and Rush, 1993) which reviews the subject and concludes:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year time scale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, counter responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and solar system. |
*I was assuming here that you were using the log-cabin to try and refute evolution not abiogenesis (the origin of life). If abiogenesis is the thing you are referring to then I would refer you to Indi's posting on that matter.
** http://bikerman.info/resources/mywork/universe-guide/universe-guide.htm
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:50 am; edited 2 times in total | cody4camp wrote: |
| for one there is no way life can be brought by "chance" if you shake a box of linking logs will you by "chance" get a log cabin? NO you have to put it together. something as simple AS a log cabin cannot happen by chance, thus LIFE is utterly impossible to happen by chance. |
Life may happen by chance all the time, and life is far, far less complex than a log cabin.
You asked for "scientific proof", but there is very little "proof" of this yet. But there is some very interesting evidence currently under investigation.
Alien visitors, Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, May 2001
Is It Raining Aliens?, Jebediah Reed, Science, June 2006
You may ask why there is so little evidence of life forming. i would point out that if life forms only once every million years, we would not have had much chance of finding it... but it would have happened ~4000 times on Earth alone. So, say it's a little rarer and only happens once every billion years... in that case it could have happened ~4 times on Earth, but we would still have an almost zero chance of observing any other cases of it.
| cody4camp wrote: |
| God put us all together there is no way a bang could have occurred so perfectly, usually when i hear a bang it is usually bad. |
^_^; i'm not even going to respond to this.
| cody4camp wrote: |
| PLUS there is no scientific proof that a bang could've occurred or even evolution over millions of years. |
Scientific proof for the Big Bang (not "a bang") is the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Evidence for evolution ranges from fossil records to comparative biology to actually observing evolution happen in real time (yes, despite the lies you have been told by your "teachers", we have observed evolution actually happen).
| cody4camp wrote: |
| if the earth was here for 1 million years the celestial dust would cover the earth's atmosphere and would end up caving in on us, |
Completely illogical. Even if your claim was true and we have had enough dust rain on us in the last million years to "cover the atmosphere", where do you think it would go? Would it not... fall? And become... the ground? With the atmosphere on top of it? Wouldn't we just end up with the same Earth we have now... only slightly bigger?
How would it pile up floating in the air and then fall anyway?
Your claim is pure nonsense.
| cody4camp wrote: |
| the moon doesn't even have an atmosphere because its low gravity(1/6 of the earths gravity) so the dust would've literally acted like quicksand to the astronauts which landed on the moon, instead it is about an inch thick! |
Which tells you what? Try thinking now! ^_^
| cody4camp wrote: |
| and you ask:"who could've created GOD?" God is a celestial being, when i go to heaven i will ask him, when you go to hell maybe the demons will tell you. |
Ah, Christian charity always warms my heart.
How about i ask a stupid question. Why don't you ask God now? Why do you have to wait until you die? Why doesn't God come down today and explain creation and so on to us? It would result in millions or billions of people being saved. Doesn't God love us? Or does he want all those people to suffer? Because it would be so easy to prevent, wouldn't it?Do me a favor, please; never say anything like this unless you know what you are talking about.
What you just said was the most unconvincing and least researched argument that I have ever heard. It was filled with misunderstanding about what science says. The sad part here is that I believe in God, yet you couldn't even convince me with that argument that God exists. How can you ever have a debate with an atheist and expect to win if you can't even convince someone who already believes in God?
Evolution is not random; it is in no way based on chance. Picture this example (I'm just making something up off the top of my head): It is millions of years ago and there are thousands of giraffes with five-foot necks roaming the plains of Africa. Let's say that a genetic mutation caused a few giraffes to be born with seven-foot necks. Something happens to the environment and the food supply has gone down (giraffes can use their long necks to eat from trees). The food shortage has limited the food located within the reach of the giraffes with five-foot necks, and so this food goes quickly, only leaving food above that. These giraffes quickly die out, but the ones with seven-foot necks survive because they're able to reach more food. These giraffes then breed and produce offspring whose necks reach seven-feet. Now the population of giraffes have shifted from them all having five-foot necks to having seven-foot necks. This is evolution. Evolution is simply change over time, that is all.
You also talked about the big bang theory, although it appears that you have no idea what the theory actually states (based on you saying, "God put us all together there is no way a bang could have occurred so perfectly, usually when i hear a bang it is usually bad."). The big bang theory IS NOT a theory about how humans came into existence. That is a common, ignorant misconception that Christians use when trying to argue pro-creation. The big bang theory is a theory about how the universe came into existence.
Also, you kept misquoting science. It is estimated that Earth has been here for approximately 4.5 billion years, give-or-take a little. The next problem with your argument is that you are treating Creationism like a science; it is not science. You mentioned that we cannot possibly have been on this Earth for too long because Creation lists us as being here for 6,000-10,000 years. That is unconvincing, especially when you're debating atheists. Why should I believe that we've only been here for 6,000-10,000 years when carbon-14 dating and the fossil records have shown evidence that we've been here longer?
Before you try arguing something, learn the other side first. Try reading the information on these sites:
Evolution:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
Big Bang Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
P.S. Never, and I mean NEVER, end your argument like you did:
"...when you go to hell maybe the demons will tell you."
Nobody will ever listen to you if you say things like that.
Edit:
I forgot to add: You titled this post "proof we all didnt just "Happen" by chance."
You forgot to post the "proof." yawn....well, just yawn. over and over and over and over again -.-
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
How can you ever have a debate with an atheist and expect to win if you can't even convince someone who already believes in God?
That is unconvincing, especially when you're debating atheists. |
Is this indicative of a viewpoint that atheists are particularly cunning debators? 
(I'm just gently pulling your leg...I agree with the main points of your posting). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | How can you ever have a debate with an atheist and expect to win if you can't even convince someone who already believes in God?
That is unconvincing, especially when you're debating atheists. |
Is this indicative of a viewpoint that atheists are particularly cunning debators? :-)
(I'm just gently pulling your leg...I agree with the main points of your posting). |
Ahhh... I didn't mean it to be taken that way. If you already believe in something, then do you need to be convinced that it exists? I was merely saying that his argument was unconvincing.
But now that you mentioned it, I tend to find that most atheists seem to be better at this debate. I always find it amusing when an atheist knows more scripture than the creationist (just like when you pointed out HalfBloodPrince's mistakes when he was trying to use quotes to "find" science in Koran). | wumingsden wrote: |
The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
how can scientists prove how old rocks are without being there 4.5 billion years ago? they have no physical evidence that proves that a ROCK could exist 4.5 billion years. | cody4camp wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
how can scientists prove how old rocks are without being there 4.5 billion years ago? they have no physical evidence that proves that a ROCK could exist 4.5 billion years. |
The only subject in which humans can really prove anything is in mathematics. If you want to deal with proof, study math. In Algebra I can prove the quadratic formula. In Geometry I can prove the Pythagorean Theorem. In Calculus I can prove the Product Rule. You see where I'm getting at here? In science we deal with evidence; in religion we deal with faith. It all comes down to where you want to put your beliefs. Do you want to believe based on evidence or religion?
I don't care what anyone says, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. The only being that could prove the existence of God (assuming God exists) is God. Has that happened? Of course not. If God had already proved his existence everyone would believe in him.
You're basing your counterarguments on the lack of proof that science has, but you are failing to realize that science has one up on religion. Science at leasts has evidence. Didn't God even say that he wants people to believe off of pure faith?
My point is stating that countless evidence has shown the world being 4.5 billion years old. Will we ever be able to prove that? No. Nobody has been alive that long to be sure of it. But do you really think that the theory of the Earth's age would be so widespread if there wasn't countless evidence backing it up? | cody4camp wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
how can scientists prove how old rocks are without being there 4.5 billion years ago? they have no physical evidence that proves that a ROCK could exist 4.5 billion years. |
For the love of your god, please stop. You're truly embarrassing humanity. Do you honestly believe dinosaurs didn't exist?On the "I hate I'm doing this" but I'm going to anyway:
cody4camp: Er...Dude, just back off. Your logic is skewed. As even I have said, it is impossible to prove the existence of God; it's strictly a faith issue. I could do my usual point-by-point breakdown, but it's not as fun as it seems, and I think you're doing a good job of destroying your own argument. Run, run while you can...
FR
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| But now that you mentioned it, I tend to find that most atheists seem to be better at this debate. I always find it amusing when an atheist knows more scripture than the creationist (just like when you pointed out HalfBloodPrince's mistakes when he was trying to use quotes to "find" science in Koran). |
I think it's partly down to age and experience - I suspect I'm a good bit older than many in these debates. It's partly down to the fact that I have a good grounding in Christian theology (I was brought up Catholic and educated by Salesian Brothers until 19). It's also partly down to the fact that, despite appearances to the contrary, I have no (anti)/religious message to sell. Sure, I am an atheist and I often challenge religious postings, but normally when they 'butt-in' to science.
I've said many times that I don't think the existence of God can be disproved. (Though I must admit that as time goes by my position is hardening somewhat and if I had to put God's existence on a scale of probability, like Dawkins does, then it would be moving down towards zero, though not actually zero). I think most atheists take a similar view - even Dawkins himself, though he is at the 'very very near zero' end of the scale.
It's also interesting to note that the petulant/abusive postings nearly always come from those who have the most fundamentalist religious views. (I'm not speaking about this particular thread which has been reasonably civilised, if rather silly - examples are easy to find though). I suspect that this is partly because such posters are often young(ish) and a little immature and I normally try to take that into account. Sometimes, however, it comes from an obviously 'mature' poster, and the only thing to do is ignore them. I've had some nasty personal comments over the years, as I'm sure other atheists have, but most of us make a conscious effort not to respond in kind, even when provoked.
The excuse used is nearly always the same: you are offending my deeply held religious convictions, so I have a right to be angry'. Well, sorry, I don't buy into that at all. Firstly we are on a public forum designed for debate, and anyone posting should expect robust challenges to their views. Secondly far too much respect is given to religious views. If someone questions a person's politics then that is acceptable, but if you do the same with their religion it is unacceptable. We allow people to define their infant children as 'Jewish' or 'Christian' or 'Muslim', but I'm sure most would be concerned if they defined their children as 'Socialist', or 'Republican'.
Religions have been allowed to grow a 'protective shell' by social consent, and I think it is dangerous. Ultimately it leads to the sort of nonsense we see with Islam restricting freedom of expression on the grounds that it offends the believer.* The furore over Salman Rushdie's book, the Danish cartoons, and any depiction of the prophet, is illiberal and unacceptable. If a cartoon of their prophet offends Muslims then tough. In the same way, if a comment questioning Christian beliefs offends Christians then tough - live with it. I do not set out to offend and my choice of language is careful and considered (and I believe the same goes for others who express the atheist or materialist/rationalist case on these forums). If I make mistakes I am happy to correct them but I will not desist from criticising a belief or item of faith on the grounds it offends believers - never. Rational debate is the best weapon we have for debunking dangerous flim-flam and propoganda. The moment we put down that weapon is the moment we deserve to be, and will be, conned.
* I am not anti-Muslim (my postings frequently take the side of Islam against attack by others) but I find this aspect of Islamic belief intolerable.
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:15 pm; edited 2 times in totalHm...cody I agree with you on some terms but on others you've ruined your argument.
Assuming you follow the Bible or the Quran, both mention a "bang" that was connected to the beginning of what we know today.
No, God didn't clap his hands and Poof! here we are. That's were the misconceptions happen. God caused the Big Bang, which was his way of making the universe.
Nor is God an old man with a white beard; God is a force, a being who's shape we cannot imagine.
If I put a cat infront of a computer, I cannot teach it php programming, no matter how hard I try. I can sit there for years trying, but the cat simply won't be able to.
Just like that, there are many things that we simply cannot imagine now.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Hm...cody I agree with you on some terms but on others you've ruined your argument.
Assuming you follow the Bible or the Quran, both mention a "bang" that was connected to the beginning of what we know today.
No, God didn't clap his hands and Poof! here we are. That's were the misconceptions happen. God caused the Big Bang, which was his way of making the universe. |
No he didn't. He created the world, there's nothing in the bible about the big bang. Funny how people stick literally to the bible on one subject but then don't do it on another just because they can't defend it.
| Quote: |
| Nor is God an old man with a white beard; God is a force, a being who's shape we cannot imagine. |
He created us to his image, of course we can imagine him. He must look like us, according to the bible.I'll ask a simple question - How can anyone proove proof itself?
It is within that question that you can maybe begin top comprehend anything that is beyong science. One can provide facts and well read points and scientifically proven notions but they are all based on perception.
In todays post modern society no-one has the right to question any individuals perception thus nullifying all scientific theories.
Furthermore:
Why do people always want to separate science and God? Any one should surley at least be able to accept the fact that GOD may have in fact created the world in 7 days. If someone was actually there to experience it then I'd love to chat and hear what it was like. If you were not there then all you have is a theory. Biblical/Scientific is besides the point it's still a theory and every theory has a human being with a slant or point of view behind it. | wumingsden wrote: |
The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
Radioisotope (or radiometric) dating does not always work, so I would say the "scientifically Proven" are nothing but assumptions, i.e. Beartooth Mountains Sample.
I guess they wanted us to embrace it as facts. err what do I know , I'm just a religious person that believes in the Bible.If you are talking about the "Beartooth Mountains Sample" that I think you are talking about you should read this article: http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
R.A.T.E.'s experiments are fundamentally flawed because they don't know what they are doing. They failed to take into account the tectonic activity in the area and the metamorphic process.
Manipulating the results to support a preconceived conclusion isn't science, and it doesn't prove anything. | gr8inferno wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
Radioisotope (or radiometric) dating does not always work, so I would say the "scientifically Proven" are nothing but assumptions, i.e. Beartooth Mountains Sample.
I guess they wanted us to embrace it as facts. err what do I know , I'm just a religious person that believes in the Bible. |
The Bible is full of facts. | liljp617 wrote: |
| gr8inferno wrote: | | wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
Radioisotope (or radiometric) dating does not always work, so I would say the "scientifically Proven" are nothing but assumptions, i.e. Beartooth Mountains Sample.
I guess they wanted us to embrace it as facts. err what do I know , I'm just a religious person that believes in the Bible. |
The Bible is full of facts. |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | gr8inferno wrote: | | wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
Radioisotope (or radiometric) dating does not always work, so I would say the "scientifically Proven" are nothing but assumptions, i.e. Beartooth Mountains Sample.
I guess they wanted us to embrace it as facts. err what do I know , I'm just a religious person that believes in the Bible. |
The Bible is full of facts. |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Was being sarcastic :O I know, subtle sarcasm doesn't work online lol 
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Because you don't accept them, or ignore them...?
HM | liljp617 wrote: |
| The Bible is full of facts. |
The bible is full of stories that are written by humans to attempt and explain the unexplainable. It is also filled with stories of people who lived back then, true, the church added some divinity to Jesus in order to form the basis of religion. The bible aren't facts as there is no proof to back them up whatsoever. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Do me a favor, please; never say anything like this unless you know what you are talking about.
What you just said was the most unconvincing and least researched argument that I have ever heard. It was filled with misunderstanding about what science says. The sad part here is that I believe in God, yet you couldn't even convince me with that argument that God exists. How can you ever have a debate with an atheist and expect to win if you can't even convince someone who already believes in God? |
I was about to type something exactly along those lines... Less work for my fingers I suppose 
.
Also I think we are demoting the original poster from debater to "forum troll".
| wumingsden wrote: |
| The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks. |
I do hope you mean that they used some other form of dating. Uranium perhaps would be more accurate than Carbon. That assumes you'll have a sample with uranium in it at a given time though.
| Quote: |
| The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years (approximately 10 half-lives)(cf refs [1, 3]). This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the radioactivity of the assumed 'dead carbon' blank samples used as background. |
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
(Yes, yes, I know, wikipedia is not an official source, but it was quick and pretty close to correct.)
So no, not all of it is proven with a 100% lack of doubt. It's close to proven, but not quite all the way there. If we wanted to get deeper I could argue that the molecular theory isn't even proven yet, and Quantum Mechanics are starting to challenge it's original assumptions.
I also just read this off that same page.
| Quote: |
| Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels[12]. These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past |
It's still not quite a billion years, but I found it interesting. | Aredon wrote: |
| Also I think we are demoting the original poster from debater to "forum troll". |
i think it's a little premature for that. All i've seen so far is that he's posted a truly lame argument that includes some depressingly bad science, and then questioned one of the objections. Neither of that necessarily implies trolling - he could sincerely believe that he's got rock solid proof and has always been told that by every teacher he's ever had.
And i totally disagree with the repeated calls for the original poster to just shut the hell up. That's not the way to improve anything for anyone.
Instead, take his challenge, show him the points where he screwed up the logic, and point out scientific resources to correct his factual errors. If that's too much effort for you to do, then you shouldn't post a response at all. That way he can learn from his mistakes, and hopefully improve. If he just rejects everything we present out of hand, regardless of how well sourced it is, and continues repeating the same garbage, then we can call him a troll.
| Aredon wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: | | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks. |
I do hope you mean that they used some other form of dating. Uranium perhaps would be more accurate than Carbon. That assumes you'll have a sample with uranium in it at a given time though.
| Quote: | | The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years (approximately 10 half-lives)(cf refs [1, 3]). This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the radioactivity of the assumed 'dead carbon' blank samples used as background. |
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
(Yes, yes, I know, wikipedia is not an official source, but it was quick and pretty close to correct.)
So no, not all of it is proven with a 100% lack of doubt. It's close to proven, but not quite all the way there. If we wanted to get deeper I could argue that the molecular theory isn't even proven yet, and Quantum Mechanics are starting to challenge it's original assumptions. |
No one uses carbon dating to try to date the age of the Earth. Potassium-argon is one of the more popular ones for long-scale dating. But generally, wherever possible, a number of methods are used and the results compared. If any tests give a result that is not comparative to the other results, the difference must be explained. If all agree, then you can be pretty damned confident that you got an accurate result.
And i would point out that quantum mechanics has been rigorously questioned since it was first developed - and was in fact one of the most controversial theories ever in the history of science (controversial within science, not controversial between science and religion). It is also the single most successful theory in the history of science.
| Aredon wrote: |
I also just read this off that same page.
| Quote: | | Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels[12]. These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past |
It's still not quite a billion years, but I found it interesting. |
As i said, C-14 dating is useful for short-term dating. No one uses it for geological dating. | cody4camp wrote: |
if you agree post here, if ya don't leave this topic unless you have scientific proof of your THEORY. |
/self
Do Now!! 
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Because you don't accept them, or ignore them...?
HM |
I haven't read any facts from the bible in any debate about religion on this forum. All I've been reading about is log-cabin theories, bad science, and incorrect assumptions. Why don't you try arguing with some of these facts? | liljp617 wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | gr8inferno wrote: | | wumingsden wrote: | The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and thats scientifically proven by radiometric readings from rocks.
Also, people are free to express their own opinion, with or without scientific proof. |
Radioisotope (or radiometric) dating does not always work, so I would say the "scientifically Proven" are nothing but assumptions, i.e. Beartooth Mountains Sample.
I guess they wanted us to embrace it as facts. err what do I know , I'm just a religious person that believes in the Bible. |
The Bible is full of facts. |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Was being sarcastic :O I know, subtle sarcasm doesn't work online lol :P |
Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes hearing the tone-of-voice is needed to pick up sarcasm.I find it very interesting that hardly anyone has mentioned anything about genetics or breeding experiments. For those of you defending evolution and an "old" earth, I would like to present a little evidence to the contrary. First I must quote the one instance of evolution and genetics I did see in this thread:
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Evolution is not random; it is in no way based on chance. Picture this example (I'm just making something up off the top of my head): It is millions of years ago and there are thousands of giraffes with five-foot necks roaming the plains of Africa. Let's say that a genetic mutation caused a few giraffes to be born with seven-foot necks. Something happens to the environment and the food supply has gone down (giraffes can use their long necks to eat from trees). The food shortage has limited the food located within the reach of the giraffes with five-foot necks, and so this food goes quickly, only leaving food above that. These giraffes quickly die out, but the ones with seven-foot necks survive because they're able to reach more food. These giraffes then breed and produce offspring whose necks reach seven-feet. Now the population of giraffes have shifted from them all having five-foot necks to having seven-foot necks. This is evolution. Evolution is simply change over time, that is all. |
This argument is used time and time again to defend evolution. First let me distinguish that there are two DIFFERENT types of evolution. Macroevolution is what most people commonly think of when they hear the term "evolution." Macroevolution is the growth and change via genetics that is darwin's basis for speciation (or the divergence of species from a single origin.) Macroevolution has NEVER been observed and therefore is usually the topic of debate between evolutionists and creationists. Lacking proof or observation, it is easily debated. Microevolution on the other hand is the change and fluctuation (or adaptation) of species via genetics that allows a certain species to adapt to ever changing variables in their surrounding climate. Microevolution is an observable phenomenon, and therefore is more or less "proven" to exist.
Having made this distinction, I must point out that the quoted example used in this case to support macroevolution is actually only a demonstration of microevolution and therefore does nothing to support the argument. All "arms race" arguments are similarly examples of microevolution. Snakes that develop stronger and stronger venom as their prey develop stronger and stronger immunity to said venom. Giraffes and acacia trees. Cheetahs and gazelles. All of these "arms race" examples only support microevolution. Each species slowly adapts over time to a changing factor found in their environment. Be it poison or running speed, there is no doubt it changes and "evolves" but what it doesn't do is speciate.
When evolutionists can produce an observable genetic mutation that causes a speciation, then they will produce evidence or "proof" of macroevolution. To date, no such example exists. Scientists have been breeding the common fruitfly for decades. Such flies can have offspring every 10 days. Put this into decades of research and you will see that over hundreds of thousands of generations, not ONCE has this fly "evolved" into anything other than a fruitfly. In fact, in those decades of experiments, nearly all of the genetic mutations produced actually harmed the individual or even left it unable to reproduce. If these experiments tell us anything, it's clearly that mutations are more harmful that beneficial. In fact, not once was a random mutation shown to benefit the individual.
Let me clearly define speciation. What differentiates one species from another? Two different species can not interbreed. So although there are hundreds of different kinds of domestic dogs, they are all of the same species because they can all breed and produce offspring. Within the same "dog" species you also find wolves, and other feral dogs. All belong to the same species because all can breed and produce viable offspring.
So plug this basic idea into evolution. Assuming evolution CAN cause speciation, when such a genetic defect occurs, it HAS to occur more than once in a species so that the new species has other members to then procreate with. The chances that the same mutation occurs in multiple offspring at the same time reduces the odds that mutations can cause speciation.
Let's go further into the genetic aspect of evolution. Macroevolution says all species evolved from single celled life. The advent of genetics as a science has only had the consequence of making macroevolution harder and harder to swallow. How on earth do organs evolve? How do you go from single celled life to multicelled life? How do you go from an organism that has no eyes, to one that does? The gaps that must be leaped only become larger when you understand what must happen genetically. Take the eye for example. The eye of any vertebrate is immensely complex. Evolution says that via natural selection, such organs evolved from genetic mutations. To imagine that such a complex organ "evolved" from nothing via genetic mutations seems absolutely preposterous when you consider how many mutations had to occur and how quickly and concisely they all had to occur, not only once, but multiple times in multiple offspring. One might argue, well the eye didn't just evolve from nothing to an eye all at once...it happened over a long period of time. Assuming this is the case, one has to also assume that each stage of evolution provided each new species with some benefit, as had it been a hindrance at all, the species would've died out via natural selection. This becomes even harder to swallow when you look at organs or specialized appendages like wings. What good does half a wing do? What good is half a liver? When you look at the interconnectivity between organs and how certain systems rely on others to properly function, one wonders how billions of genetic mutations can just "happen" throughout multiple offspring all at once to create a new organ system in enough individuals that can each propagate more of the new species.
When you really get into the specifics of macroevolution, the leaps of "faith" become so large that it's truly a miracle that anyone believes such a theory. If you're going to believe in evolution, at least understand that what you're believing in is so miraculous that it's far from scientific.
Don't believe me? Ask ANY geneticist if they believe in macroevolution. The ones who say yes, do so for their careers. Candidly they would tell you otherwise.
Bring on the bashing...I can handle it. I wouldn't call myself a creationist. I'm not even religious (please note the lack of religion in my entire argument.) In fact I find most religion to be so distorted and devoid of truth that I'm likely forever turned off from it. I am, however, NOT an atheist. Something exists out there that we as humans cannot comprehend with all the science in the world. To believe otherwise is to ignore what makes you human. Wise words from Satori. If you take the leap of faith to believe in macroevolution then you cannot rightfully bash creationists.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Because you don't accept them, or ignore them...?
HM |
I haven't read any facts from the bible in any debate about religion on this forum. All I've been reading about is log-cabin theories, bad science, and incorrect assumptions. Why don't you try arguing with some of these facts? |
Well, you've been reading the wrong bible...Look for the one in uppercase...The Bible...Just not the King James version.
Also, the main debaters in this thread wouldn't be fun to bring it down on...They're having too much fun among themselves....
HM | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Wise words from Satori. If you take the leap of faith to believe in macroevolution then you cannot rightfully bash creationists. |
The difference being tests, studies, and experiments are done on a daily basis to bring evidence forth to support macroevolution. Creationists simply say have faith and leave it at that. Not saying macroevolution is some supreme theory that isn't wrong under any circumstances, but it is quite obvious there is more logic, reasoning, experimentation, and evidence to support the idea than there is to support creationism. To deny that is to deny science...and there is where the problem lies. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Then how come I never hear about these "facts" when Creationism is being defended? |
Because you don't accept them, or ignore them...?
HM |
I haven't read any facts from the bible in any debate about religion on this forum. All I've been reading about is log-cabin theories, bad science, and incorrect assumptions. Why don't you try arguing with some of these facts? |
Well, you've been reading the wrong bible...Look for the one in uppercase...The Bible...Just not the King James version.
Also, the main debaters in this thread wouldn't be fun to bring it down on...They're having too much fun among themselves....
HM |
I've read most of the bible. I've read The New Living Translation and parts of the King James version. I don't remember reading any facts. And you're missing my point. This is a debate, and the Creationist are bringing nothing to the table. None of you have mentioned one fact that would have a chance of convincing me that God exists. If you're going to debate something, why not start trying to use some of your "facts"?
Last edited by Afaceinthematrix on Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:25 am; edited 1 time in total | Satori wrote: |
I find it very interesting that hardly anyone has mentioned anything about genetics or breeding experiments. For those of you defending evolution and an "old" earth, I would like to present a little evidence to the contrary. First I must quote the one instance of evolution and genetics I did see in this thread:
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Evolution is not random; it is in no way based on chance. Picture this example (I'm just making something up off the top of my head): It is millions of years ago and there are thousands of giraffes with five-foot necks roaming the plains of Africa. Let's say that a genetic mutation caused a few giraffes to be born with seven-foot necks. Something happens to the environment and the food supply has gone down (giraffes can use their long necks to eat from trees). The food shortage has limited the food located within the reach of the giraffes with five-foot necks, and so this food goes quickly, only leaving food above that. These giraffes quickly die out, but the ones with seven-foot necks survive because they're able to reach more food. These giraffes then breed and produce offspring whose necks reach seven-feet. Now the population of giraffes have shifted from them all having five-foot necks to having seven-foot necks. This is evolution. Evolution is simply change over time, that is all. |
This argument is used time and time again to defend evolution. First let me distinguish that there are two DIFFERENT types of evolution. Macroevolution is what most people commonly think of when they hear the term "evolution." Macroevolution is the growth and change via genetics that is darwin's basis for speciation (or the divergence of species from a single origin.) Macroevolution has NEVER been observed and therefore is usually the topic of debate between evolutionists and creationists. Lacking proof or observation, it is easily debated. Microevolution on the other hand is the change and fluctuation (or adaptation) of species via genetics that allows a certain species to adapt to ever changing variables in their surrounding climate. Microevolution is an observable phenomenon, and therefore is more or less "proven" to exist.
Having made this distinction, I must point out that the quoted example used in this case to support macroevolution is actually only a demonstration of microevolution and therefore does nothing to support the argument. All "arms race" arguments are similarly examples of microevolution. Snakes that develop stronger and stronger venom as their prey develop stronger and stronger immunity to said venom. Giraffes and acacia trees. Cheetahs and gazelles. All of these "arms race" examples only support microevolution. Each species slowly adapts over time to a changing factor found in their environment. Be it poison or running speed, there is no doubt it changes and "evolves" but what it doesn't do is speciate.
When evolutionists can produce an observable genetic mutation that causes a speciation, then they will produce evidence or "proof" of macroevolution. To date, no such example exists. Scientists have been breeding the common fruitfly for decades. Such flies can have offspring every 10 days. Put this into decades of research and you will see that over hundreds of thousands of generations, not ONCE has this fly "evolved" into anything other than a fruitfly. In fact, in those decades of experiments, nearly all of the genetic mutations produced actually harmed the individual or even left it unable to reproduce. If these experiments tell us anything, it's clearly that mutations are more harmful that beneficial. In fact, not once was a random mutation shown to benefit the individual.
Let me clearly define speciation. What differentiates one species from another? Two different species can not interbreed. So although there are hundreds of different kinds of domestic dogs, they are all of the same species because they can all breed and produce offspring. Within the same "dog" species you also find wolves, and other feral dogs. All belong to the same species because all can breed and produce viable offspring.
So plug this basic idea into evolution. Assuming evolution CAN cause speciation, when such a genetic defect occurs, it HAS to occur more than once in a species so that the new species has other members to then procreate with. The chances that the same mutation occurs in multiple offspring at the same time reduces the odds that mutations can cause speciation.
Let's go further into the genetic aspect of evolution. Macroevolution says all species evolved from single celled life. The advent of genetics as a science has only had the consequence of making macroevolution harder and harder to swallow. How on earth do organs evolve? How do you go from single celled life to multicelled life? How do you go from an organism that has no eyes, to one that does? The gaps that must be leaped only become larger when you understand what must happen genetically. Take the eye for example. The eye of any vertebrate is immensely complex. Evolution says that via natural selection, such organs evolved from genetic mutations. To imagine that such a complex organ "evolved" from nothing via genetic mutations seems absolutely preposterous when you consider how many mutations had to occur and how quickly and concisely they all had to occur, not only once, but multiple times in multiple offspring. One might argue, well the eye didn't just evolve from nothing to an eye all at once...it happened over a long period of time. Assuming this is the case, one has to also assume that each stage of evolution provided each new species with some benefit, as had it been a hindrance at all, the species would've died out via natural selection. This becomes even harder to swallow when you look at organs or specialized appendages like wings. What good does half a wing do? What good is half a liver? When you look at the interconnectivity between organs and how certain systems rely on others to properly function, one wonders how billions of genetic mutations can just "happen" throughout multiple offspring all at once to create a new organ system in enough individuals that can each propagate more of the new species.
When you really get into the specifics of macroevolution, the leaps of "faith" become so large that it's truly a miracle that anyone believes such a theory. If you're going to believe in evolution, at least understand that what you're believing in is so miraculous that it's far from scientific.
Don't believe me? Ask ANY geneticist if they believe in macroevolution. The ones who say yes, do so for their careers. Candidly they would tell you otherwise.
Bring on the bashing...I can handle it. I wouldn't call myself a creationist. I'm not even religious (please note the lack of religion in my entire argument.) In fact I find most religion to be so distorted and devoid of truth that I'm likely forever turned off from it. I am, however, NOT an atheist. Something exists out there that we as humans cannot comprehend with all the science in the world. To believe otherwise is to ignore what makes you human. |
Macroevolution has evidence. A paper was written on this a few years ago, and it was very good. It's a little long, so it might take a while to read, but it's worth it. So if you have the time, try reading it. It's a good paper that can give you some of the basics on evidence for macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html1) I sincerely doubt that anyone refers to a specific book in lowercase has actually read the work in question. At the very least it shows a poor command of the English language; it may also be inferred to show disrespect for the book in question. Either way, it bodes poorly for hopes of an intelligent conversation with the person involved.
Put another way: You've established that you have no respect for the book in question by not giving it the basic respect it's due by grammar rules; why should I expect anything resembling respect, which is necessary for a decent conversation? Strike One.
2) I'm not a Creationist. As even the most casual reader of this forum knows, I tend to the ID side, and have made fun of the Creationists from time to time. Strike Two.
3) As any reasonably intelligent person knows, you can't prove the existence (or lack) of God. Even in The Bible itself, the various wise men point out that God is not something you can prove, but must have faith in. Strike Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with that against you, why should I expect any kind of interesting conversation from you? Obviously I could expect the usual silly "gawd don't exizt" stuff, but what could I expect as far as higher conversation?
HM
| Satori wrote: |
| This argument is used time and time again to defend evolution. First let me distinguish that there are two DIFFERENT types of evolution. Macroevolution is what most people commonly think of when they hear the term "evolution." |
First let me distinguish that there are two DIFFERENT types of evolutionary "experts".
There are real evolutionary experts, which include evolutionary biologists and geneticists and the like. These people actually work in the scientific arena, have studied evolution in depth, and regularly publish peer-reviewed scholarly articles on evolution.
Then there are creationist evolutionary "experts", who aren't really experts at all, but rather creationist shills who are masquerading as experts. These people do not work in the scientific arena, have read only a few books and papers on the topic, and publish only in creationist literature.
Real evolutionary experts do not talk about two different "types" of evolution. And they do not talk about "macro" or "micro" evolution.
Creationist evolutionary "experts" suborned the terms in order to attempt to create a large, unified force to fight against evolutionary theories. By using those terms, they allow relatively scientifically intelligent Christians to join their cause - people that would reject the Biblical literalist fundamentalist position of total opposition to evolution as silly because evolution is plainly evidenced. A person could believe that the evidence that they cannot ignore doesn't really disagree with the religious position they cannot abandon. It is just one point on the spectrum of Christian fundamentalist anti-evolutionism that starts with ID on the sane end and ends with young-Earth Creationism on the other. Really, there's no great difference between ID proponents and YECs, except that YECs demand a young Earth, while ID proponents merely allow it as a possibility. All of this is well and clearly documented in a number of sources: pretty much anything by Eugenie Scott (who, as you can see from her biography, is a real evolutionary expert, in physical anthropology), or even as evidence in a court of law (Kitzmiller v. Dover).
| Satori wrote: |
| Macroevolution is the growth and change via genetics that is darwin's basis for speciation (or the divergence of species from a single origin.) |
"Macroevolution" is nebulously defined, but your definition is not one of the more commonly used ones. Most say it is any form of evolution above the species level, including speciation. Some say it's just major structural changes in the form of the species.
One of the games creationists play is selective redefinition. By changing the definition "macroevolution", they can always keep claiming that it hasn't been accomplished, rather like constantly moving the finish line back in a race every time the runner goes to cross it.
Would you accept this definition as reasonable, because it is the one i always use: any time a member of a species has evolved to a point where it can no longer interbreed with its original parent species, but can still produce viable offspring of its own, it has "macroevolved". Such a definition would mean that "macroevolution" creates new, unique breeding populations, and by extension using "microevolution", new species. That seems to me to cover the spirit of "macroevolution", without resorting to arbitrary limits like the number of alleles that differ on average, and it certainly seems to jibe with what you discuss later.
| Satori wrote: |
| Macroevolution has NEVER been observed and therefore is usually the topic of debate between evolutionists and creationists. Lacking proof or observation, it is easily debated. |
^_^;
i will give you two free tips.
First, never assert a fact that can be disproved by a five second Google search without first trying such a search yourself.
Second, type macroevolution examples in Google, or macroevolution observed or any such combination that tickles your fancy, and try the first few results.
As i mentioned above, creationists cheat by constant changing the definition of "macroevolution". But as the term is generally publicly understood, yes, it has been observed.
| Satori wrote: |
| Having made this distinction, I must point out that the quoted example used in this case to support macroevolution is actually only a demonstration of microevolution and therefore does nothing to support the argument. All "arms race" arguments are similarly examples of microevolution. Snakes that develop stronger and stronger venom as their prey develop stronger and stronger immunity to said venom. Giraffes and acacia trees. Cheetahs and gazelles. All of these "arms race" examples only support microevolution. Each species slowly adapts over time to a changing factor found in their environment. Be it poison or running speed, there is no doubt it changes and "evolves" but what it doesn't do is speciate. |
What creationists have never been able to explain is why lots and lots of "microevolution" doesn't equal "macroevolution". (In fact, here's an interesting bit of trivia. The first usage of those two terms in the English language was: "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" [source]).
Let's say we start with some creatures that were the forebears of the modern gazelle, in Africa. They break off into two herds, one going east and one going west. The ones that go east find themselves in vast open plains with tasty grass, but populated by pretty fast running predators. The ones that go west find themselves in areas with little good food at ground level but really good tasty food in tall trees, with only slow predators.
Explain to me why, if "microevolution" can turn such creatures into gazelles or giraffes, that we can't possibly end up with gazelles and giraffes.
| Satori wrote: |
| When evolutionists can produce an observable genetic mutation that causes a speciation, then they will produce evidence or "proof" of macroevolution. To date, no such example exists. Scientists have been breeding the common fruitfly for decades. Such flies can have offspring every 10 days. Put this into decades of research and you will see that over hundreds of thousands of generations, not ONCE has this fly "evolved" into anything other than a fruitfly. In fact, in those decades of experiments, nearly all of the genetic mutations produced actually harmed the individual or even left it unable to reproduce. If these experiments tell us anything, it's clearly that mutations are more harmful that beneficial. In fact, not once was a random mutation shown to benefit the individual. |
Lies.
Google is your friend. Use it before making claims. (Here's a freebie, though: The Evolution of Improved Fitness - 1.2.1 Are all mutations harmful?)
| Satori wrote: |
| So plug this basic idea into evolution. Assuming evolution CAN cause speciation, when such a genetic defect occurs, it HAS to occur more than once in a species so that the new species has other members to then procreate with. The chances that the same mutation occurs in multiple offspring at the same time reduces the odds that mutations can cause speciation. |
But why, exactly, does there have to be a single, well-defined, binary moment in the evolution of a species where one generation can interbreed, then the next... not? Why do you assume that speciation must occur with a single mutation, and not hundreds?
If two populations split and each evolves slowly according to your accepted method of "microevolution", is it not possible that, while there may be no point during the progression of either group that a generation could not breed with the one before, when the two changed groups meet again they can no longer interbreed?
| Satori wrote: |
| Let's go further into the genetic aspect of evolution. Macroevolution says all species evolved from single celled life. The advent of genetics as a science has only had the consequence of making macroevolution harder and harder to swallow. How on earth do organs evolve? How do you go from single celled life to multicelled life? How do you go from an organism that has no eyes, to one that does? The gaps that must be leaped only become larger when you understand what must happen genetically. Take the eye for example. The eye of any vertebrate is immensely complex. Evolution says that via natural selection, such organs evolved from genetic mutations. To imagine that such a complex organ "evolved" from nothing via genetic mutations seems absolutely preposterous when you consider how many mutations had to occur and how quickly and concisely they all had to occur, not only once, but multiple times in multiple offspring. One might argue, well the eye didn't just evolve from nothing to an eye all at once...it happened over a long period of time. Assuming this is the case, one has to also assume that each stage of evolution provided each new species with some benefit, as had it been a hindrance at all, the species would've died out via natural selection. This becomes even harder to swallow when you look at organs or specialized appendages like wings. What good does half a wing do? What good is half a liver? When you look at the interconnectivity between organs and how certain systems rely on others to properly function, one wonders how billions of genetic mutations can just "happen" throughout multiple offspring all at once to create a new organ system in enough individuals that can each propagate more of the new species. |
All of this was covered by Darwin... and modern evolutionary biologists consider Darwin old school. In other words, scientifically speaking, you're in 1858. (Especially given your mention of the eye. ^_^; That's a classic from 1802.)
Get a modern evolutionary biology text and read. Just because you don't know the answers does not mean they do not exist.
| Satori wrote: |
| Bring on the bashing...I can handle it. I wouldn't call myself a creationist. I'm not even religious (please note the lack of religion in my entire argument.) In fact I find most religion to be so distorted and devoid of truth that I'm likely forever turned off from it. I am, however, NOT an atheist. Something exists out there that we as humans cannot comprehend with all the science in the world. To believe otherwise is to ignore what makes you human. |
You may not be creationist, but you are repeating their arguments verbatim. Most of your facts are distorted or flat out false (i have pointed out some of the most obvious cases), and certainly did not come from any respectable text on evolutionary biology. Which tells me where you get your information from. You may or may not buy into their crap, but if you're only using their tracts as your source of information on evolution, you surely must realize that you're not getting an honest, factual assessment.
For example, this is a favourite creationist myth: "Ask ANY geneticist if they believe in macroevolution. The ones who say yes, do so for their careers. Candidly they would tell you otherwise." That is not true, but it is based on an actual survey done by creationists in the early days of the ID movement. The question was worded in a deviously slippery way. It asked evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc. if they think evolution should be questioned. Of course they said yes. No respectable scientist would not. The creationist group (can't remember whether it was DI or CRSC at the moment) went ahead and published it under the banner "most scientists think evolution questionable". See the sly little trick used? Ingeniously clever. Virtually every scientist that signed that petition publicly refuted the claim. But that part never gets mentioned by the creationists.
You may not want to be part of the creationist camp (or you may, you're not exactly clear on that point), but if you don't try reading material outside of their propaganda, you'll find yourself co-opted as a member simply by default. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
1) I sincerely doubt that anyone refers to a specific book in lowercase has actually read the work in question. At the very least it shows a poor command of the English language; it may also be inferred to show disrespect for the book in question. Either way, it bodes poorly for hopes of an intelligent conversation with the person involved.
Put another way: You've established that you have no respect for the book in question by not giving it the basic respect it's due by grammar rules; why should I expect anything resembling respect, which is necessary for a decent conversation? Strike One. |
What does my lack of English skills (which I actually don't lack; I'm just lazy when I type something up that isn't going to be published or turned in for a school assignment) have to do with a scientific or religious debate? What if English isn't my first language? Is everyone who can't speak English non-intelligent? Not everybody speaks English, or speaks English well. Do you want to have a debate in a language that you can't speak well so that I can call you an idiot? It seems like you simply can't bring anything, such as these "facts," to the table so you're merely trying to criticize my grammar. Why don't you learn to debate instead? "Strike One."
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
2) I'm not a Creationist. As even the most casual reader of this forum knows, I tend to the ID side, and have made fun of the Creationists from time to time. Strike Two. |
You're arguing like a Creationist, so I assumed you are one. You tend to the Intelligent Design side? Alright, I'll keep that in mind as long as you start to debate intelligently. "Strike Two."
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
3) As any reasonably intelligent person knows, you can't prove the existence (or lack) of God. Even in The Bible itself, the various wise men point out that God is not something you can prove, but must have faith in. Strike Three. |
This is a direct quote from one of my previous posts on the first page of this debate.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
I don't care what anyone says, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. The only being that could prove the existence of God (assuming God exists) is God. Has that happened? Of course not. If God had already proved his existence everyone would believe in him.
|
This debate isn't about proving God's existence (or lack of existence). This debate is about deciding which belief is more reasonable.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with that against you, why should I expect any kind of interesting conversation from you? Obviously I could expect the usual silly "gawd don't exizt" stuff, but what could I expect as far as higher conversation?
HM |
I have never said that God doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, I said this in the same post that I got my previous quote from:
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
What you just said was the most unconvincing and least researched argument that I have ever heard. It was filled with misunderstanding about what science says. The sad part here is that I believe in God, yet you couldn't even convince me with that argument that God exists. How can you ever have a debate with an atheist and expect to win if you can't even convince someone who already believes in God? |
I argue on the side of God not existing because I am sick and tired of people trying to argue that God exists when they don't know anything about the other side of the debate. They don't know science, and they misquote science. These people, which unfortunately includes all but very-few Christians, make the whole religion look bad and simply make people annoyed by Christians. Like I said, if someone can't convince me with their argument that God exists, then how will they ever convince an atheist that God exists? It won't happen. This is why I am so critical of people arguing for Creation. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Wise words from Satori. If you take the leap of faith to believe in macroevolution then you cannot rightfully bash creationists. |
Yes I can. Macroevolution has evidence. I can bash Creationist for believing in something with no evidence. Macroevolution at least has evidence. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I argue on the side of God not existing because I am sick and tired of people trying to argue that God exists when they don't know anything about the other side of the debate. They don't know science, and they misquote science. These people, which unfortunately includes all but very-few Christians, make the whole religion look bad and simply make people annoyed by Christians. Like I said, if someone can't convince me with their argument that God exists, then how will they ever convince an atheist that God exists? It won't happen. This is why I am so critical of people arguing for Creation. |
That is an excellent quote that i wanted to single out and highlight.
It is a succinct, clear and honest statement of the frustration i also feel about the state of the debates on these topics. i am not a Christian, i am an atheist, but (contrary to the claims of many) i do not assert the nonexistence of any god(s). i honestly cannot say for sure whether any god or gods exist (although i'd say the evidence is pretty strong for the nonexistence case). And i certainly have nothing specific against Christianity itself or theism in general. In fact, as far as i'm concerned, if a group of people want to believe that the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago by a deity that felt the need to horribly murder a part of itself in order to appease itself, as barking mad as i might think they might be, i will defend their right to believe it. (And i have. An amusing little bit of trivia is that in my earliest days here, people thought i was Christian... because one of my first acts was defending a Christian who was being unfairly judged for his belief.)
But i cannot and absolutely will not sit silently by and watch blatant lies being spread. And that is exactly what is happening in most of these debates that people try to characterize as "Christian vs. atheist". Because they're not really "Christian vs. atheist", they are "poorly understood and misrepresented science and philosophy vs. good science and philosophy" in almost every case.
People who don't know the difference between a gene and an allele, and who wouldn't know a bacterial flagella if one spanked them in the ass, doggedly parrot statements they've read in anti-evolutionist literature - many of which were scientifically refuted in the 1870's - and never does it cross their minds to do any fact-checking on those claims. And so the people who do know the real science are doomed to repeat the same damn facts over and over and over ad nauseum... i can't even begin to guess how many times i've repeated on these forums that speciation has been observed. And in just a few weeks, another creationist will be on these forums again, posting that there's no evidence of "macroevolution" all over again, or that "random" evolution can't possibly explain the observed complexity of species. It's an endless, frustrating, thankless battle that does nothing but make anyone who puts their foot down to assert the scientific facts a target for religious hate mail (and yes, i've got lots, thank you).
i have had to draw a firmer and firmer line, tolerating even minor abuses of science and philosophy less and less, just desperately trying to keep a grasp on scientific and philosophical rigour. It would be wonderful if we could just sit all of these creationists (including the creationists in sheep's clothing, the "intelligent design" crew) down and educate them properly about real science, or at least how to check some freaking sources before making a claim. But of course it would be fruitless, because, as i said, in a week we'll have a new crop of creationists spouting the same old flood geology crap. And i ask, where are the scientifically literate Christians? Why aren't they stepping in to correct the errors their fellows are making? Don't tell me there are none, because i've corrected so many scientific inaccuracies for so long - and i'm not alone - that someone must have realized the errors they were making. Why haven't any of the dozens of people i've shown evidence of "macroevolution" to stepped forward to say "i used to think there was no evidence for macroevolution too, but i was wrong." Or has everyone i've given sourced evidence to simply ignored it? Unless the person in question is so hideously and blatantly wrong that he embarrasses the entire Christian religion, it's very rare to see anyone but the usual atheist and/or agnostic troupe (including myself) step in and correct a scientifically illiterate creationist (and even in those cases where the person in question is making embarrassingly bad mistakes, those Christians that do speak up mostly object to the embarrassment, not the science).
Aren't there any scientifically literate religious folk out there who are courageous enough to stand up and defend science and philosophy when it's clearly being abused? i'd like to see you stand up and be counted.Indi: A lot of the scientifically-correct religious generally avoid these kinds of debates, mostly because we've gotten tired of arguing it with our Creationist brethren...
And, now, for the silliness....
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
What does my lack of English skills (which I actually don't lack; I'm just lazy when I type something up that isn't going to be published or turned in for a school assignment) have to do with a scientific or religious debate? What if English isn't my first language? Is everyone who can't speak English non-intelligent? Not everybody speaks English, or speaks English well. Do you want to have a debate in a language that you can't speak well so that I can call you an idiot? It seems like you simply can't bring anything, such as these "facts," to the table so you're merely trying to criticize my grammar. Why don't you learn to debate instead? "Strike One." |
Actually, I was perturbed because you had no other apparent problems. Your grammar was excellent, and you properly capitalized all the other proper nouns. When one of them is not properly capitalized, it's pretty obvious. Had one of your excuses applied, I would like to think that I would have caught it. But...the only one I caught was the lack of proper capitalization re: one term.
| Quote: |
| You're arguing like a Creationist, so I assumed you are one. You tend to the Intelligent Design side? Alright, I'll keep that in mind as long as you start to debate intelligently. "Strike Two." |
a) Note my handle.
b) Keep in mind that ID, in general, has nothing to do with Creationism. Even though we (or at least my personal take on it) parallel standard scientific thought, we allow that there had to be some hand in its development. This is not because we don't think that evolution does not happen on its own, but rather because it seems too perfect to have happened completely by itself. This is not to be construed as proof in and off itself, just a different perspective on things.
| Quote: |
| This debate isn't about proving God's existence (or lack of existence). This debate is about deciding which belief is more reasonable. |
And, again, there is no way to determine which way is "more reasonable"; each side will continue to define itself as the reasonable one. In essence, looking for the most reasonable side won't happen, as each side considers itself to be the most reasonable one, and if you aren't going to respect that either of the other sides has a possibly more reasonable perspective (as you've shown), then there isn't an actual point, is there?
| Quote: |
| I argue on the side of God not existing because I am sick and tired of people trying to argue that God exists when they don't know anything about the other side of the debate. They don't know science, and they misquote science. These people, which unfortunately includes all but very-few Christians, make the whole religion look bad and simply make people annoyed by Christians. Like I said, if someone can't convince me with their argument that God exists, then how will they ever convince an atheist that God exists? It won't happen. This is why I am so critical of people arguing for Creation. |
Actually, I think that if you actually did some digging, you would find a lot of Christian scientists (not the sect!) who are on the cutting edge of science. You're basing more on the people of this forum than those that actually believe in both faith and science. For someone who is tired of people making bad assumptions, that's somewhat ironic...
HM | Indi wrote: |
| It is a succinct, clear and honest statement of the frustration i also feel about the state of the debates on these topics. i am not a Christian, i am an atheist, but (contrary to the claims of many) i do not assert the nonexistence of any god(s). i honestly cannot say for sure whether any god or gods exist (although i'd say the evidence is pretty strong for the nonexistence case). And i certainly have nothing specific against Christianity itself or theism in general. In fact, as far as i'm concerned, if a group of people want to believe that the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago by a deity that felt the need to horribly murder a part of itself in order to appease itself, as barking mad as i might think they might be, i will defend their right to believe it. (And i have. An amusing little bit of trivia is that in my earliest days here, people thought i was Christian... because one of my first acts was defending a Christian who was being unfairly judged for his belief.) |
Ditto. It is extremely tiring and boring to have to keep restating basic science over and over and over. I do it because I refuse to allow the ignorant vocal minority to dominate debate, and because I believe that there are people out there who are genuinely confused by the religiously inspired indoctrination they have been subjected to, and are open to a new perspective.
Let's be clear - Creationists and ID supporters are the same bunch with different clothes. ID supporters like to claim that they have scientific support for their delusions. In a sense (very loose sense) they do. A few deluded scientists do indeed support the notion of Intelligent Design. Scientists are human, like everyone else, and prone to error. The same deluded scientists previously supported creationism. ID supporters like to claim that because a few scientists subscribe to their faith that their faith is in fact scientific. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Anyone with a science degree can call themselves a scientist, it does not mean they have any special insight into the subjects under discussion - evolution, geology, biology etc. Science sets a much higher standard than simply having a degree.
Bear in mind that non (that's right...NOT A SINGLE ONE) of these 'scientists' has EVER published ANYTHING in the peer-reviewed science journals that would support their case. Why is that important? Well, science functions by peer review. If you have a hypothesis then the correct thing to do is subject it to the criticism of your peers who will, hopefully, examine the hypothesis closely and point out any problems with it. If it survives this process and is supported by experimental data then it might deserve to be called a scientific theory. ID has never passed through this process - for the very good reason that it would not survive peer review.
ID is not a scientific theory - it is not even a coherent hypothesis. It is a religious faith - Creationism - trying, dishonestly, to masquerade as a scientific hypothesis. | Bikerman wrote: |
Let's be clear - Creationists and ID supporters are the same bunch with different clothes. ID supporters like to claim that they have scientific support for their delusions. |
I'm sorry: I thought evolution, the age of the universe being measured in billions of years, and that quantum theory were all scientifically valid. I guess I had all of that wrong...Please enlighten me as to how you think that the universe works, since it's obviously different than in the science books.[/sarcasm]
An ID believer has no problem with science; that's not the issue, unlike a Creationist. The issue is that we see Nature as too perfect to have formed naturally, and that it feels like looking at a garden sometimes. There's just too many examples of Fibonacci numbers in plants, that animal forms are just too regular (how many five-limbed vertebrate animal species do you know off?), and that fractals can be used to determine what geographical features look like.
There is that level where you realize that it's mere superstition, but nonetheless it feels like everything was planned on some level rather than it happened by accident. We're probably overreacting to the wonder of The Universe by attributing intelligence to it, but there are weirder things, eh, Horatio?
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Let's be clear - Creationists and ID supporters are the same bunch with different clothes. ID supporters like to claim that they have scientific support for their delusions. |
I'm sorry: I thought evolution, the age of the universe being measured in billions of years, and that quantum theory were all scientifically valid. I guess I had all of that wrong...Please enlighten me as to how you think that the universe works, since it's obviously different than in the science books.[/sarcasm] |
And which of those provide support for ID? | Quote: |
| An ID believer has no problem with science; that's not the issue, unlike a Creationist. The issue is that we see Nature as too perfect to have formed naturally, and that it feels like looking at a garden sometimes. There's just too many examples of Fibonacci numbers in plants, that animal forms are just too regular (how many five-limbed vertebrate animal species do you know off?), and that fractals can be used to determine what geographical features look like. |
Well that is untrue. Most supporters of ID have BIG problems with science, including evolution, geology and genetics. Fibonacci numbers in nature are not suprising and there are numerous explanations for this...here's one. | Quote: |
| Complex biological patterns are often governed by simple mathematical rules. A favourite botanical example is the apparent relationship between phyllotaxis (i.e. the arrangements of leaf homologues such as foliage leaves and floral organs on shoot axes) and the intriguing Fibonacci number sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 . . .). It is frequently alleged that leaf primordia adopt Fibonacci-related patterns in response to a universal geometrical imperative for optimal packing that is supposedly inherent in most animate and inanimate structures. This paper reviews the fundamental properties of number sequences, and discusses the under-appreciated limitations of the Fibonacci sequence for describing phyllotactic patterns. The evidence presented here shows that phyllotactic whorls of leaf homologues are not positioned in Fibonacci patterns. Insofar as developmental transitions in spiral phyllotaxis follow discernible Fibonacci formulae, phyllotactic spirals are therefore interpreted as being arranged in genuine Fibonacci patterns. Nonetheless, a simple modelling exercise argues that the most common spiral phyllotaxes do not exhibit optimal packing. Instead, the consensus starting to emerge from different subdisciplines in the phyllotaxis literature supports the alternative perspective that phyllotactic patterns arise from local inhibitory interactions among the existing primordia already positioned at the shoot apex, as opposed to the imposition of a global imperative of optimal packing. |
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00490.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=boj
| Quote: |
| There is that level where you realize that it's mere superstition, but nonetheless it feels like everything was planned on some level rather than it happened by accident. We're probably overreacting to the wonder of The Universe by attributing intelligence to it, but there are weirder things, eh, Horatio? |
Yes indeed - I could not have put it better. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
Indi: A lot of the scientifically-correct religious generally avoid these kinds of debates, mostly because we've gotten tired of arguing it with our Creationist brethren...
And, now, for the silliness....
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
What does my lack of English skills (which I actually don't lack; I'm just lazy when I type something up that isn't going to be published or turned in for a school assignment) have to do with a scientific or religious debate? What if English isn't my first language? Is everyone who can't speak English non-intelligent? Not everybody speaks English, or speaks English well. Do you want to have a debate in a language that you can't speak well so that I can call you an idiot? It seems like you simply can't bring anything, such as these "facts," to the table so you're merely trying to criticize my grammar. Why don't you learn to debate instead? "Strike One." |
Actually, I was perturbed because you had no other apparent problems. Your grammar was excellent, and you properly capitalized all the other proper nouns. When one of them is not properly capitalized, it's pretty obvious. Had one of your excuses applied, I would like to think that I would have caught it. But...the only one I caught was the lack of proper capitalization re: one term.
| Quote: | | You're arguing like a Creationist, so I assumed you are one. You tend to the Intelligent Design side? Alright, I'll keep that in mind as long as you start to debate intelligently. "Strike Two." |
a) Note my handle.
b) Keep in mind that ID, in general, has nothing to do with Creationism. Even though we (or at least my personal take on it) parallel standard scientific thought, we allow that there had to be some hand in its development. This is not because we don't think that evolution does not happen on its own, but rather because it seems too perfect to have happened completely by itself. This is not to be construed as proof in and off itself, just a different perspective on things.
| Quote: | | This debate isn't about proving God's existence (or lack of existence). This debate is about deciding which belief is more reasonable. |
And, again, there is no way to determine which way is "more reasonable"; each side will continue to define itself as the reasonable one. In essence, looking for the most reasonable side won't happen, as each side considers itself to be the most reasonable one, and if you aren't going to respect that either of the other sides has a possibly more reasonable perspective (as you've shown), then there isn't an actual point, is there?
| Quote: | | I argue on the side of God not existing because I am sick and tired of people trying to argue that God exists when they don't know anything about the other side of the debate. They don't know science, and they misquote science. These people, which unfortunately includes all but very-few Christians, make the whole religion look bad and simply make people annoyed by Christians. Like I said, if someone can't convince me with their argument that God exists, then how will they ever convince an atheist that God exists? It won't happen. This is why I am so critical of people arguing for Creation. |
Actually, I think that if you actually did some digging, you would find a lot of Christian scientists (not the sect!) who are on the cutting edge of science. You're basing more on the people of this forum than those that actually believe in both faith and science. For someone who is tired o |