D
DCE
You did until you changed your opinion.
Oh, that makes it all so very clear now then.
Never ever said the earth is 6000 years old my friend, as I have never believed that Massey
Upvote
0
Are you a Christian?
- Thread starter Kett
- Start date
Never ever said the earth is 6000 years old my friend, as I have never believed that Massey
Yes.
It was hammered into us at my CofE school. And the contradictions, inaccuracies and sheer idiocy of the thing is one reason I never took up religion.
And since you've read these scientific books, can you explain to me about the tree of life? Did god make it that way to fool us? Or is there some other motive?
Can you explain where all the water came from for the flood and then where it went to?
Can you explain why the fossil record is so perfectly stratified, exactly as you would expect it to be if species evolved over a long period of time and their remains were laid down over the ages?
Do you believe in evolution at ALL? Meaning, do you believe it's possible for one species to evolve into another ("species" being defined as "two taxonomic groups whose members cannot interbreed)?
Do you consider yourself to be open-minded?
Have you reached your conclusions about your beliefs through logical and rational analysis of the evidence, or have you accepted it as an emotional leap of faith?
These will do for starters. And please -- no biblical quotes. You may as well quote Roald Dahl.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
OWG, that's a good question. But the answer isn't automatically "because the bible is true".
You'll find examples of people dying for their beliefs all over the place, from Moslem suicide bombers to the people who died in Jonestown.
Since even just THOSE two groups have wildly different and contradictory beliefs, it proves dying for your beliefs is not evidence for those beliefs being correct.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
Like the "god of the gaps". If you have two facts and find a third to fill a gap, the Fundies now have two NEW gaps to slip their god into.
Only trouble is, the gaps are getting smaller and smaller, and the Fundies ever more desperate -- that's why they appeal to emotion rather than logic when they find themselves in a logical corner: "why do you hate God?"; "why can't you just leave us alone to believe what we want?; "how can you be moral without God?"
Of course, that doesn't apply the other way round: it's perfectly OK for them to knock on people's doors and try to brainwash them with their illogical and irrational spew.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
That doesn't mean that there is no change or evolution. So there's no explanation needed for something that is a model that some scientists believe is flawed.
Upvote
0
Err, that doesn't follow, because you are presupposing those doubting scientists are correct.
And please, stop quote-mining. If you read the rest of it, you'll see this:
"But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket"
Overlay the "thickets" represented by DNA, morphology, phylogeny, yadda yadda yadda, and you get the same thing: almost perfect correspondence, exactly as you'd expect if it had come about by natural selection and descent-with-modification.
The thicket thing comes from the propensity of lower organisms to exchange DNA other than by sexual reproduction. It in no way invalidates the theory of evolution.
What you're talking about is a model being too simple. Big deal. So we create a better one that better fits the FACTS. Just like Einstein did with Newton's Laws of Motion. His doing that didn't invalidate the FACTS of motion -- just the detail of the model we use to represent them (clue: Newton's Laws are still fine until you get up to relativistic velocities, then the non-linearity becomes significant).
This might educate you: Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
There are some facts you can explain.
I can't wait.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
How do you know what is symbolic and what is literal then? Why are you saying that Adam and Eve, or Noah Arc is symbolic? Maybe the whole "God" idea is symbolic also? Either you believe everything is true, or you don't.
Why are radical muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up? Because they're believe that they will go to muslim heaven with 21 (or so, can't remember) virgins waiting on them.
Conclusion - if they blow up themselves for this it must be true. There are 21 virgins waiting for them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's called "moving the goalposts".
They BELIEVE this stuff, so they'll change the facts and their interpretation so they fit that belief. You ought to hear Kent Hovind "explaining" fossil-stratification in terms of the flood and fast & slow animals.
Ingenious.
But doesn't explain why ancient birds and flying reptiles died BEFORE more modern quadruped mammals.
It's all just fairy-tales for credulous adults. I, personally, think grown-ups with invisible friends are either stupid or mentally ill.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
D
DCE
We know that many researchers approach the study of biology, genetics, and related fields from the standpoint of the theory of evolution.
Often, this view has led them to false conclusions.
For example, early Darwinists classified certain organs, such as the appendix, the pituitary gland, and the tonsils, as vestigial.
They considered them to be evolutionary leftovers because these organs seemed no longer to have any function.
In time, however, the important role of these organs came to light.
Evolutionists, therefore, had to discard their earlier views.
A similar development recently occurred in the field of genetics.
Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function.
Hence, many who were influenced by the theory of evolution assumed that this DNA was evolutionary junka view that quickly became orthodox.
Once again, however, an assumption rooted in Darwinism proved to be false.
Recently, scientists have discovered that junk DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life.
John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the junk DNA theory is a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century. This failure, he adds, may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.
Is it not much wiser to view DNA as having an intelligent Designer?
People with such a viewpoint realize that in time the reasons for puzzling aspects of Gods handiwork usually come to light.
And instead of disillusioning them, such findings fill them with even greater awe.
Upvote
0
I said no explanation of the tree of life (with species flowing down branches) is needed and all you have done is to confirm what I said.
What facts can I not explain..........you seem to know everything about me........probably more than I do about myself.....amazing.
Don't bore me with Dawkins......your clip is about Young Earth Creationists...........go have a debate with them.
You have an opinion about yourself........"This might educate you". If I want educated I'll hardly listen to some clips about a guy who rarely talks about facts but generally uses claptrap.
What is your definition of Evolution and tell me why I should be worried about it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, it's not. This is just an emotional appeal not a logical one.
As you suggest, science is self-correcting.
And that's exactly how it's meant to be. That's why we have peer-review, so mistakes and even deliberate falsifications can be caught and corrected. That's the whole idea behind having independently verifiable objective evidence anyone can test, and experiments anyone can repeat.
Nothing you have up there falsifies the theory of evolution; and since the idea of an intelligent designer is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, it's unscientific.
Why won't you answer my direct questions?
- Can you explain where all the water came from for the flood and then where it went to?
- Can you explain why the fossil record is so perfectly stratified, exactly as you would expect it to be if species evolved over a long period of time and their remains were laid down over the ages?
- Do you believe in evolution at ALL? Meaning, do you believe it's possible for one species to evolve into another? ("species" being defined as "two taxonomic groups whose members cannot interbreed. If you're going to use the biblical term "kinds", please define it unambiguously)
- Do you consider yourself to be open-minded?
- Have you reached your conclusions about your beliefs through logical and rational analysis of the evidence, or have you accepted it as an emotional leap of faith?
- What evidence would you accept to demonstrate the bible is wrong?
Jon
Upvote
0
Dude, I am not going to waste my time with you. I don't care what you believe.
Facts are facts -- and the theory of evolution explains them better than anything else we have at the moment.
And you seemingly cannot -- or will not -- explain what I have posted before about DNA, morphology, phyogeny, etc.
You don't have to. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't explain those facts in terms of your own hypothesis.
If you have something better, then I'd love to hear it.
You seem to be exactly the kind of person Dawkins is on about -- fingers in the ears and claims he's "boring".
Until you DO start explaining those facts, I'll not waste any more time with you.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
We've been here before. This is going nowhere.
Yes.........there's no point debating Evolution as it doesn't overlap creation. The "debate" is always with "Young Earth creationists".
Dawkins spouts about Evolution as if it somehow is an ace card.......it isn't.
We are just one level above Chimpanzees and to think that we will ever comprehend everything or even a significant proportion is elevating us above the level of the limitations of our ability.
Upvote
0
Ok ditto. You don't know what I believe nor do you care. You seem to believe certain false things about me and want to build silly strawmen arguments about me with no evidence. "You seem to be exactly the kind of person Dawkins is on about -- fingers in the ears and claims he's "boring"."
Yes Dawkins is boring.....I've listened to the guy many times and read his books and yes he bores me. I don't need to claim anything......."boring" is a personal thing and he bores me.....is that ok?
Carry on with your crusade to enlighten everyone. However you won't even define what you mean about evolution........it makes it difficult to follow but that's your choice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
B
bdw
With respect, it is very much an ace card. Until we knew about evolution people were taught to believe in what was written in the bible without questioning it. Evolution proved much of this to be wrong.
All but the most blind fundamentalists had to amend their interpretation of the bible. Anything that had been disproven then became symbolic. It's quite sad to watch otherwise intelligent people trying to defend this against the ace card that is evolution.
.
Upvote
0
There's no point in telling them this. It's an old creationist tactic -- they can't explain the facts or overturn the theory of evolution with rational discussion and reasoned argument, so they throw around the red-herrings, emotional pleas and, often, the ad-hominem attacks.
The question is simple: where is the creationists' objective and independently verifiable evidence that there is (any) god.
Simple.
But they never, ever produce any.
Science is doing a great job of telling us how we got here, why we are like we are, and what the mechanisms involved are.
Anyone is free to come up with an alternative hypothesis but unless they can show supporting evidence, then they don't really deserve to be taken seriously.
Warmly,
Jon
P.S. Just for the record: here's a good definition of evolution.
Upvote
0
Good old George.
Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis. Creationists are at liberty to falsify it. But they don't because they can't.
Creationism, on the other hand, is an unfalsifiable hypothesis -- and not only do they not provide evidence to support it, but they expect others to perform a logical impossibility and disprove it.
Some do this out of ignorance; others through deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
And when they get called on their B.S. they tend to get emotional and aggressive.
Warmly,
Jon
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course, then they start saying Carlin et al. is being "disrespectful" of their religion, as if sticking that label on it somehow gives beliefs some kind of special dispensation or free pass.
All ideas are not created equal, and some are so silly as not to stand up to a moment's real scrutiny.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
Evolution and creation are two separate things so I'm not sure what your logic is except to beat your drum. Maybe you are talking about Young Earth Creationists.........maybe you should specify who you mean instead of grouping all creationists together.
What's outside of the observable universe.........I'd struggle to come up with a theory that can be proven or falsified.
Without implying right or wrong........how would you prove something that is outside of our ability to detect or to measure it (or the results of it). We (and science) gather information that is observable (by us). Anything that is outside of our limited ability to detect is by definition unprovable. Science shows how limited and how humble we are.....it cannot lead us outside of our own limitations. All things are not measurable. Science cannot tell me what "colour" infra-red is. Science struggles with things that are one-off events.......it needs to be able to replicate these. I guess that creation was a one-off and therefore we cannot recreate it so I don't know how you would scientifically prove creation.
Chimpanzees don't know about the works of Shakespeare and somehow I doubt they ever will. In the same way I don't know how anyone can feel that science will do anything other than to uncover a minute amount of the "secrets" of the universe. Science only tries to make sense of what we can observe or sense or maybe even dream about. Outside of that will be a mystery.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There's no reason why we (science) should be able to understand everything that I can think of - but that doesn't mean that it's right to make up stories about things that we have no knowledge or evidence for.
The most likely reason that things can't be detected or measured - by which I assume you mean God - is that they don't exist. Or if they do exist they can't affect us. Either way God's out of our equation.
(btw, there's no logical reason to assume that what we call creation was a one off - one possible scenario is that the last big bang was just the latest of a series of contractions and expansions of the universe.)
The most likely reason that things can't be detected or measured - by which I assume you mean God - is that they don't exist. Or if they do exist they can't affect us. Either way God's out of our equation.
(btw, there's no logical reason to assume that what we call creation was a one off - one possible scenario is that the last big bang was just the latest of a series of contractions and expansions of the universe.)
Upvote
0
You're dead right.
So what reason do you have for believing anything in particular?
What makes the Christian god the "right" one, rather than the Hindu gods, the Norse gods, or big JuJu up the mountain?
Nothing. It's just an arbitrary belief. They all are.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
That may or may not be the case. What I was indicating is that we cannot scientifically test it, as on the scale that we are talking about, it is not something that we are going to recreate easily to prove how it occurred. We could debate forever about the starting conditions (lack of matter, energy, "time", space etc.) and we probably wouldn't even agree this let alone agree how you could prove or disprove it.
So the question about proving creation is not a scientific question - we cannot prove nor falsify something that is outside of our ability to observe and repeat.
Upvote
0
But evolution is a fact, backed up by 150 years of evidence.
HOW it happened is the theory.
What we're talking about here is different -- the origins of the universe.
Warmly,
Jon
Upvote
0
I think Hawking would disagree, but that's beside the point.
Not yet knowing the ins and outs of how the universe began is no evidence for anything other than our own ignorance and no excuse to make up childish stories about deities that take a personal interest in - as Sam Harris says - what we do whilst naked (and what brands of smoke and bells we use to 'worship' him with).
Upvote
0
Ok so you agree it's a theory and as such is unprovable. We cannot recreate creation and so it cannot be observed, measured or proven. I think that was you original question........prove creation or am I misquoting?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I didn't make up the stories. If you want to debate evidence then read the Case for Christ and then we'll debate it; making emotive statements about childish belief is silly. But then you feel that it's a mental disease and there is not much point proceeding. It takes far too much time to look at the evidence; to wrap it all up in one statement like "childish stories" is a bit pompous.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated: