Darwin's theory

J C

SW wrote: »

All this does is once again highlight the fact that your issue is a faith based one. That it causes you problems with regards to religious belief. I don't envy you that problem. But the solution isn't to try and get religious folk to reject science that doesn't fit with their beliefs.

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore the Atheist belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.

So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

So rather than making fallacious arguments that Atheists have no beliefs and Evolution isn't intimately connected to their worldview ... we should accept that we both have faith-based beliefs that impinge on the 'origins question' ... and get on with examining the evidence for M2M Evolution and its competitor theory of ID.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore their belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.
So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

As I've already pointed out earlier in the thread I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a God existing, and would accept it if evidence came out in the morning proving it. Atheism is meaningless to me, it's simply the most accurate description of my current religious beliefs, and I'd imagine most people feel similarly.

J C

SW wrote: »

No, we've established that you have religious reasons for rejecting evolution.

... and you have 'religious' (i.e no-faith in God) reasons for accepting Evolution and rejecting Creation.
... so that suggests that we both may be biased in our viewpoints ... so let the evidence lead us where it may.

SW wrote: »

Science accepts evolution occurs, and still occurs today, so whatever maths a creationist dreamt up are clearly wrong.

Please show me where it is wrong.

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore the Atheist belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.

I presume you will now back this up with said scientific proof??

yellowlabrador

J C wrote: »

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore their belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.

So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

So rather than making fallacious arguments that Atheists have no beliefs and Evolution isn't intimately connected to their worldview ... we should accept that we both have faith-based beliefs that impinge on the 'origins question' ... and get on with examining the evidence for M2M Evolution and its competitor theory of ID.

You are not really understanding the issue.

You are also moving the problem on. Who created god?

Doctor Jimbob

yellowlabrador wrote: »

You are not really understanding the issue.

You are also moving the problem on. Who created god?

Flash Gordon. Next question!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore their belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.
So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

There has been no evidence discovered to prove that life was created by God. The current working theory is abiogenesis is explanation for the origin of organic life. There would have been noble prizes, and announcements, for such a massive discovery regarding the question of the origin of organic life.

Why not step away from the frequent denial of evolution on threads like this one? Would it not be a better idea to accept your religious choice and leave it at that rather than spreading misinformation/false claims about the veracity of evolution?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As I've already pointed out earlier in the thread I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a God existing, and would accept it if evidence came out in the morning proving it. Atheism is meaningless to me, it's simply the most accurate description of my current religious beliefs, and I'd imagine most people feel similarly.

Atheism would be meaningless if there is objective proof for the existence of God ... and similarly, Christianity would be meaningless if God doesn't exist ... or has had no involvement in the creation of anything.

I would have a serious problem with the concept of God existing, if there is no physical evidence for His existence.
Such a belief would be bordering on the delusional ... and has been (correctly) compared to believing that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and you have 'religious' (i.e no-faith in God) reasons for accepting Evolution and rejecting Creation.

Incorrect. I accept what science says about evolution because I've not seen any evidence provided for alternative explanations.

... so that suggests that we both may be biased in our viewpoints ... so let the evidence lead us where it may.

But you've admitted that you won't take your own advice because you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with evolution.

Please show me where it is wrong.

pick up a biology book. you'll see that evolution is taught as part of the lesson plan. yet you claim that the maths make it impossible for evolution to occur.

J C

SW wrote: »

There has been no evidence discovered to prove that life was created by God. The current working theory is abiogenesis is explanation for the origin of organic life. There would have been noble prizes, and announcements, for such a massive discovery regarding the question of the origin of organic life.

There would be Nobel Prizes, etc., if abiogenesis were to be proven ... but proof that God did it isn't allowed to even be considered a priori by conventional science.
So even when the existence of God has been proven (and it has been proven by ID) this is deemed to be 'outside science' and therefore not worthy of any further consideration.

SW wrote: »

Why not step away from the frequent denial of evolution on threads like this one? Would it not be a better idea to accept your religious choice and leave it at that rather than spreading misinformation/false claims about the veracity of evolution?

Why not provide the evidence for M2M Evolution ... and not something as illogical and implausible as invariably damaging mutagenesis. as the supposed producer of the genetic diversity upon which NS acts.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Atheism would be meaningless if there is objective proof for the existence of God ... and similarly, Christianity would be meaningless if God doesn't exist ... or has had no involvement in the creation of anything.

I would have a serious problem with the concept of God existing, if there is no physical evidence for His existence.
Such a belief would be bordering on the delusional ... and has been (correctly) compared to believing that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

There is currently no physical evidence for the existence of God. But you seem to accept that God exists regardless. Why should you accepting evolution be any different? Millions of theists seem to be able to manage it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There would be Nobel Prizes, etc., if abiogenesis were to be proven ... but proof that God did it isn't allowed to even be considered a priori by conventional science.
So even when the existence of God has been proven (and it has been proven by ID) this is deemed to be 'outside science' and therefore not worthy of any further consideration.

No. They problem is that creationists have been unable to show evidence/proof that God exists. He may very well exist, but as yet no one has managed to prove that He does. It would be international news on the day that someone manages to do so.

Why not provide the evidence for M2M Evolution ... and not something as illogical and implausible as invariably damaging mutagenesis. as the supposed producer of the genetic diversity upon which NS acts.

Scientists already have. It's the very evidence you've rejected due to problems for your religious beliefs.

J C

SW wrote: »

Incorrect. I accept what science says about evolution because I've not seen any evidence provided for alternative explanations.

I have presented such evidence for an alternative explantion. However, be that as it may, your first point is also invalid ... no evidence for an alternative (even if such were the case) isn't evidence for M2M Evolution ... and you need positive unassailable evidence for it, if you are to claim scientific credibility for it.

SW wrote: »

But you've admitted that you won't take your own advice because you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with evolution.

I have no problem letting the evidence lead me where it may ... and currently it is leading me in the direction of ID and away from Spontaneous Evolution ... but I'm prepared to look at where I may be in error.

SW wrote: »

pick up a biology book. you'll see that evolution is taught as part of the lesson plan. yet you claim that the maths make it impossible for evolution to occur.

... and so it does (for M2M Evolution) but I accept the Brown Moth / White Moth (but always a Moth) type of 'evolution'.

J C

SW wrote: »

No. They problem is that creationists have been unable to show evidence/proof that God exists. He may very well exist, but as yet no one has managed to prove that He does. It would be international news on the day that someone manages to do so.

It has been proven by ID ... and it hasn't merited a paragraph on page 3 of any newspaper ... now that says something quite disconcerting in relation to the anti-God bias within our media.

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

It has been proven by ID ... and it hasn't merited a paragraph on page 3 of any newspaper ... now that says something quite disconcerting in relation to the anti-God bias within our media.

ID is just another of those things that creationists go on about which has no basis in reality. So using one fairy story (ID) to prove another fairy story (god / creationism) is ridiculous in the extreme.

Tordelback

How does even ID prove the existence of the Christian God in particular? Even if there was a single piece of evidence in support of ID (and I've never seen one), why would it point to NuJehovah, and not Uranus, Baal or Ymir and his cow emerging from the bloody Ginnungagap? Try to answer the question without using the word 'bible', beacuse you can find all those other fellas in books too nowadays.

floggg

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.

Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind.

You have correctly say that would he impossible.

But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam.

Please tell me how that's possible?

rozeboosje

floggg wrote: »

Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind.

You have correctly say that would he impossible.

But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam.

Please tell me how that's possible?

goddidit!!!! LOL

Squeedily Spooch

JC if you'd never read the bible you wouldn't believe in creationism, it's really that simple. A scientific theory doesn't need a book of fables to be based on. You're putting bad science to fairytales to desperately try make them real and then laughing at people using observable results. It's quite sad really.

Squeedily Spooch

floggg wrote: »

Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind.

You have correctly say that would he impossible.

But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam.

Please tell me how that's possible?

Indeed, the idea that we "spontaneously changed from pond life to man" (nowhere does evolution suggest this but JC doesnt seem to grasp the basics of science so I dunno) is ludicrous but yet us being magicked literally out of thin air isn't? If nothing can come from nothing then where did God come from? Christianity seems to go out of it's way to poke holes in it's own nonsense.

floggg

J C wrote: »

... 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?

I think we found the problem - somebody clearly doesn't know what spontaneously means.

floggg

J C wrote: »

The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore the Atheist belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.

So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

So rather than making fallacious arguments that Atheists have no beliefs and Evolution isn't intimately connected to their worldview ... we should accept that we both have faith-based beliefs that impinge on the 'origins question' ... and get on with examining the evidence for M2M Evolution and its competitor theory of ID.

Please produce the evidence.

Hard, objective, tested and verifiable peer reviewed evidence that an intelligence created life.

Not an opinion, hypothesis, belief etc.

Cold, hard, objective proof.

Dar

floggg wrote: »

I think we found the problem - somebody clearly doesn't know what spontaneously means.

Yes, clearly.

spontaneous
spɒnˈteɪnɪəs
adjective

• performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
  
• having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
  
• (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

Squeedily Spooch

floggg wrote: »

Please produce the evidence.

Hard, objective, tested and verifiable peer reviewed evidence that an intelligence created life.

Not an opinion, hypothesis, belief etc.

Cold, hard, objective proof.

Oh the evidence wouldn't be believer by us non-believers or some such nonsense. JC is on a windup plain and simple. 9 years takes dedication I'll give him that.

rozeboosje

There really is no argument to be had. Given the way life works, how it reproduces with great but not perfect accuracy, how it tends to reproduce exponentially and how it has to live within a limited set of resources, evolution is a mathematical certainty. Arguing against this is not just unnecessary. It's plain stupid.

Thargor

What the fcuk is M2M Evolution? It seems to be some kind of network engineering conference and expo, that is literally the only result on Google.

Delirium

Thargor wrote: »

What the fcuk is M2M Evolution? It seems to be some kind of network engineering conference and expo, that is literally the only result on Google.

It stand for "muck to man". Funnily a term more suited to the creation of Adam.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

... have you anything else nasty you can think up to lie about me?

Yes in your sad little fantasy world, reality becomes a lie. I feel sorry for the few people are forced to endure you in real life.

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

No JC creatardism isn't poisionous to evolution. A sad little fantasy dreamed up by sad little men can do nothing to one of the best evidenced scientific theories there is. I said that you are poison, you lie, you cheat, you quote mine, you misrepresent and you libel others in order that you can get your sad little fantasy about yhwh creating the world four thousand years ago, and all the other fantasy stories written in your "holy" book, which isn't frankly good enough to wipe my arse with. If there were any justice in the world people like you would have been locked up in psychiatric wards long ago and refused contact with the outside world, rather than those they did lock up (because they were ill {like my uncle}, or they were inconvenient for those inheriting land).

J C

Dar wrote: »

Yes, clearly.

spontaneous
spɒnˈteɪnɪəs
adjective

• performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
  
• having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
  
• (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

That would be it allright.

J C

floggg wrote: »

Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind.

You have correctly say that would he impossible.

... so how did Pondkind supposedly evolve into Mankind then?

... or are you saying that this never happened?

floggg wrote: »

But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam.

Please tell me how that's possible?

Dust didn't spontaneously convert into Adam ... God did it.