Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Scofflaw said:
I noticed on another thread that your atheism allows you to believe in a spirit world - a domain where dead people exist and can communicate with the living.Lastly, because it's so much fun when you're not doing it. Also, they offer regular confirmation of my atheism.
Please explain how evolution has given rise to spirits. JC has profitably pointed out the staggering odds against the physical world arising from evolution - now you want us to believe spirits also evolved from inanimate origins!
0 -
J C wrote:Wicknight
It isn't hundreds of harmful mutations to every beneficial one, its TENS OF THOUSANDS of harmful ones ………………………………………… to every beneficial one
You are of course correct, I just didn’t wish to be accused of over-stating the case AGAINST Evolution!!:eek:
Actually both Wicknight and you (with your selective quoting) are portraying this incorrectly.
While there may indeed be tens of thousands, if not millions of mutations that manifest as harmful phsyiology for an organism, their contribution to the species ends there. The are non-viable and do not survive to pro-create.
Every mutation that confers a survival benefit to an organism is passed on to their progeny. Which means that every single healthy organism on this planet is the result of what you are terming "a beneficial mutation"
That puts puts the beneficial mutations at around a log order of a million over the so-called "harmful mutations".
If you really don't mean to measure end-points (which is what you're doing with your own argument above, we'll asume you don't fully understand the argument we're making and go back to looking at cumulative mutations) then you must consider any harmful/beneficial change as a cumulation of changes, then you must consider the evolution of any animals as a sequence of logic boxes demonstrating the change and whether there is a physiological effect. The actual probability of something being harmful is far lower than it not, but even still, the harm will almost certainly be in the context of the rest of the organism so a mutation at a single point may be harmful in some cases and not in others, depending on other genes.
The take home message of all this is that if "harmful" mutations (your term) were as prevalent as you are suggesting, there would be no life on this planet. Biology is far more complex than your understanding here shows (most peoples for that matter).0 -
-
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
I noticed on another thread that your atheism allows you to believe in a spirit world - a domain where dead people exist and can communicate with the living.
Please explain how evolution has given rise to spirits. JC has profitably pointed out the staggering odds against the physical world arising from evolution - now you want us to believe spirits also evolved from inanimate origins!
Ah. I think you're confusing me with someone who thinks that science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge - presumably that creature of the night, the "materialistic evolutionist".
I argue specifically against Creationism because your "factual" claims are simply and clearly in contradiction of what science has found, in areas that it has examined, according to a rigorous methodology. Against this creationism simply churns out rubbish that it simply labels "scientific", but which are actually coffee-table rhetoric sprinkled with quasi-scientific teminology. Claims such as the Flood are in no way believable to a trained geologist - they are simplistic fairy stories. Claims that all dating systems must be wrong because you have to be right - more rubbish, pseudo-backed with pseudoscience. JC's ludicrous attempts to "disprove" evolution with back-of-an-envelope calculations which clearly demonstrate a pathetic inability to understand the questions he thinks he has mastered. Absolutely nothing of what has been claimed as true, by creationists, on this forum, has had an ounce of science in it. You're a pollution in the intellectual life of the world, frankly.
All of which has nothing to do with what I do, or do not, believe. You might also have observed that I don't generally call myself an atheist (I am sometimes one, but it's a faith-based position, and all of us doubt) - because I don't think the divine is provable or disprovable by any means currently at our disposal, and that it takes a very human sort of arrogance to believe that it is. I'm an alatrist - I don't deny the possible existence of divinity, or the supernatural, or anything else we lack the power to examine, but I have yet to see anything that it's necessary to bow down to. I am also perfectly happy to take up any atheist who is so foolish as to claim that science supports his position rather than any other, or that his position is based on anything other than faith.
I don't even deny the possible existence of your God - my reasons for not worshipping him are religious, not scientific. There's certainly no reason for me to require some sort of evolutionary process to account for the supernatural, as if terrestrial evolution were the only process by which life has changed, and solid terrestrial life the only form of life possible. We're about, what, 200 years into science and we know everything? I think not.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
I can recommend this book:
"Fooled by Randomness"
An Evolutionist recommending a book entitled “Fooled by Randomness” !!
The irony of it all, would make a cat laugh!!!!:D
Indeed, recommending it to you is quite ironic.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Frankly, (Hell is) a mildly less uncomfortable concept than the idea of nothingness.
Well, try thinking about Heaven and being saved then!!!!:D
You may have misunderstood my comment.J C wrote:Scofflaw
but presenting the evidence for and against evolution is perfectly reasonable, was certainly done in my science classes 30 years ago, and does not imply Creationism. Your point is once again either stupid or mendacious.
ANY criticism of Evolution is branded as ‘crypto-Creationism’ by Evolutionists – and ALL evidence against Evolution is banned BY LAW in most US Public Schools.
I have no strong views on what should be taught in schools myself, but I think that children should hear both sides of every debate.
Whether they hear it inside school or outside of school is entirely a matter for the school authorities and their parents, as far as I am concerned.
I share your view that presenting the evidence against Evolution is a good idea.
If you TRULY believe what you are saying, I look forward to the day when conventionally qualified Creation Scientists or ID proponents are invited along their local school to ‘assist’ in the delivery of this particular 'module' of the curriculum.
Creation Scientists and ID proponents are, after all, the EXPERTS on the scientific evidence against Evolution!!!
No, I was thinking of scientific evidence. "Creation Scientists" (not conventionally qualified) have no place in a science class except as a form of living fossil, whose understanding of science broke about 150 years ago - but in that case why not go the whole hog and invite someone from the Andaman Islands? A conventionally qualified one might be useful as a salutary demonstration of the power of wilful ignorance and the attractiveness of pseudoscience, but would otherwise be irrelevant - and again, why not have a Scientologist?
By the way, have you heard of the "Anthropic Principle"? Perhaps you can tell me how it would apply to your calculations?
Scofflaw0 -
-
Oh, yes, and here's quite a good article from Esquire magazine last year, on Ken Ham and his "museum".
http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html
Seriously, it's worth a read -- I wasn't aware that Ham had put saddles on dinosaurs, and cut Adam's penis off, presumably to preserve the "family values" of Idiot America
0 -
Scofflaw
You might also have observed that I don't generally call myself an atheist (I am sometimes one, but it's a faith-based position, and all of us doubt)
I have heard of a ‘Sunday Christian’ - and now we have an ‘Part-time Atheist’ or a ‘Doubting Atheist’.
Does this mean that you have doubts about your doubt about the existence of God ??!!!!:D
I must praise your intellectual honesty in admitting that Atheistic Humanism is a ‘faith based position’.
Atheism’s faith position also comes with considerable ‘downside’ if it is wrong.
The WORST that can happen a Christian when he/she dies is that they ‘cease to exist’.
The Atheist, on the other hand could find himself / herself facing God’s justice without any remission of his/her sins!!!! :eek:
Of course, a ‘Doubting Part-time Atheist’ like yourself, COULD always become a Christian thereby securing your eternal destiny PERMANENTLY………..!!!
…………….say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” ………….????
Scofflaw
I am also perfectly happy to take up any atheist who is so foolish as to claim that science supports his position rather than any other, or that his position is based on anything other than faith.
I don't even deny the possible existence of your God - my reasons for not worshipping him are religious, not scientific.
All very logical, but it still comes with the considerable ‘downside’ of not being saved!!!.
Christianity is a ‘win win’ faith.
You get to live a happy, fulfilled life here on Earth, in communion with the God that Created you
– and you also get to spend an eternity with Him in Heaven when you die!!!:cool: :cool:
Scofflaw
There's certainly no reason for me to require some sort of evolutionary process to account for the supernatural, as if terrestrial evolution were the only process by which life has changed, and solid terrestrial life the only form of life possible. We're about, what, 200 years into science and we know everything? I think not.
Fair enough.
However, you do realise that such rational and circumscribed sentiments, ALSO apply to every theory of Biological Macro-Evolution as well !!!!!:)
Wicknight
Organic matter can form out of inorganic matter.
Look Wicknight, we have been over this numerous times before.
The great Louis Pasteur scientifically PROVED that life can only arise from other life and DISPROVED the widespread belief, at the time, that maggots and ‘lower’ life-forms spontaneously generated out of dirt.
This FACT has such high certainty and importance, that it has been accorded the status of a full Law of Biology.
So Wicknight:-
1. Organic matter CANNOT form out of inorganic matter.
2. A living organism is ALWAYS required to perform the task of assimilating dead material into living tissue – it’s the point where biogenesis meets biosynthesis!!!!!
:cool:
psi
While there may indeed be tens of thousands, if not millions of mutations that manifest as harmful phsyiology for an organism, their contribution to the species ends there. The are non-viable and do not survive to pro-create.
Every mutation that confers a survival benefit to an organism is passed on to their progeny. Which means that every single healthy organism on this planet is the result of what you are terming "a beneficial mutation"
But many ‘harmful’ mutations DON’T affect fertility or fecundity and ARE therefore passed on and so they DO survive within populations.
Natural Selection ISN’T a clinical system that precisely assesses ‘fitness’ – it is a pretty ‘hit and miss’ affair – and a lack of ‘fitness’ for one particular trait can easily be overcome by the presence of ‘fitness’ for another trait or indeed it can be completely over-ridden by strong sexual selection for another trait.
Equally, some ‘beneficial mutations’ may also never be passed on to progeny – lack of fecundity, genetic masking or sexual aversion to the trait bearer can result in ‘beneficial’ traits never being expressed in populations.
Each individual comes as a ‘package’ of good, bad and indifferent traits. The idea that NS magically ensures that only the ‘perfect’ go on to reproduce, is another myth that Evolutionists continue to confuse themselves with!!!!:eek:
The reason that we have healthy organisms is IN SPITE OF mutations – and NOT because of them. Healthy organisms are the result of a perfect Creation by God and our ever-increasing ‘mutational load’ is leading to more and more genetic PROBLEMS for all of us, as time goes on.
psi
The take home message of all this is that if "harmful" mutations (your term) were as prevalent as you are suggesting, there would be no life on this planet. Biology is far more complex than your understanding here shows (most peoples for that matter).
But ‘harmful’ mutations are only prevalent in ratio to ‘beneficial’ ones – the ABSOLUTE numbers of ALL mutations are quite small in relation to the overall ‘size’ of the biosphere.
The reason why ‘harmful’ mutations don’t wipe out life, even though there are thousands of them for every ‘beneficial’ mutation, is because the total number of mutations is still relatively small in relation to the size, diversity and perfection of each genome.
It is also due to the fact that organisms were perfectly Created, to start with - and so mutations are degrading predominantly PERFECT genetic information.
In addition, any mutations that are grossly harmful, are lethal or semi-lethal, and they are therefore not passed on to progeny.
Scofflaw
You're a pollution in the intellectual life of the world, frankly.
A brave statement from somebody who believes that his brain is a chance assemblage of molecules controlled by genetic information that is ultimately descended from the DNA of Slime Balls!!!
Also a brave statement from somebody facing eternal perdition, if he loses his ‘one way bet’ that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
It is quite OK if you personally wish to take such risks, but you really should provide an appropriate ‘warning’ if you are encouraging others to do likewise.
Something like ‘ATHEISM COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ETERNAL LIFE’ would be a reasonable ‘warning’ and it would allow members of the public to make a fully informed choice in relation to adopting Atheism on either a part-time or a full-time basis!!!.:D
Scofflaw
I'm an alatrist - I don't deny the possible existence of divinity, or the supernatural, or anything else we lack the power to examine, but I have yet to see anything that it's necessary to bow down to.
Whatever you’re having yourself!!!!
In your case then, something like ‘ALTATRISM COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ETERNAL LIFE’ would be a reasonable ‘warning’ to anybody planning to adopt your beliefs!!!!:D 0 -
Scofflaw said:
I, again, appreciate your candour. And your view of evolution as maybe just a part of the explanation of life and the universe as a whole is certainly more credible than the materialistic one. I venture to say your view will become the majority one in a few years, as the irresistible force of the ID argument wins the day. The scientific community will move to the position of Prof. Fred Hoyle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_HoyleI don't even deny the possible existence of your God - my reasons for not worshipping him are religious, not scientific. There's certainly no reason for me to require some sort of evolutionary process to account for the supernatural, as if terrestrial evolution were the only process by which life has changed, and solid terrestrial life the only form of life possible. We're about, what, 200 years into science and we know everything? I think not.
I'll go further - people will accept ANY explanation of the universe, provided it is not the Christian one. The present materialistic evolutionists will be queuing up to theorize on the sort of Aliens they think are responsible for seeding our universe and guiding it along its upward evolutionary pathway.
Maybe that will co-incide with our 30,000th post! 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:But many ‘harmful’ mutations DON’T affect fertility or fecundity and ARE therefore passed on and so they DO survive within populations.
Name one purely harmful condition with no benefit that survives in populations.
In the animal kingdom, most animals have inherent senses of the fitness of a mate, some of this cross over survives in man today.Natural Selection ISN’T a clinical system that precisely assesses ‘fitness’ – it is a pretty ‘hit and miss’ affair – and a lack of ‘fitness’ for one particular trait can easily be overcome by the presence of ‘fitness’ for another trait or indeed it can be completely over-ridden by strong sexual selection for another trait.
If there is a trait that has some side effects, it doesn't mean it is harmful, it probably confers a greater survival advantage in another way.
If this is what you are getting at, then your definition of "harmful" is prejudiced and therefore incorrect.Equally, some ‘beneficial mutations’ may also never be passed on to progeny – lack of fecundity, genetic masking or sexual aversion to the trait bearer can result in ‘beneficial’ traits never being expressed in populations.
Again, you're thinking in a very limited and incorrect fashion. The chances are more likely that such mutations aren't isolated. Even the rareness fatal genetic diseases manifest among several populations isolated from each other. This is the point of cumulative genetic mutation. Each step that does not lead to a fatal congenital disorder may spread through a population. Anything that is beneficial, will arise enough times to become dominant.Each individual comes as a ‘package’ of good, bad and indifferent traits. The idea that NS magically ensures that only the ‘perfect’ go on to reproduce, is another myth that Evolutionists continue to confuse themselves with!!!!:eek:
No, you seem confused. evolution doesn't apply to individuals, it applys to populations and anyting "good" will arise from the previous genotype in enough abundance to take over. You dont really believe an entire population can arise from one mutation in one organism, do you? That would be silly.The reason that we have healthy organisms is IN SPITE OF mutations – and NOT because of them. Healthy organisms are the result of a perfect Creation by God and our ever-increasing ‘mutational load’ is leading to more and more genetic PROBLEMS for all of us, as time goes on.
Says who? How then do you explain the evolution of brown/dark migmentation in birds and moths habitats with high pollution, where trees and surfaces were darkened by soot? Dark coloured varients arose from nowhere while their lighter coloured relatives died out?
These organisms didn't survive in spite of evolution, they thrived because of it. And they weren't created that way, they changed.But ‘harmful’ mutations are only prevalent in ratio to ‘beneficial’ ones – the ABSOLUTE numbers of ALL mutations are quite small in relation to the overall ‘size’ of the biosphere.
Says who? Mutations occur frequently in every generation. There is no such thing as a perfect biological copy.The reason why ‘harmful’ mutations don’t wipe out life, even though there are thousands of them for every ‘beneficial’ mutation, is because the total number of mutations is still relatively small in relation to the size, diversity and perfection of each genome.
That's incorrect, you're working off an assumption that I've already shown you to be wrong and taking it a step further with pure fantasy.It is also due to the fact that organisms were perfectly Created, to start with - and so mutations are degrading predominantly PERFECT genetic information.
Why then do we have the likes of brown sparrows and moths evolving to survive? If they are surviving as a less perfect creature, then they are obviously doing so against the creators will. So the end result is that the creator still has no power or control over life.In addition, any mutations that are grossly harmful, are lethal or semi-lethal, and they are therefore not passed on to progeny.
*boggle*
you end with that statement after starting off with this one:J C wrote:But many ‘harmful’ mutations DON’T affect fertility or fecundity and ARE therefore passed on and so they DO survive within populations.
Confused much?0 -
Originally Posted by J C
I share your view that presenting the evidence against Evolution is reasonable.
If you TRULY believe what you are saying, I look forward to the day when conventionally qualified Creation Scientists or ID proponents are invited along their local school to ‘assist’ in the delivery of this particular part of the curriculum.
Creation Scientists and ID proponents are, after all, the EXPERTS on the scientific evidence against Evolution!!!
Scofflaw
No, I was thinking of scientific evidence. "Creation Scientists" (not conventionally qualified) have no place in a science class
I agree that people who are NOT conventionally qualified have no place in science class.
However I WAS talking about CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED scientists from mainstream Universities, many of whom are ALREADY science teachers, who also happen to be Creationists or who have studied Intelligent Design.
These people are ALREADY presenting the evidence FOR Evolution in class – why not let them present the (much greater) evidence AGAINST Evolution??
Scofflaw
have you heard of the "Anthropic Principle"? Perhaps you can tell me how it would apply to your calculations?
Yes indeed, the Anthropic Principle is the (very logical) requirement that all theories of the Universe are constrained by the necessity to allow for Human existence.
Creation Science has no difficulties with this principle and Creation Science is actually grounded on the fact that God created the Universe with the existence of Human Beings very much in mind.
My calculations indicate that the undirected production of a simple protein (and by logical extension Human Beings) is a mathematical impossibility. Therefore macro-Evolution doesn't provide an adequate mechanism for Human existence and thus ‘falls foul’ of The Anthropic Principle.:D
Robin
I wasn't aware that Ham had put saddles on dinosaurs, and cut Adam's penis off, presumably to preserve the "family values" of Idiot America
The ‘saddled Dinosaur’ is an obvious (and quite impactful) metaphor for the contemporaneous existence of Dinosaurs with Humans.
I don’t understand WHY you have reservations about the MODEST presentation of a naked Adam at the Creation Museum.
Are you seriously suggesting that a ‘full frontal’ nude statue of Adam should have been displayed at the Museum, which aims to attract children from ‘babes in arms’ upwards?
The modest presentation of Adam is both a child protection AND a Christian imperative.
The grauituous exposure of children to a full frontal nude image would be quite inappropriate.
Adam and Eve were both unashamedly naked in their innocence BEFORE the Fall.
However, as soon as sin entered the World after the Fall, public nudity ceased and God reinforced this reality by actually providing clothing for Adam and Eve in Gen 3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them”.
Could I remind people that we are STILL decidedly post-Fall and therefore any public display of gross nudity is distinctly inappropriate – even for an image depicting a pre-Fall Adam.
Robin
Oh, yes, and here's quite a good article from Esquire magazine last year, on Ken Ham and his "museum".
It’s actually about much more than Ken Ham’s Museum.
…and here are a few interesting quotes from the said ‘good article’:-
“Genesis 2:25 clearly says that at this point in their lives, "And the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed." If Adam courageously sat there unencumbered while he was naming saber-toothed tigers, then why, six thousand years later, should he be depicted as a eunuch in some family-values Eden? And if these people can take away what Scripture says was rightfully his, then why can't Charles Darwin and the accumulated science of the past 150-odd years take away all the rest of it?”
I have adequately dealt with the first part of this quote in my previous post above.
I would draw everyone’s attention to the claim in the second part of the quote that “Charles Darwin and the accumulated science of the past 150-odd years” has taken away all of the rest of the Genesis account of Creation (and by implication the rest of the Bible with it).
However, the theory of Evolution falls apart under scientific scrutiny – and every breakthrough in recent years from the discovery of ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ to ‘Y chromosome Adam’ has put further ‘nails in the coffin’ of Materialistic Evolution.
The Word of God remains steadfastly true and all objective science supports it.
“It doesn't matter what percentage of people believe they ought to be able to flap their arms and fly, none of them can.”
But ironically that IS what EVOLUTION posits as to how flight occurred.
Evolutionists claim that some animal started off by taking ‘running jumps’ and flapping an appendage – and over millions of years it’s descendants sprouted wings and became birds and bats!!!
“It doesn't matter how many votes your candidate got, he's not going to turn lead into gold.”
Again that IS what EVOLUTION posits – the biological equivalent of turning Lead into Gold – which is the ‘transmutation of Mud into Man’ by random natural processes.
"In Washington, William Frist, a Harvard-trained physician and the majority leader of the United States Senate, endorsed the teaching of intelligent design in the country's public schools. "I think today a pluralistic society," Frist explained, "should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith."
So the balanced opinion of a Harvard-trained physician and the leader of the US Senate counts for NOTHING with Evolutionists when he says what they don’t want to hear.0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
You might also have observed that I don't generally call myself an atheist (I am sometimes one, but it's a faith-based position, and all of us doubt)
I have heard of a ‘Sunday Christian’ - and now we have an ‘Part-time Atheist’ or a ‘Doubting Atheist’.
Does this mean that you have doubts about your doubt about the existence of God ??!!!!:D
Essentially I mean that the existence or non-existence of God remains unprovable with the tools and techniques currently at our disposal, and that God, having been proposed as a hypothesis, requires balanced consideration rather than instant dismissal.
Obviously, my holding such a position tempts the Christian (and other theist) to believe that I am one short step from being saved. I actually think the dogmatic atheist is in more danger than myself, since their position is often simply a rejection of theism, and all that holds them away from religion is frequently some small slender thread, easily snapped. I, on the other hand, am behind miles of doubt and argument, full of the barbed wire of observation and the machinegun nests of logic - which is why arguments between myself and committed theists tend to resemble trench warfare.J C wrote:I must praise your intellectual honesty in admitting that Atheistic Humanism is a ‘faith based position’.
I don't recall mentioning Humanism.J C wrote:Atheism’s faith position also comes with considerable ‘downside’ if it is wrong.
The WORST that can happen a Christian when he/she dies is that they ‘cease to exist’.
The Atheist, on the other hand could find himself / herself facing God’s justice without any remission of his/her sins!!!! :eek:
This is the essence of Pascal's wager, and is incorrect in several particulars.
If atheists are correct, the worst thing that can happen to a Christian is that they live their single life by the tenets of the tribal religion of a bunch of Middle Eastern primitives, turning your back on much of what life offers and making misery for those around you. In essense, you waste your single life, and insist that others waste theirs.
If Christians are correct, the worst that can happen when they die is that they get flung into Hell, to be tortured for all eternity. Statistically, this is more likely than not - every Biblical mention of Hell and punishment emphasises the fact that few will be in Heaven (even if you sidestep the 144,000 by claiming it's non-literal). "Narrow the way, and strait the gate."
Obviously, this will also happen to an atheist if some sects of Christian are correct. However, having read the Bible, and listened to the proponents of these particular interpretations of Christianity, I reject these utterly. Even if you are correct, your God is a puffed-up tyrant deserving of no-one's worship.J C wrote:Of course, a ‘Doubting Part-time Atheist’ like yourself, COULD always become a Christian thereby securing your eternal destiny PERMANENTLY………..!!!
…………….say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” ………….????
And, yes, you're one of the creeds that I particularly despise.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I am also perfectly happy to take up any atheist who is so foolish as to claim that science supports his position rather than any other, or that his position is based on anything other than faith.
I don't even deny the possible existence of your God - my reasons for not worshipping him are religious, not scientific.
All very logical, but it still comes with the considerable ‘downside’ of not being saved!!!.
Christianity is a ‘win win’ faith.
You get to live a happy, fulfilled life here on Earth, in communion with the God that Created you
– and you also get to spend an eternity with Him in Heaven when you die!!!:cool: :cool:
You might want to ask what the reasons are before getting all giddy.J C wrote:Scofflaw
There's certainly no reason for me to require some sort of evolutionary process to account for the supernatural, as if terrestrial evolution were the only process by which life has changed, and solid terrestrial life the only form of life possible. We're about, what, 200 years into science and we know everything? I think not.
Fair enough.
However, you do realise that such rational and circumscribed sentiments, ALSO apply to every theory of Biological Macro-Evolution as well !!!!!:)
Er, no. It checks out, you see. The alternatives have so far all proven to be rubbish that fails to explain the observations - what use is that?
The fact that we don't know everything isn't the same as "we know nothing and might as well accept any piffle set in front of us, no matter how ludicrous", which is what it takes to swallow Creationism.J C wrote:Wicknight
Organic matter can form out of inorganic matter.
Look Wicknight, we have been over this numerous times before.
The great Louis Pasteur scientifically PROVED that life can only arise from other life and DISPROVED the widespread belief, at the time, that maggots and ‘lower’ life-forms spontaneously generated out of dirt.
Yes, and then science moved on. It is now generally regarded as necessary that life had a beginning - something which even you hold to be true. Clearly, if you want to hold to your claims above, you have only the "mechanism" of miracle to start life with - very profound, but neither provable nor useful.
Generating self-replicating molecules is easy (see Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997). That such self-generating molecules get more complex as time passes is trivially easy. You keep forgetting that Mount Improbable is climbed by way of the steps, not straight to the top in a single bound.J C wrote:This FACT has such high certainty and importance, that it has been accorded the status of a full Law of Biology.
So Wicknight:-
1. Organic matter CANNOT form out of inorganic matter.
2. A living organism is ALWAYS required to perform the task of assimilating dead material into living tissue – it’s the point where biogenesis meets biosynthesis!!!!! :cool:
Er, no, it isn't. There really aren't any laws in Biology - and if there are, evolution is one of them, so why you think you can beat us down with the "authority" of laws that you don't accept, I'm not certain - although I suspect idiocy.J C wrote:Scofflaw
You're a pollution in the intellectual life of the world, frankly.
A brave statement from somebody who believes that his brain is a chance assemblage of molecules controlled by genetic information that is ultimately descended from the DNA of Slime Balls!!!
Also a brave statement from somebody facing eternal perdition, if he loses his ‘one way bet’ that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
It is quite OK if you personally wish to take such risks, but you really should provide an appropriate ‘warning’ if you are encouraging others to do likewise.
Something like ‘ATHEISM COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ETERNAL LIFE’ would be a reasonable ‘warning’ and it would allow members of the public to make a fully informed choice in relation to adopting Atheism on either a part-time or a full-time basis!!!.:D
By and large I don't evangelise, for exactly that reason - my choices are my own, and I wouldn't care to drag anyone else into them in case I am wrong. However, it should be pointed out that Biblical Christianity needs to come with a label saying "CHRISTIANITY COULD SERIOUSLY REDUCE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ONLY LIFE" - but somehow I can't see you accepting that.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I'm an alatrist - I don't deny the possible existence of divinity, or the supernatural, or anything else we lack the power to examine, but I have yet to see anything that it's necessary to bow down to.
Whatever you’re having yourself!!!!
In your case then, something like ‘ALTATRISM (sic) COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ETERNAL LIFE’ would be a reasonable ‘warning’ to anybody planning to adopt your beliefs!!!!:D
As per above. If you have a psychological need to abase yourself before what you conceive to be powerful, while glorying in your special place in that tyrant's favour - well, you're normal.
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
I, again, appreciate your candour. And your view of evolution as maybe just a part of the explanation of life and the universe as a whole is certainly more credible than the materialistic one. I venture to say your view will become the majority one in a few years, as the irresistible force of the ID argument wins the day. The scientific community will move to the position of Prof. Fred Hoyle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
I'll go further - people will accept ANY explanation of the universe, provided it is not the Christian one. The present materialistic evolutionists will be queuing up to theorize on the sort of Aliens they think are responsible for seeding our universe and guiding it along its upward evolutionary pathway.
Maybe that will co-incide with our 30,000th post!
Hmf. I'm candid, I'm a scientist, I'm not an obligate materialist, I accept the possibility of the supernatural, and I don't even deny the possible existence of God. I accept that I might well go to Hell, if you and yours are right, and I have come to terms with that. I don't think we know all the answers, and I don't have any problem saying so. I think religion is a good thing for most people, and I can understand the idea of looking at the world in an entirely different way from the scientific.
Now, tell, me - given all that is true, why do you think I am so convinced of the correctness of evolution as opposed to creation? Hmm?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
No, I was thinking of scientific evidence. "Creation Scientists" (not conventionally qualified) have no place in a science class
I agree that people who are NOT conventionally qualified have no place in science class.
However I WAS talking about CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED scientists from mainstream Universities, many of whom are ALREADY science teachers, who also happen to be Creationists or who have studied Intelligent Design.
These people are ALREADY presenting the evidence FOR Evolution in class – why not let them present the (much greater) evidence AGAINST Evolution??
They're not presenting scientific evidence. It would be like having people come into your French class to talk in Aramaic about how bad a language French is - hard to justify spending the time on.J C wrote:Scofflaw
have you heard of the "Anthropic Principle"? Perhaps you can tell me how it would apply to your calculations?
Yes indeed, the Anthropic Principle is the (very logical) requirement that all theories of the Universe are constrained by the necessity to allow for Human existence.
Creation Science has no difficulties with this principle and Creation Science is actually grounded on the fact that God created the Universe with the existence of Human Beings very much in mind.
My calculations indicate that the undirected production of a simple protein (and by logical extension Human Beings) is a mathematical impossibility. Therefore macro-Evolution doesn't provide an adequate mechanism for Human existence and thus ‘falls foul’ of The Anthropic Principle.:D
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that your calculations are complete rubbish, let me point this out: no matter how unlikely life is, it is here. The odds against it could genuinely be as large as you state, and that doesn't prevent it happening (there are no odds that actually prevent an event, or render it impossible) - it would only mean that we were incredibly lucky, and shouldn't expect to find life anywhere else.J C wrote:Robin
I wasn't aware that Ham had put saddles on dinosaurs, and cut Adam's penis off, presumably to preserve the "family values" of Idiot America
The ‘saddled Dinosaur’ is an obvious (and quite impactful) metaphor for the contemporaneous existence of Dinosaurs with Humans.
I don’t understand WHY you have reservations about the MODEST presentation of a naked Adam at the Creation Museum.
Are you seriously suggesting that a ‘full frontal’ nude statue of Adam should have been displayed at the Museum, which aims to attract children from ‘babes in arms’ upwards?
The modest presentation of Adam is both a child protection AND a Christian imperative.
Any exposure of children to a full frontal nude image would be quite outrageous and would be rightly classed as child abuse.
I must remember that next time I take my daughter to the National Gallery.J C wrote:Adam and Eve were both unashamedly naked in their innocence BEFORE the Fall.
However, as soon as sin entered the World after the Fall, public nudity ceased and God reinforced this reality by actually providing clothing for Adam and Eve in Gen 3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them”.
Could I remind any nit-pickers 'out there' that we are STILL decidedly post-Fall and therefore any public display of gross nudity is distinctly inappropriate – even for an image depicting a pre-Fall Adam.
And can I ask why we're not still wearing our God-given clothing of skins? Go on, let's hear it.J C wrote:The Word of God remains steadfastly true and all objective science supports it.
And just to remind any first-time readers that this is what is actually under discussion in this thread, and that no evidence has been offered to support JC's claims.J C wrote:Indeed it is ALSO a recurring theme on this thread that Evolutionists routinely deride the scientific qualifications of all conventionally qualified scientists who are Creationists or ID proponents !!!
Possibly because so many of them turn out to have degrees from degree-mills and only hold positions at Creationist "Institutes". Most of the remainder turn out to have qualifications that are totally unrelated to any discipline in which they might be expected to understand biology. The qualifications of a mechanical engineer to discuss evolution are exactly the same as a layman, and to quote their titles/degrees/position as you do is purely a marketing tactic designed to give their statements undue weight.
I certainly deride yours, by the way - did you ever decide what they were?
Scofflaw0 -
-
psi
Name one purely harmful condition with no benefit that survives in populations.
Short sightedness, long sightedness, and a list ‘as long as your arm’ of genetic diseases and other diseases with a genetic component like certain cancers, Heart Disease etc
……and possibly the most ‘harmful’ condition of them all – premature baldness or even mature baldness – although the fashion trend towards shaved heads is helping me somewhat in this regard - and the 'cure' of castration is certainly worse that the 'disease' in this case - and so I think I will just suffer on!!!!:D
psi
In the animal kingdom, most animals have inherent senses of the fitness of a mate, some of this cross over survives in man today.
The abilty to ‘sense fitness in a mate’ is often completely absent after 10 drinks at 2am in a noisy, dimly lit Disco!!!!:D
.....and so another Evolutionist idea 'bites the dust'!!:)
psi
Each step that does not lead to a fatal congenital disorder may spread through a population.
Which leaves plenty of ‘room’ for debilitating (as distinct from lethal) conditions to spread. The fact that debilitating conditions are not widespread is ANOTHER proof of a RECENT perfect Creation.
psi
evolution doesn't apply to individuals, it applys to populations
..but populations are made up of individuals and the selection ‘unit’ is the individual – so evolution is totally reliant on individuals!!!
psi
How then do you explain the evolution of brown/dark migmentation in birds and moths habitats with high pollution, where trees and surfaces were darkened by soot? Dark coloured varients arose from nowhere while their lighter coloured relatives died out?
All colour variants were and continue to be present in the genome of these bird / moths.
Dark coloured variants predominated in certain areas but it is now recognised that all of these areas DIDN’T coincide with areas of gross air pollution.
A further confounding issue is that the Moths apparently predominately live on the GREEN leaves of trees and rarely if ever alight on the grey or the putatively black soot-covered bark of the trees – so ‘riddle me this’!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
In addition, any mutations that are grossly harmful, are lethal or semi-lethal, and they are therefore not passed on to progeny
psi
you end with that statement after starting off with this one:
Originally Posted by J C
But many ‘harmful’ mutations DON’T affect fertility or fecundity and ARE therefore passed on and so they DO survive within populations
psi
Confused much?
No need for confusion – both statements are in agreement and you have identified succinctly how this happens in the following quote yourself:-
psi
Each step that does not lead to a fatal congenital disorder may spread through a population
i.e. lethal mutations generally don’t spread within a population (although genetically recessive lethal conditions can spread and late-onset conditions can also spread)
However, debilitating conditions certainly can and do readily spread within populations.0 -
-
J C wrote:psi
Short sightedness, long sightedness, and a list ‘as long as your arm’ of genetic diseases and other diseases with a genetic component like certain cancers, Heart Disease etc
Nope, sorry, you're making a habit of of giving your opinion as some sort of fact which is ultimately wrong. Sight related dis-orders have a genetic advantage. As our culture develops heavy usage of the eys for examining close objects (reading, using computers), the eyes has evolved to become inclined to focus at near objects, thus we have short sightedness. The same reverse trend works for long-sightedness. We also see, that these conditions aren't actually present at birth, the genetic manifestation is a "plyability" of the eye towards what it is most used for.
Heart disease is linked to an allele of the MMP3 gene which is a multi-functional gene. There is considerable research on this, but the indications thus far is that the heart disease side-effect is a incidental to the actual selection process on that gene. In other words, the allele itself is beneficial, but the recent change in lifestyle among our population, particularly with regard diet, means that we now have a percentage at risk to heart disease, which is a recently prevelant condition.
Cancer itself is an evolutionary process. to a single cell organism, cancer is a good thing. It is only in multi-cellular organisms that you see disease manifestation. Cancer-processes themselves are most likely part reponsible for the development of complex multi-cellular organisms - the same processes are seen in the developing foetus for example (stem cells and cancer stem cells share many processes). Again, increase in fatal cancer incidence is related to our relatively fast change in lifestyle.
So 0/3 for you, none of your examples hold water. Hard luck.
Actually, notice how baldness is a Y-linked process and notice how cultural influences on short hair are focused towards men. Baldness is actually a result of a cultural selection process. Certain hair styles and hair practices block the flow of sebum towards the base of the hair follicle - and so interfering with the arrival of the stem cells to the dermal papilla with consequent hair miniaturization. Thus we have baldness. As we have no direct disadvanatge of this, we see no selection to remove the tendency towards baldness.……and possibly the most ‘harmful’ condition of them all – premature baldness or even mature baldness – although the fashion trend towards shaved heads is helping me somewhat in this regard - and the 'cure' of castration is certainly worse that the 'disease' in this case - and so I think I will just suffer on!!!!:D
Evolution processes take more than a couple of thousand years to manifest if there is no direct threat to the survival of the race. 2am discos as a source for mating process in humans are not quite the mainstay yet so I don't see your point.The abilty to ‘sense fitness in a mate’ is often completely absent after 10 drinks at 2am in a noisy, dimly lit Disco!!!!:D
.....and so another Evolutionist idea 'bites the dust'!!:)
or equally they are just a result of selection pressure. In fact, in many animal populations, such selection has been observed through extinction processes. Thus your so called proof is a fallacy. On top of that the fact that 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct doesn't lend towards perfect creation at all.Which leaves plenty of ‘room’ for debilitating (as distinct from lethal) conditions to spread. The fact that debilitating conditions are not widespread is ANOTHER proof of a RECENT perfect Creation.
That is flawed reasoning. I could just as easily say that individuals make up populations and no individual can engage in evolution without interaction with the rest of the population - a critical mass of population no less...but populations are made up of individuals and the selection ‘unit’ is the individual – so evolution is totally reliant on individuals!!!
recognised by whom? You're making stuff up now.All colour variants were and continue to be present in the genome of these bird / moths.
Dark coloured variants predominated in certain areas but it is now recognised that all of these areas DIDN’T coincide with areas of gross air pollution.
Again your making stuff up, depending on the species moths will live on leaf or bark. The brown ones live on and under dead bark and lay eggs there. Some who lay green eggs do so on leaves (although I believe butterflies are more likely to fit here).A further confounding issue is that the Moths apparently predominately live on the GREEN leaves of trees and rarely if ever alight on the grey or the putatively black soot-covered bark of the trees – so ‘riddle me this’!!!!
name a debilitating condition that spreads Yo have yet to do so.No need for confusion – both statements are in agreement and you have identified succinctly how this happens in the following quote yourself:-
psi
Each step that does not lead to a fatal congenital disorder may spread through a population
i.e. lethal mutations generally don’t spread within a population (although genetically recessive lethal conditions can spread and late-onset conditions can also spread)
However, debilitating conditions certainly can and do readily spread within populations.0 -
Advertisement
-
> It was worth a read, just to see how someone blinded by their
> presuppositions operates.
What heart-warming irony it gives me to see a creationist write this!
The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is that some unscrupulous people are able and willing to take advantage of others, by subverting belief in belief, or conflating passion with truth. This isn't a presupposition, but an description of what's going on. I suspect you'll deny this, though.
> As to saddles on dinosaurs, I assume this is just a bit of illustration of the
> fact that dinosaurs and man co-existed. I doubt it was meant to convey
> that man rode on T-Rexs.
I believe his description is accurate, with the dinosaur no doubt waiting for another dickless creation to show up and ride him around the plains of Mesopotamia. I can confirm this, because I've been at a Ham lecture where he showed cartoons -- cartoons!! -- of stone-age people riding about on the backs of dinosaurs. I'm not joking, though I wish I were.
When you hear that promoters of creationism saying things like this and expecting to be taken seriously by paleontologists, do you ever feel even a mild twinge of embarrassment?
> You may call such modesty idiotic, but that poses the question as to where
> you would draw the line in presenting real-life to kids.
I hope no kids are reading this thread, but half of the human race really does have mens' bits, while the other half really do have womens' bits! It's fascinating that some people want to protect kids from this basic biological issue. But then again, it's not the only fact of basic biology that religious people would prefer to airbrush away 0 -
robindch wrote:> You may call such modesty idiotic, but that poses the question as to where you would draw the line in presenting real-life to kids.
I hope no kids are reading this thread, but half of the human race really does have mens' bits, while the other half really do have womens' bits! It's fascinating that some people want to protect kids from this basic biological issue. But then again, it's not the only fact of basic biology that religious people would prefer to airbrush away
Children, at least in normal families, think of the bits as being for toiletary functions, and neither more nor less worthy of comment and interest than any other part of the body, except when doing comparative anatomy on the parent or sibling of the other sex. Possibly some of these people were scarred for life by having their toddler pointing and laughing, and don't wish to repeat the experience in public with a statue.
It explains how the US gets to have its huge STD and teen pregnancy rates, I guess - difficult to be careful with something that is not publicly admissible as existing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
> Possibly some of these people were scarred for life by having their toddler
> pointing and laughing, and don't wish to repeat the experience in public with a statue.
Perhaps. But I prefer to see that statue as an endearing metaphor for how amazingly and incorrigibly inaccurate AiG is -- even very young kids must notice that Adam doesn't have a penis! Anyhow, as ever, Gibbon had it right when he made this observation about the early church fathers:
Ah, Gibbon...It was their favourite opinion, that if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings. 0 -
-
-
> though it looks like it's been here for a while.
Welcome to the madhouse. We've been at this for just over a year -- in fact, the thread's first birthday was on wednesday last week! Should have had a few beers to celebrate it
> 1: Do people agree that there is something called evolution which is at work right now?
People who accept evolution do believe this. Creationists, on the other hand, break evolution down into micro-evolution (intra-species) which they agree exists, and what they call macro-evolution, which they deny exists. They also deny the existence of the fossil record, DNA evidence, radio-dating, continental drift, layering evidence, cosmic-background radiation, the big bang, large distances in the universe, red-shifted stars, and many, many, many other things.
> Do people agree that the origins of life are unknown or at least unprovable for the moment?
People who accept evolution do not claim to know how life arose, nor do they claim that the Modern Synthesis explains how it arose either and are open to any consistent, testable explanations for which there is evidence. Creationists assert that people who accept evolution claim they know the answer to everything, despite constant reminders from the people who accept evolution that they don't claim that. Creationists also assert that since the origins of life are currently unknown, that their own theory about the origins of life must therefore be correct.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement