 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
Anther thing I have notice is that I am the only one left trying to argue for idea of Creator.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I just wanted to share some thoughts I have after spending some time going over objections people have to idea of creator.
Those that support this idea point to how complex life is, and how great odds are in occurring by chance and say because of this they believe that life was designed by someone Intelligent.
|
Mostly that is not true. You believe in a creator and you bring up objections. Often the objections are based on complexity.
This is the oposite of science. In science you look at the evidence and try to come up with a theory that explains it and hopefully tells you something you don't allready see in the evidence. Then that extra stuff can't be checked against new evidence.
Whereas you and all creationists start with an idea. That is that life and the universe were created and then you try to either find evidence to support you or you attack the evidence against you. Creationists almost exclusively do the latter which gives me the impression that they have as little expection of finding supporting evidence as I do that they will.
quote:
Others who oppose this view, say that first off that they really dont give a on theory on how life was created, in there view there is no way to test such ideas. They say the with theory of evolution model, that this can be tested by scientific method. They contend that they can observe it, and have showed how different genes could mutate to change the structure of living things.
Would you guys say this is correct statement? |
I think you left out some important words that would clarify that. I am not sure if you just were unwilling to say 'don't give a damn' or if you left out something else. As it is I am not sure what you meant to say. I leave out words fairly frequently myself so I am merely asking for clarification here. Its not a put down.
I care how life came about. I just don't expect to ever know the answer. It happened long ago and the evidence is not likely to exist anymore. We are talking about what was most likely one single chemical reaction to start with. Not exactly an ubiquitous event.
I am not saying that it was so unlikely that it only happened once. I am saying that once was enough. One self reproducing molecule would quickly begin to multiply at an exponential rate using all the available raw material. With the right conditions the earth could go from zero self reproducing molecules to no free raw materials for the reaction in months or even days if the molecule could be blown on the wind and still reproduce later.
That should give you an idea of why I don't expect evidence of the beginning of life. The best we can hope for is to create something that MIGHT have been like how life started in a lab. But if the odds are trillions to one per cubic centimeter than we aren't likely to just get lucky. Trillions to one is very good odds with the whole ocean to work with for millions of years. Millions of years would not be needed if the odds were only trillions to one but thats lousy odds for a lab experiment.
We can see mutations in the lab. We do know a lot about genetics now and we know an enormous amount more than we did just a decade ago. When I was in high school the way DNA codes for proteins was only just discovered. Creationists often make arguements about how little we know based on books that are decades old and completely obsolete.
The other thing that is a favorite is to say the specific way life is around us including ourselves is impossibly unlikely. Which is bogus. Its false because it assume that things HAD TO BE THIS WAY for life to exist at all. We don't have to exist. The only requirement for our existence is that we couldn't argue if we didn't exist.
Shuffle a deck of cards. What comes out is what comes out. Yet the odds against any particular order of fifty-two cards is staggering but ONLY if you think the cards had to come out that way. They didn't. Neither did we.
Life is not too complex given billions of years. The odds against our existing is not evidence that we had to be designed any more than a specific outcome of a shuffle of deck had to have a designer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Anther thing I have notice is that I am the only one left trying to argue for idea of Creator. |
I noticed that. Zelot has no stamina. No will to discuss it.
If you look at the link I posted for a discusion thread on Maximum PC you will see the discussion has over 6000 posts over a long time. I am on it from the beginning to the end. I am not the only one on from beginning to end but NO creationist did that.
Basicly there is ton of evidence on the side of evolution. New evidence all the time so the anti-creationists can always say new things or say them better. The creationists just keep using the same things.
I think there was one belieiver on from beginning to end. He wasn't realy argueing things though and he came and went. That was Tess and he was there to wittness more than to argue. He kept going away to discuss things on forums for believers and then he would get ostricized for asking questions or having unorthodox views and then he would return to the Creation vs. Evolution thread.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Apolyton was down for nearly 48 hours this weekend. It likes to take the weekend off fairly often.
Besides the creationists here are mostly wimps. Not enough Americans I guess. For some reason active ignorance is more popular in the US.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Only some baptists and crazy southerners believe creationism. |
Most Baptists. Lots of Southerners. Lots of others as well. About 25 per cent of Americans last I heard.
Ohh I overestimated intelligence. I don't have the actual polls but here is an aticle that refers to one.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scie...seum000417.html
That view is becoming less entrenched in the United States, according to Gallup Poll findings. In 1962, two out of three Americans surveyed said “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.” By 1998, one in three took that stance.
So its more like 33 per cent not 25. But it is improving anyway.
quote:
The United Stations just sometimes don't want to face the real world. |
Not wanting to be entangled in European messes is not the same thing as not faceing the real world. If you are thousands of miles from most other countries it just simply isn't the same as it is where the other nations are cheek by jowel. The US has only two neighbors and one mostly speaks the same language.
Things became different after WWII. Isolationism is dead. Well dying anyway. Some people don't learn. See then numbers above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Not all Americans are Creationist. |
No just a third.
quote:
I believe that a (Deistic) God caused or set forth the guidelines for evolution. Of course, you may not agree with it, but it seems like a fair compromise to me. |
I see no reason to go that way. Guidlines aren't needed. Evolution's functioning is inherent. If you want to go that way its OK by me.
Why bother though? If a god is needed to explain the Uiverse than what explains the god? If no explanation is needed for the god then no explanation is needed for the Universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
I recommend genetics.
There are only four women on the boat. Most species are represented by a single pair. There are only four men and ALL of them have the same Y chromosome in the non-recombinant sections.
As a consequence most species would have the same variation as all the rest. Entirely unlike reality plus the fish would have much more variation than the land animals. Again unlike reality.
Back to the humans. One Y-Chromosome is quite a problem since that has no relationship to reality. From the women we get exactly FOUR lines of mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are inherited directly from the mothers. The fathers make no contribution to the offspring in humans an most likely in any other mammal. So that gives us four lines of mitochondria. Not the case however.
In fact the Eve hypothesis is based on mitochondrial DNA and that gave results that show Homo Sapiens to be at least 100,000 years old as a species that started that long ago with from one to fifty women. Thats assuming they did their math right and it looks like they actually gave the latest date and smallest number possible. Other people have looked at the numbers and came up with much older results.
Then there is the matter of the Egyptians and Sumerians not noticing that they drowned 4400 years ago as the timing in the Bible requires. The Egyptians just blithely went their way with the same language and culture and didn't stop building things for hundreds of years. I wonder how they managed not to notice that they were all killed about the time the pyramids were built.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
But unfortunately he believes that their genetic structure was perfect and (similar bullspit), therefore genetics doesn't prove anything. |
There is no way to pretend that humans had a massively different genetic structure a mere 4400 years ago. Even in the Bible they still reproduced sexually and had X and Y chromosomes. Mitochondria as well.
Besides its easy to attack claims of perfection. Cain was a murderer. God created him that way. Eve was created to eat the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If men were perfect then no slaughter of all mankind was needed. The whole thing is a nonsensical conglomeration of different contradictory stories and any claim of both evil men and a perfect creation is inherently irreconcilable.
At least it can be fun to see what way they would twist and turn to evade what the Bible really says. Bet they claim that people were warned about the flood. They weren't. Only Noah was told and only Noah and his family were to be saved so telling others would be counter productive since the idea was to murder every living perfectly created but corrupt thing on the face of the Earth.
quote:
Rightnow he is claiming the Flood caused the Ice Age. |
Ask how a flood could possibly do that? Trust me he has no answer. I have seen the claim before and its even more ludicrous than the usual. Rain releases heat from kinetic energy of falling water. Water from any depth is hot. In fact even most creationists have given up on the water canopy idea because it releases enough heat to kill Noah. Of course the water from the deep does the same thing but they are still ignoring that one.
On top of all that they usually claim the Ice Caps were created by the flood. How? They don't like to think about that. Since ice tends to float and a worldwide flood covering the highest mountain must also cover the hightest points in Antartica they are better off not noticing the the Ice caps and glaciers would all float away in the water. The water of course would be hot enough to cook everyone in the Ark but thats another issue.
quote:
It is always fun to argue with people who don't know what evidence is. |
Well if they try the hydroplate theory it comes from engineer and not a geologist. The engineer has never run the numbers on his ideas either which shows he is a LOUSY engineer. I have seen a geologist go over the numbers on the hydroplate theory and he has steam reaching escape velocity. The geologist is a creationist by the way. Yes a real live creationist geologist. I believe he goes the god works in mysterious ways route rather than the creation 'science' route.
Let me see if I can find a link for it again:
Well here is a creationist timeline anyway to nail down the claimed times.
http://www.cynet.com/jesus/timeline/timeline.htm
Know thy enemy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ith...ydroplate1.html
The book itself online
http://www.creationscience.com/
Ah found it.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
Thats the rebuttal from the geologist creationist. Nice to see that some creationists can think. He is an Old Earth Creationist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Maybe you should ask him why he chooses to believe the word of a tribe of Bronze Age goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat.
A lot of creationists seem to begin with an inflated view of the Bible's accuracy: it's inerrant, contains countless fulfilled prophecies and great scientific knowledge, and so on. From this starting point, they assert that the rest of it must be true.
But if you ask them why they believe the Bible is so great in the first place, it's because some fundie preacher told them so. Ask for a fulfilled prophecy, and you always get the reformation of the nation of Israel in 1948 (or, just possibly, the destruction of the Second Temple). Similarly, for "scientific knowledge", you usually get the knowledge that the Earth is round (a fact known to various ancient peoples, but not to the Hebrews: Isaiah 40:22 refers to a flat disk, not a sphere).
With "so many thousands" of examples to choose from, isn't that a little odd?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The Middle East. |
Excuse me, but according to the link you provided, the Egyptian "universe" was rectangular, not round!
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Well, I presume he wasn't sitting up to his neck in dirt, so he wasn't sitting IN the Earth. He also spreads out the sky to cover the Earth "like a tent". |
So? Can a tend only cover something rectangular and not circular/spherical?
Don't see what your "problem" may be!
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The flat-Earthism of the ancient Hebrews is well known. It's apparent in all their writings (not just the Bible) whenever the subject comes up. The Earth, to them, was a flat plate, with the dome of the firmament above and Sheol (the underworld) down below. The stars are attached to the firmament dome.
The Flat-Earth Bible |
You know, after reading that site, the first thing I can conclude is that it is a lot easier to adopt an oppinion to something we're already bended to accept more easily.
Yes, there are really screwed up people to defend anything that might come across anyone's mind. Still, not wanting to discuss the whole site (don't have the time for it), I would like to point just this subject; they present some texts of how the Earth is immovable. Yet, just after I read the first text, this question came across my mind:
Isn't a planet fixed from a galactic point of view if it sticks to its orbit?
And about that book of Enoch, man, if it had any credit among the people of the time it would surely be acknowledged by the scholars of the time, wich it seems it wasn't!
And saying that the book influenced the New testament because there's drammatic evidence that only they know about is not something I take with credit...
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Wherever did you get the notion that they thought it was spherical? |
Because from what I learned from school was that the Greeks were the first people to have the geocentric theory, with a flat-earth. I've never heard anything about that among the hebrew.
And seeing the "evidence" given by that site you gave... dude, we're never getting anywere! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Excuse me, but according to the link you provided, the Egyptian "universe" was rectangular, not round! |
What's your point? He was referring to the Hebrews, not the Egyptians.
quote:
So? Can a tend only cover something rectangular and not circular/spherical? |
Why do you say circular/spherical? They don't mean the same thing. A tent can cover a plate, but I've never heard of a tent covering a ball--the latter simply isn't feasible.
quote:
Isn't a planet fixed from a galactic point of view if it sticks to its orbit? |
No. The entire local star cluster is rotating around the galactic center.
quote:
Because from what I learned from school was that the Greeks were the first people to have the geocentric theory, with a flat-earth. |
The Greeks knew full well that the earth wasn't flat. They were seafarers, and the horizon line provided stunning evidence that the earth wasn't flat.
quote:
I've never heard anything about that among the hebrew. |
Ignorance on your part does not constitute proof of your assertions.
quote:
And seeing the "evidence" given by that site you gave... dude, we're never getting anywere! |
If you continue to ignore the very Bible you profess to have faith in, then you are correct: nothing will ever convince you, since you will simply continue to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
Goingonit: quote:
But you always end up back in your own mind...I know it's true because I think! Solipsism, I tells ya! |
Ah, now I disagree, because given the rules of logic and the acceptance of certain self-evident axioms, Solipsism can be shown to be asburd and hence disproven.
quote:
I disagree - math exists (unlike philosophy) independently of man.
|
Maybe the numerical relationships described by math exist but math itself cannot. Math is just a field of study, remove any being capable of studying math and you remove math. For the time being.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Somehow even in high school biology classes evolution is still hidden away from the tender minds of American youth. Controlled ignorance.
Of course for that I am going on what I have read. I didn't take biology. Ever. What I know of biology I learned outside of clases.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2002 11:24
|