Darwin's theory

Overheal

J C wrote: »

When your worldview has been proven to be invalid in one short post ... I guess that is one possible reaction.:)

I proved your worldview invalid! In one post. You heard it here folks.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Poisonous for humanity is probably a bit far all right. Poisonous to scientific advancement on the other hand would be a reasonable claim. Any time spent refuting erroneous claims is wasted when it could be spent on increasing our knowledge.

When the claims are 'stacking up' with the observable evidence ... they should be evaluated.
That is often how new insights in science are found ... by examining 'inconvenient truths'.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not saying creation should be outlawed or anything of the sort though, it should be simply kept to where it belongs - a church, or a religion classroom. Trying to force it into science curricula is objectionably for exactly the same reasons as a scientist butting into a church sermon and saying 'well actually it didn't happen this way' are. It's not the right place.

Apologies for typos or inane rambling - alcohol has been consumed.

No need for apologies ... you're not rambling ... you're quite insightful, in fact.

I have no wish to 'force' anything anywhere ... ironically, I find that because most young people have never heard of Creation Science (and they have only ever heard of the unquestioned story of Evolution) they react with 'gob-smacked' amazement when the serious logical and evidential deficiencies of M2M Evolution are first pointed out to them.:)

You'd never get this reaction, if Creation Science was badly taught in school by teachers who largely don't understand it and have no commitment to it (quite the reverse in fact).:)

For this and other reasons, Creation Scientists generally don't want Creation Science taught in schools.

ID proponents want ID taught in school ... but I think they are a bit 'premature' on this.

J C

SW wrote: »

So you're citing a number that you believe is wrong?

I believe the estimate of elementary particles to be correct and Planks Time, as the shortest meaningful interval of time, is also correct.

J C

Overheal wrote: »

I proved your worldview invalid! In one post. You heard it here folks.

It can happen ... and it's just happened.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It might be my lack of physics knowledge, but I just don't understand how these numbers put any constraint on any evolutionary claims.

These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

The ID proponents, who have discovered this, are mostly Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists ... so, unlike me, they believe in the Big Bang, billions of years, etc.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

When the claims are 'stacking up' with the observable evidence ... they should be evaluated.
That is often how new insights in science are found ... by examining 'inconvenient truths'.

That's the thing though, they aren't really stacking up. Creationists have just been repeating the same thing in a slightly different package for the past few decades.

No need for apologies ... you're not rambling ... you're quite insightful, in fact.

I have no wish to 'force' anything anywhere ... ironically, I find that because most young people have never heard of Creation Science (and they have only ever heard of the unquestioned story of Evolution) they react with 'gob-smacked' amazement when the serious logical and evidential deficiencies of M2M Evolution are first pointed out to them.:)

Then why do you want to see creationism taught in the science classroom? Do you also want to see evolution taught in churches? Both have their place. They're just separate places :pac:

You'd never get this reaction, if Creation Science was badly taught in school by teachers who largely don't understand it and have no commitment to it (quite the reverse in fact).:)

For this and other reasons, Creation Scientists generally don't want Creation Science taught in schools.

ID proponents want ID taught in school ... but I think they are a bit 'premature' on this.

I'm confused. I thought the aim was for creationism to 'overthrow' evolutionary theory?

J C wrote: »

These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

I feel like you're repeating words here without really understanding the meaning. The entire style just seems different from the rest of your posts. Even if I'm wrong on that though, I'm assuming these numbers assume entirely random processes. Which evolution is definitely not.

The ID proponents, who have discovered this, are mostly Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists ... so, unlike me, they believe in the Big Bang, billions of years, etc.

I have a lot more time for the old earth creationist viewpoint to be honest. I don't believe it myself, but I can understand how someone could come to such a conclusion. Young earth creationism genuinely baffles me though. That's partly why I try to discuss these things.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

You're right to be skeptical ... that was my initial reaction also.

... but try as I might, I couldn't find any mathematical, factual or logical flaw in it.

Did you carry the 1? your piss poor understanding of basic science might have transfered to math too.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I believe the estimate of elementary particles to be correct and Planks Time, as the shortest meaningful interval of time, is also correct.

You're essentially cherry-picking scientific information to suit your belief in creationism. they are part of the understanding of reality that encompasses the Big Bang and evolution.

Wibbs

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I have a lot more time for the old earth creationist viewpoint to be honest. I don't believe it myself, but I can understand how someone could come to such a conclusion. Young earth creationism genuinely baffles me though.

Same here. The whole ark and the flood stuff is so much more fantastical and so infinitely more unlikely than natural processes we can see every day. Some myth from one ancient middle eastern culture borrowed by another then taken into classical Europe and later back to the middle east is more valid than the thousands of years of observation since? Makes zero sense to me that anyone would hold it as valid. May as well pick the creation myths of native Australians or anyone else for that matter.

yellowlabrador

I think that creationist have childlike belief in a personal god. They also like the feeling of martyrdom and being part of a selected few. They are manipulated by and are a source of wealth to their leaders. They really see god as an all seeing all knowing father and the bible as their only guide. Asking them to face the real world is like taking a soother off a 2 year old

SaveOurLyric

yellowlabrador wrote: »

I think that creationist have childlike belief in a personal god. They also like the feeling of martyrdom and being part of a selected few. They are manipulated by and are a source of wealth to their leaders. They really see god as an all seeing all knowing father and the bible as their only guide. Asking them to face the real world is like taking a soother off a 2 year old

But they are not children nor 2 year olds, but functioning adults of normal IQ and education.
Do they not have the same capability to draw conclusions as those who arrive at Darwinist/scientific answers ? And if so, is their conclusion not equally valid, rather than dismissed as one akin to that of a child or simpleton simply because the answer they reach is unacceptable to the Darwinist/scientific side.

PopePalpatine

The thing is, it's rare that creationists have access to all of the facts of biology when they're growing up. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of creationists were raised in very religious households, and have been (for want of a better word) brainwashed into believing creationism.

smcgiff

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

is their conclusion not equally valid

By asking this question you're not doing any favours to your IQ assertion.

namloc1980

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But they are not children nor 2 year olds, but functioning adults of normal IQ and education.
Do they not have the same capability to draw conclusions as those who arrive at Darwinist/scientific answers ? And if so, is their conclusion not equally valid, rather than dismissed as one akin to that of a child or simpleton simply because the answer they reach is unacceptable to the Darwinist/scientific side.

No it is not valid. Their conclusions are drawn on the back of a book of Middle East myths and legends whereas scientific conclusions are based on observable evidence, repeatable experiments and facts.

rozeboosje

Everybody is perfectly entitled to draw whatever conclusions they like based on ignoring reality, arguing from ignorance, taking dogmatic positions and so on. They are also perfectly entitled to express their opinions.

But nobody is obliged to listen, and nobody is obliged to take nonsense seriously.

There are two reasons why a conclusion can be dismissed. Either the logic that led from the premises to the conclusion is flawed, or the premises are not acceptable. In the best case scenario I have seen Creationists present flawless logic based on laughable premises. Their conclusion is indisputable within the context of those premises, but the premises themselves are ludicrous.

SaveOurLyric

namloc1980 wrote: »

No it is not valid. Their conclusions are drawn on the back of a book of Middle East myths and legends whereas scientific conclusions are based on observable evidence, repeatable experiments and facts.

Yes. But if equally intelligent and educated people are concluding that a book of middle east myths and legends is a basis for conclusions, does that alone not give them some credibility ?
Or, are those with myth centric views, people whose minds have been damaged, are incapable of rational thought or reason on the topic, and therefore it is awaste of time engaging with any debate at all with them. Reason trying to debate with a lack of reason is simply impossible.

yellowlabrador

Many, many years ago, I was exposed to the works of Teilhard de Chardin as an undergraduate at a jesuit university. I was already an atheist and we had many conversations about evolution and the position of the church .
No believer has absolute faith. There will always be doubt regardless of the wish to be 100 % sure. Young earth creationists can not admit that.

kingchess

the point I have repeated a few times already is that -no scientist or rational person would look at the facts and come up with the theory of creation if the bible did not exist.can you imagine some scientist saying that the earth must be around 10,000 years based on carbon dating rocks, dinosaur fossils etc. when the science tells him otherwise?? it is people who read and have a very strong belief in a 2000+ year old book that are trying to makes the facts fit the book..

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes. But if equally intelligent and educated people are concluding that a book of middle east myths and legends is a basis for conclusions, does that alone not give them some credibility ?
Or, are those with myth centric views, people whose minds have been damaged, are incapable of rational thought or reason on the topic, and therefore it is awaste of time engaging with any debate at all with them. Reason trying to debate with a lack of reason is simply impossible.

When one side is using the idea that god (or sometimes the devil) has planted evidence to make it seem like evolution is real, as an argument against evolution, then there is literately no amount of evidence that you can present to sway them, because there is no limit to the amount that can be dismissed with that rationalisation. (I mean creationists in general, I don't think it has happened in this thread; but then we haven't really been looking for the creationists here to explain why evolution has predictive power if it isn't real)

rozeboosje

Interestingly, though:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-young-earth-theory-is-almost-blasphemous-argues-bible-should-not-be-used-as-science-book-128136/

J C

kingchess wrote: »

the point I have repeated a few times already is that -no scientist or rational person would look at the facts and come up with the theory of creation if the bible did not exist.

Of course they could ... living creatures exhibit such gargantuan levels of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) that only creation by an equally gargantuan intelligence can explain it's existence.
... although some evolutionists may believe that Human could create Humans ...
I know its logically impossible for something to create itself ... but there you go ... that's what Evolutionists believe:):-

Anyway guys ... where is the logical, factual or mathematical problem with the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) ... or the calculations that prove that even moderately sized biomolecules have CFSI levels beyond the UPB ... to say nothing about a living organism.

J C

rozeboosje wrote: »

Interestingly, though:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-young-earth-theory-is-almost-blasphemous-argues-bible-should-not-be-used-as-science-book-128136/

My comments in blue below

Quote:-
Brother Guy Consolmagno, astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory, has said that he finds Young Earth Creation theories that run contrary to science "almost blasphemous" in nature. He also argued that the Bible should not be used as a science book.
Nobody is using the Bible as a science book ... it's far more important and accurate than that. This is a bit of a strawman that Evolutionists and their 'fellow travellers' deploy against Creationists.

It's almost blasphemous theology," Consolmagno told Fairfax Media during a visit to Australia on Wednesday.
If it's 'blasphemous' to say that God Created Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible ... then it's about time that Roman Catholics stopped using such 'blasphemes' in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

"It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is," he said.'The tradition of Catholicism' encompasses a long list of stuff that would be best consigned to History ... like the Crusades, the Inquisition and a list of more shameful things, than I could shake a stick at.

Consolmagno argued that literal interpretations of the Bible could suggest that the Earth is of a young age, but scientific evidence to the contrary has shown that such a belief is "bad theology."
I see, if a plain reading of the bible conflict with what atheistic science believes ... then the Bible is wrong and 'bad theology' ... while the atheistic interpretation that we are glorified Pondkind with a spontaneously produced big brain is somehow 'good theology' ... even though these guys don't believe in God and, by extension, theology.
Accepting that God is now confined to lighting the fuse for the Big Bang is a 'God of the Gaps' belief taken to its logical extinction. Such a Deist God would neither want nor deserve our worship.

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

Of course they could ... living creatures exhibit such gargantuan levels of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) that only creation by an equally gargantuan intelligence can explain it's existence.
... although some evolutionists may believe that Human could create Humans ...
I know its logically impossible for something to create itself ... but there you go ... that's what Evolutionists believe:):-

Eh, humans do create humans. You never learned the birds and the bees in school then? As for this CFSI you go on about. Google searches reveal this thread as the second result. Mmmmmm.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Eh, humans do create humans. You never learned the birds and the bees in school then? As for this CFSI you go on about. Google searches reveal this thread as the second result. Mmmmmm.

I expect another top result will be the thread on Atheism and Agnosticism.

J C

namloc1980 wrote: »

Eh, humans do create humans. You never learned the birds and the bees in school then? As for this CFSI you go on about. Google searches reveal this thread as the second result. Mmmmmm.

They reproduce after their Kind in accordance with the plan of their Creator ... but they are unable to create any life ex Nihilo. For that you need God.

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

I expect another top result will be the thread on Atheism and Agnosticism.

... and the Christianity Thread ... all at the 'cutting edge' of Origins Science.:cool:

al22

Recently watch a science program
Dinasauruses existed about 180 million years on this planed/ Then disappeared.
People or human exist about 40-50 thousand years only or so.
People/humans now actually already destroy themselves and people at present are not so smart then they were 100 years ago. Our ancestors were smarter 50+ years ago/

50+ years ago people were able to do calculations using their own brain.
A lot of people now can not do that without computer. :-)

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

My comments in blue below

Quote:-
Brother Guy Consolmagno, astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory, has said that he finds Young Earth Creation theories that run contrary to science "almost blasphemous" in nature. He also argued that the Bible should not be used as a science book.
Nobody is using the Bible as a science book ... it's far more important and accurate than that. This is a bit of a strawman that Evolutionists and their 'fellow travellers' deploy against Creationists.

It's almost blasphemous theology," Consolmagno told Fairfax Media during a visit to Australia on Wednesday.
If it's 'blasphemous' to say that God Created Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible ... then it's about time that Roman Catholics stopped using such 'blasphemes' in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

"It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is," he said.'The tradition of Catholicism' encompasses a long list of stuff that would be best consigned to History ... like the Crusades, the Inquisition and a list of more shameful things, than I could shake a stick at.

Consolmagno argued that literal interpretations of the Bible could suggest that the Earth is of a young age, but scientific evidence to the contrary has shown that such a belief is "bad theology."
I see, if a plain reading of the bible conflict with what atheistic science believes ... then the Bible is wrong and 'bad theology' ... while the atheistic interpretation that we are glorified Pondkind with a spontaneously produced big brain is somehow 'good theology' ... even though these guys don't believe in God and, by extension, theology.
Accepting that God is now confined to lighting the fuse for the Big Bang is a 'God of the Gaps' belief taken to its logical extinction. Such a Deist God would neither want nor deserve our worship.

Who has ever said anything about a spontaneously produced big brain? Do you actually have any comprehension about what you are arguing against? No wonder you have this delusional idea that you have 'beaten' the evolutionists, you are arguing against something that none of them are actually saying.

MrP

Doctor Jimbob

You keep talking about evolution and atheism as if they are the same thing. The aren't. People of most, if not all faiths accept evolution.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Who has ever said anything about a spontaneously produced big brain? Do you actually have any comprehension about what you are arguing against? No wonder you have this delusional idea that you have 'beaten' the evolutionists, you are arguing against something that none of them are actually saying.

MrP

... if our brains weren't spontaneously produced by materialistic process acting over time and using selected mistakes ... are you saying that our brains were Directly Created then?