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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Creation V Evolution Debate

1…5791011

Comments

  • #182
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    J C wrote:
    I wasn’t appealing to Sir Fred Hoyle’s ‘authority’ – I was merely pointing out his obvious mathematical and logical abilities.

    The choice is basically between a statement of faith that “muck evolved into man” or Sir Fred Holye’s conclusion that the emergence of life through undirected processes is an impossibility – based on his detailed mathematical calculations and observations. I think that professional scientists are duty bound to recognise the scientific validity of the latter.
    Sir Fred Hoyle’s observations and conclusions strictly follow the Scientific Method and are repeatably observable. They also continue to remain scientifically valid – and therefore must be accepted by all professional scientists unless and until they are proven to the contrary.
    So then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.


  • #183
    solas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    capt'n midnight wrote:
    So then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.
    is that not scientific fact? (just curious)
    I like the idea that thats where we come from.


  • #184
    ghostchant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭ghostchant


    J C wrote:

    A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.

    I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre – when viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line if viewed edge on). As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere.
    In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.

    The only people who believed that astronomical objects were discs were certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’. Equally, as I have already stated, 'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples but this was never believed-in by ‘The People of God.’

    But the earth isn't a perfect sphere. Don't you think that if god created the earth he would have made it a perfect sphere?
    And a circle is a one-dimensional theoretical object that doesn't occour in nature.


  • #185
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    This is a bit of a non-sequitur, but I believe it relevant.

    I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me. In other words, I think this debate lies deeply in the philosophical realm, where arguing gets you nowhere.


  • #186
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago,
    > and all history of our lives that we believe we have
    > experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything
    > around us, just planted evidence for a history that never
    > was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.

    Quite right. Or, more pointedly, you could declare that some entity existed, mention that he could do anything he wanted to (and lived "outside time" -- can somebody please explain what they think they understand by this?) and then go on to say that this entity was the thing that did the creating, with all memories, physical evidence, etc, etc in place. This ludicrously naive fantasy is what the creationists are up to and, as you've said, there's no argument against it, other than the fact that it explains nothing at all and is logically equivalent to any other created-out-of-thin air story.

    BTW, in case anybody's not reading the Skeptics board, the Kansas State Board of Education are currently debating whether their science teachers should be required to start teaching virulent fundamentalist religion. Some of the recent world-wide coverage that this Taleban-style indoctrination of children can be found here, here, here and here,


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote SyxPak
    It goes against human nature to ignore possibilities and shut your mind off from curious thoughts. There's a reason the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages.
    So why has almost every Evolutionist deliberately shut their minds off from the POSSIBILITY that life was created by God?
    Creation scientists don’t ignore the possibility that Evolution occurred – they HAVE looked for evidence of Evolution and didn’t find any!!!! The contributions from Evolutionists to this thread also hasn’t provided any evidence for Evolution either.


    Quote Cabaal
    I'm still waiting for when they discover life on Mars,
    "...errr and on the evening of the 7th day God created life on Mars even though he was supposed to be resting"
    Cabaal, I think that you WILL be waiting a long time for the discovery of life on Mars !!!!

    However, in the unlikely event that life is discovered on Mars, and it actually turns out to be a ‘Martian Native’, then the 3rd to the 6th Days of Creation would be the most likely time of it’s creation – and not the 7th day.
    Gen 2:2 says that “by the seventh day God had FINISHED the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from ALL his work” (NIV).


    Quote Cabaal
    Hang on there, so your saying life began in Israel?
    There are far older civilisations and human remains elsewhere in the world so such an idea is very very flawed.
    Technically speaking, the Garden of Eden WASN’T located in Israel.
    However, there AREN’T “far older civilisations or human remains elsewhere in the world” – practically all evidence of ante-diluvian activity was destroyed 5,000 + / - 500 years ago by Noah’s Flood!!!!

    That is one of the reasons why all History Books refer to the time before c. 5,000 years ago as “pre-historic”.
    “Ante-diluvian” would be technically better – but I’m not quibbling!!!!


    Quote Solas
    yes, scientists believe that there definately was a creation, they are searching for the true account of how it all began. They call it the big bang don't they?
    I think that the latest belief is that a ‘Big Crunch’ preceded the ‘Big Bang’. However, no repeatably observable evidence exists for either idea.
    Science also hasn’t even begun to explain where the energy and matter supposedly released in the so-called ‘Big Bang’ originated.

    Gen 1 and Gen 2 coherently explains how God created time and space as well as all life.

    What is even more amazing is that the God who did these awesome things loved you and me PERSONALLY so much that He died on a cross to pay the just price for our sins and He now offers us an eternity of bliss with Him in Heaven – and all we have to do is BELIEVE in Him.

    I think that the choice between believing in the Creator of the Universe or the “imaginings of men” really is a ‘no-brainer’.

    Quote Robin
    based upon my own first-hand experience of creationists and what they say, they are prepared to tell any lie, inflame any fear and openly damn any opponent, in order to do so.
    ‘Steady on’ there Robin!!!

    All Creation Scientist that I know are honourable descent people whose only motivation is that the truth should be upheld.
    Indeed all of the Evolutionists that I know personally are also honourable people – it’s only their unfounded ideas that are wrong!!!

    I don’t think that you could apply the above statement to any of my contributions to this thread. If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me – otherwise please don’t make such statements about me and my fellow Creation Scientists.

    Rather than engaging in such ‘mud slinging’ – could I suggest that your argument would be better served by addressing the central issue of this thread which is the validity of Evolution as a scientific theory – and present some verifiable evidence for the claim that undirected processes resulted in muck eventually evolving into Man.


    Quote Sev
    The creationists seem to disregard a mountain of evidence that although cannot disprove the creation story beyond all doubt, still shows that evolution theory is overwhelmingly probably.
    The only ‘mountain of evidence’ to emerge on this thread is either in favour of Creation and/or against Evolution.
    All evolutionary contributors have been remarkably shy about proffering ANY evidence in support of their beliefs.
    I don’t’ think that I have been in any way shy about proffering my views on Creation AND backing up my assertions with repeatable observable proofs!!!!
    Although some of my statements were vigorously challenged, I think that it would be correct to say that NOT EVEN ONE OF MY STATEMENTS in relation to Creation or Evolution have been ultimately disproved.


    Quote Robin
    > certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun

    <sigh> JC -- I really wish you could find it within your (pneumatic?) self to check *anything* before you believed it.

    For those few (any?) still interested, Constantine, the Roman emperor whom some people believe converted the Eastern Roman Empire to some of the earlier versions of 'christianity', was actually the lifelong highpriest of a pagan cult known as Sol Invictus, the 'Unconquered Sun'. From this cult, western european culture inherited not only the strange habit of placing halos behind holymen (a clear enough pictogram of the Sun, as required by Sol Invictus),
    The Roman Empire WAS one of the gentile nations that I was referring to, as worshippers of the ‘Solar Disc’. The Egyptians and the Aztecs were also notable sun worshippers as well. Christians have never engaged in such worship as it infringes both the First and Second Commandments of God.
    As for your point about “halos behind holymen” – statues and icons (with or without halos) was one of the issues addressed during the Reformation of Christianity in the 14th Century.


  • #188
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > All Creation Scientist that I know are honourable descent people
    > whose only motivation is that the truth should be upheld.

    Referring to a creationist as a 'scientist' (as I've mentioned before) is a disturbing contradiction in terms from somebody who claims to have had a scientific education -- scientists operate with provisional facts and provisional conclusions, helped along by reason and supported by careful observation. Creationists, on the other hand, are dogmatic fundamentalists interested in returning their adherents to a state of common ignorance not seen since the Middle Ages. Referring to creationists as 'scientists' is considered an insult to good name of science.

    I might add that none of the creationists I've heard, including you, have demonstrated the slightest ability in physics, chemistry or biology, beyond an ability to parrot some of its terminology.

    WRT to my other comments, I've already quoted from the talks which Ken Ham gave in UCD a couple of months ago (at the behest, I believe, of the students union there), in which he and his publications stated for the world to hear, that the theory of evolution was responsible for abortion and science in general, and evolution in particular, were satanically inspired. And this, by the way, from one of the moderates in the creationist movement! People like the convicted tax-fraud Ken Hovind (http://www.drdino.com) are indescribably more offensive.

    I see nothing honourable, 'descent' (sic), or truth-upholding in any of this, but then again, I'm not a fundamentalist.

    > I don’t think that you could apply the above statement to any
    > of my contributions to this thread.

    In your contributions, you have continually misrepresented scientists, you have continually misrepresented their work and you have continually misrepresented their conclusions.

    > If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me

    I have pointed out numerous mistakes in your postings, from small errors of logic, to hilarious, howling clangers and you have yet, seriously, to answer anything that I, and indeed most other people, have written.

    - robin.


  • #189
    Playboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Jc I hope that you are aware that a large majority of the Christian community including clergy and theologians would think it is ridiculous that you believe in the creation story literally. I have no problem with someone challenging the validity of the evolution theory; after all it is far from a perfect theory. Evolution is a scientific theory with a large amount of evidence to support its claims. It is constantly been revised and modified in conjunction with new evidence to support or undermine its claims. Creationism is a story with no evidence to support it. For God’s sake if you truly believe in God do you really think that he would give you a rational and inquisitive mind but then ask you not to bother using it, that it is much better to have blind faith in something without every questioning the validity of it? Do you think God is some kind of Prankster who gives us doubting and questioning minds so that on the day of judgement he can condemn us all to hell because we used them to come up with our own theory of where we came from instead to believing literally in a book that was written thousands of years ago? Do you think that the forgiving and loving God that Jesus talks about is going to condemn us for believing in evolution? Do you see any contrast or contradictions in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Sorry Folks but God changed his mind! While it was ok to take an eye for an eye back in the day of Jacob and Moses we condemn that sort of behaviour now … now we have to turn the other cheek … which is it? Could it be that religious and spiritual beliefs are a product of the time, place, and social conditions in which they arose?


  • #190
    Playboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    J C wrote:
    Quote Phil 321
    I think (J C) you should go look up the meaning of proof because you seem to have great trouble understanding the concept.

    Proof is defined in a dictionary as “fact, evidence or reasoning that supports the truth of or the existence of something” – a perfect description of my six points in relation to God – each one of which provides fact, evidence and reasoning as PROOF for His existence and activities in the Universe.

    Here are my (expanded) proofs again (so that you can examine them against the above definition of 'Proof') :-

    1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
    2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
    3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
    4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
    5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
    6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

    Cmon Jc if you are going to use Descartes to try and prove that God exists then at least give him the credit for coming up with one of those points. Also if you are going to use Descartes in an arguement then at least be aware of the flaws in his arguement and the reasons that philosophers discarded it .. there is a ton of literature out there on the topic .. shouldnt be too hard to find .. google is ur friend :)

    As for the rest of your agruements including your profound Newtonian view of the world as a big machine that works like clockwork ... they are quite simply ridiculous leaps to make with no founding in fact so please stop calling them facts


  • #191
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ...just came across this relevant quotation from Augustine of Hippo's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books"), written in around 415 CE, over one and a half millennia ago:
    Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances [...] and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    I have made reference to Augustine as a perfect example of the clear trail of allegorical Genesis interpretation in the earliest church. It is a great quote Robin and it just shows that Creation Science is not the historical view of Christianity but a small modern off-shoot that has a lot more to do with the sociological concept of modernity than it has with Jesus.

    Maybe my phrasing will hurt JC and some of the other Creation Scientists but I speak for the clear majority both today and through the last 2000 years (in clear apostolic tradition) and for all of the substantial denominations when I say that Genesis' creation account was conceived of as allegorical and a disservice is done to the text when it is reorganised to fit into an empirical reading, especially since at least 4500 years part Newton, broadly speaking the marker for the start of science as we now know it and the original tellings of the Genesis tale.

    This is in no way disparaging to the truth claims of Genesis. It does not intend to explain the chromosome. God instead wants us to know the more pressing fact that we were created with purpose and as image-bearers of Him and that something very bad has gone wrong with our initial state.


  • #193
    Poisonwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Poisonwood


    J C wrote:
    I think that the choice between believing in the Creator of the Universe or the “imaginings of men” really is a ‘no-brainer’.

    Ooh the comic possibilities of that statement ...

    But i'll resist!! :D


  • #194
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote:Solas
    Originally Posted by capt'n midnightSo then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.
    is that not scientific fact? (just curious)
    I like the idea that thats where we come from.
    Panspermia is a refinement by Sir Fred Hoyle that hasn’t been scientifically verified – and unless and until it is proven to occur I don’t accept Panspermia as scientifically valid.
    Viruses are very unusual life forms and they certainly merit further scientific research.
    In any event, the numbers that Sir Fred Hoyle came up with (for the undirected production of the biomolecules for an Amoeba) are so astronomical that Panspermia (even if it were to be verified as a life DISPERSING mechanism) still wouldn’t be capable of explaining how life was produced in the first place ANYWHERE in the Universe.


    Quote Ghostchant
    But the earth isn’t a perfect sphere. Don’t you think that if god created the earth he would have made it a perfect sphere?
    I never second-guess God – maybe it’s current shape is optimal.

    Alternatively, the Earth may well have started off as a perfect sphere – but like the rest of ‘fallen creation’ it has become imperfect with the passage of time. The upheavals and massive land movements experienced during Noah’s Flood would certainly have taken their toll on the overall shape of the Earth.


    Quote Ghostchant
    And a circle is a one-dimensional theoretical object that doesn't occur in nature
    There ARE many circular objects in nature.
    However, be that as it may, the use of the word ‘circle’ in the context of the Earth in Is 40:22 proves that ‘God’s People’ were always aware that the Earth was circular – and not flat – and that was my original point.


    Quote Sev
    I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.
    Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

    You could refute my proofs for the existence of God if you provided evidence that what I said is factually incorrect – or possibly by providing an alternative explanation supported by equally strong circumstantial evidence from the real world.
    Of course, the reason that I am able to circumstantially PROVE that God exists is BECAUSE He DOES exist.
    Our criminal justice system relies on the fact that it is impossible to disprove the truth using objective means – and that is why you cannot disprove the truth that God exists – because He does exist!!!!.

    Isn’t it amazing that Evolution which is supposed to be scientifically-based doesn’t have any objective evidence to support it – while the existence of God, which is actually a faith-based belief – can be objectively proven using evidence from direct observations!!!!
    God has also told us that this is the case in Rom 1:19-20 ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (NIV).


    Quote Robin
    Referring to a creationist as a 'scientist' (as I've mentioned before) is a disturbing contradiction in terms from somebody who claims to have had a scientific education -- scientists operate with provisional facts and provisional conclusions, which is precisely the opposite of creationists, who are dogmatic fundamentalists interested, largely, in disseminating a pre-ordained, atavistic conclusion at the expense of knowledge and reason.
    It is certainly no more “disturbing” than referring to an Evolutionist as a scientist. I am not 'disturbed' by the fact that scientists believe in Creation or Evolution - and I don't see why you should be either!!!
    Creation scientists are fully qualified scientists (and very often former evolutionists). Their peer-reviewed scientific papers are provisional and open to and capable of being disproven.
    BTW Robin, if you have such an aversion to "dogmatic fundamentalism based upon NO objective evidence" – why do you still believe in Evolution – an idea that I have challenged with four basic questions in my posting on page 3 of this thread on 31/03/05 @ 21.20 – questions which you have not even attempted to answer.
    If your criticisms of Creation Science are true then why have you been unable to disprove ANY of my contentions on this thread.


    Quote Robin
    I might add that none of the creationists I've heard, including you, have demonstrated the slightest ability in physics, chemistry or biology, beyond an ability to parrot some of its terminology

    I reject your judgement of my demonstrated academic ability.

    IF I HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR WRONG THEN POINT IT OUT – otherwise stop the off-point personal remarks – and attack the subject at issue – or do you believe that the case for Evolution is so hopeless that you reckon that the only way that you are going to win this debate is by an Ad Hominem attack on my obvious scientific credentials and those of my eminently qualified Creation Science colleagues – rather than presenting the case for Evolution?
    I accept you as a bona fide scientist who believes in Evolution and I think that you should also recognise my bona fide science qualifications irrespective of my personal faith-beliefs.

    Quote Robin
    >(Quote JC) If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me

    I have pointed out numerous mistakes in your postings, from the occasional small error of logic, to hilarious, howling clangers and you have yet, seriously, to answer anything that I, and indeed most other people, have written.

    Please be specific Robin – you have certainly vigorously challenged many of my statements – but your arguments fizzled out as I brought the full weight of logic and objective evidence to bear upon them. It would be correct to say that NOT EVEN ONE OF MY STATEMENTS in relation to Creation or Evolution has ultimately been disproved by you or by any other contributor to this thread.

    As for answering YOUR questions, I have done so comprehensively (and repeatedly in some cases) – which is more than can be said about you – with your continued refusal to answer ANY of my questions about Evolution.


    Quote Playboy
    I hope that you are aware that a large majority of the Christian community including clergy and theologians would think it is ridiculous that you believe in the creation story literally.
    The statistics from America don’t support your contention – but you may be correct, that the majority of theologians in Ireland no longer believe that Gen 1 and 2 are written in a literal style.
    However, if Gen 1 and 2 are claimed to be allegorical, considerable additional assumptions and conjecture will have to be engaged in to make a plain reading of the text even remotely match any evolutionary interpretation - and the following passage of scripture should be borne in mind by anybody so inclined.
    Prov 30:5-6 states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”


    Quote Playboy
    Evolution is a scientific theory with a large amount of evidence to support its claims.

    This is your BIG opportunity to present this evidence – over to you Playboy – but I’m not holding my breath as nobody else has presented ANY evidence for Evolution on this thread !!!


    Quote Playboy
    For God’s sake if you truly believe in God do you really think that he would give you a rational and inquisitive mind but then ask you not to bother using it, that it is much better to have blind faith in something without every questioning the validity of it?
    Creation Scientists use their God-given rational and inquisitive minds to study His creation every day. Of course, God wants us to use our free will and our minds for our own benefit and for the good of the rest of Humanity.

    Christianity is NOT a ‘blind faith’ – it is a rational faith founded upon the teachings of a sovereign all powerful God who loves us and who proves His existence through the things that He has created.


  • #195
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Playboy
    Do you think that the forgiving and loving God that Jesus talks about is going to condemn us for believing in evolution?
    Firstly, Jesus Christ IS the forgiving and loving God that "He talked about".
    Secondly, God is a God of Justice as well as Love.

    To answer your question, believing in Evolution will NOT condemn you to Hell – otherwise as a former Evolutionist myself, my fate would have been sealed long ago!!!!
    It is made clear in the Bible that everybody who DOESN’T BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST will be condemned to Hell for eternity. For example, in Jn 3:36 it states “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (NIV).

    Evolution, like many other Human ideas, is actually a side-issue when it come to your eternal salvation. However, because it is a challenge to the Word of God, it deserves a reasoned response from informed Christians.

    Quote Playboy
    Do you see any contrast or contradictions in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Sorry Folks but God changed his mind! While it was ok to take an eye for an eye back in the day of Jacob and Moses we condemn that sort of behaviour now … now we have to turn the other cheek … which is it?

    The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament is one and the same God, Jesus Christ - and He hasn't changed His mind.

    The Old Testament continues to apply to a world labouring under God’s condemnation – while The New Testament contains the good news of salvation for CHRISTIANS, who have been saved from God’s wrath through their belief in Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for their sins.
    The Old Testament concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ STILL applies in many areas of life. Indeed civil law still operates on the premise that ‘the punishment should fit the crime’ and that ‘the compensation should match the loss.’ It is therefore not true to say that society condemns “that sort of behaviour now” (i.e punishment for crime or compensation for loss).
    Of course, the good news of the New Testament is that Christians are no longer under the operation of God’s Law, which would otherwise also condemn them for the sinners that they too are.
    Christians are obliged to forgive their enemies and do good to those who hate them i.e. turn the other cheek.
    However, they are also mandated to defend the weak and vunerable - but they must never use unreasonable or unnecessary force and they must never seek to exact vengeance. They must also immediately forgive anybody who asks for forgiveness, irrespective of what they have done to them.
    It is a great way of life - and I highly recommend it.
    In fairness, many non-Christian people also use various aspects of the 'Christian Approach' to life and their behaviour in this regard is also to be commended.

    Quote Robin
    ...just came across this relevant quotation from Augustine of Hippo's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books"), written in around 415 CE, over one and a half millennia ago:

    This doesn’t surprise me – evolution and it’s analogues have been around since before the Ancient Greeks. This debate (Divine Special Creation versus various alternative explanations for the origins of life) has been ongoing for a very long time. The 'Divine Special Creation' explanation has remained UNCHANGED and undefeated by observed reality down the years – while many radically different alternative explanations have come and gone as each of their succeeding claims were disproved by observation and scientific advances.


  • #196
    Playboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Jc if you cant understand that the evolution theory has practical applications to modern science (esp. genetics) then I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. You are obviously too narrow minded to accept that there is a distinct possibility that the evolution theory is correct. I am not saying evolution theory is flawless but neither is any evolutionary scientist. Evolutionists generally accept that like most theories evolution is under constant revision in order to try and improve and perfect it. Creationism has no evidence to support it apart from the fact that it was written in a book (which is not evidence btw). Your 'proofs' for the existence of God are completely laughable, unfounded and immature. If you honestly use them to convince yourself of the existence of God then you really don’t show much interest in trying to understand it properly or else you would have realised that practically every point you gave, as a proof is completely unfounded. What proof do you offer that the creation story is true? You gave us your proofs of the existence of God but what makes this God the God of the bible? I am not an atheist and I do believe in a God .. I also believe that the essential message of loving and forgiveness given to us by the New Testament is amazing. What I don’t believe is that the bible is a perfect account of the word of God .. why don’t I? .. simply because there is no proof. I can accept that you believe in something but don’t try and tell me that it is fact or that will you will ever be able to prove it a fact.


  • #197
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭zod


    Quote Sev
    I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.
    Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

    Whats wrong here? Your reasoning is flawed. If your memories of of being alive more than 5 minutes ago were implanted and the "verified records" were all created to LOOK like they were directly observed .. you cannot tell the difference.

    Therefore his argument IS correct. You cannot disprove ANY theory which claims that all evidence of time passage was simply created if you can assume that any such evidence can be simply planted.

    To recap :

    The theory of light being created between the stars ( as apposed to travelling - because there is not enough time in 6000 years ) is AS equivalent to saying the universe was created 5 minutes ago by an omnipotent God that covered his tracks perfectly.

    Both are equally fancifull.


  • #198
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > IF I HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT IS FACTUALLY
    > INCORRECT OR WRONG THEN POINT IT OUT

    I've done so on many occasions -- press page up, for example, to see one. Actually, I'll repeat the link again: you posted this which I rebutted here. No further comment needed!

    > the only way that you are going to win this debate is
    > by an Ad Hominem attack on my obvious scientific
    > credentials and those of my eminently qualified
    > Creation Science colleagues

    Firstly, I'm not engaging in an "Ad Hominem attack" -- I'm simply questioning your claims (and, I might add, not receiving any answers).

    Secondly, In the skeptics thread, I've already pointed out the lack of relevant qualifications of almost all of Ken Ham's lot, as well as pointed out that Ham's own 'doctorate' (in religion, not biology, I need hardly add!) came from a diploma mill. In the real acadamic world, such fraudulent and cheap qualifications as these are treated with contempt by those who've actually had to do some work to receive their qualification.

    Finally, your own posting above shows that your knowledge of the physical sciences and physical laws seems to equate roughly to pre-leaving cert science level, say that of a 14-year old and consequently, I'm afraid that I do not believe that you posess any scientific credentials, obvious or otherwise.

    In fact, I would go further and suggest that if one wishes to fritter one's life away propagating rather poorly-written and unimaginative Sumerian legends, then going to all the hassle of receiving a proper education in science, or anything else, is certainly a complete waste of time! :)


  • #199
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    zod wrote:
    Whats wrong here? Your reasoning is flawed. If your memories of of being alive more than 5 minutes ago were implanted and the "verified records" were all created to LOOK like they were directly observed .. you cannot tell the difference.

    Therefore his argument IS correct. You cannot disprove ANY theory which claims that all evidence of time passage was simply created if you can assume that any such evidence can be simply planted.

    To recap :

    The theory of light being created between the stars ( as apposed to travelling - because there is not enough time in 6000 years ) is AS equivalent to saying the universe was created 5 minutes ago by an omnipotent God that covered his tracks perfectly.

    Both are equally fancifull.

    Yes.. thats exactly what I was saying.

    I mean there are claims you can make that can never be disproven.. so claiming you're correct until somebody can disprove you is ludicrous.

    (I'm on your side)


  • #200
    ghostchant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭ghostchant


    Quote J C
    There ARE many circular objects in nature.
    An example of one of these objects that isn't a disc or that is truly one-dimensional would be greatly appreciated.

    Proof by induction: if you can be wrong about one thing (i.e. this), you can be wrong about everyting! :)


  • #201
    Sev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭Sev


    J C wrote:
    Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

    How do you know you were alive 5 minutes ago? all you have is a memory of what happened 5 minutes ago, nothing more. That is my point.

    It's a very philosophical point to raise, and I do so because it shows that claiming the universe was created 5000 years ago with a history of the cosmos fabricated in the stars, is tantamount to claiming that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, with all the memories we have had thusfar also purely fabricated, as zod reitterated for me.

    In otherwords im highlighting the ultimate reliance you have on faith, because theres nothing you, or we can do to absolutely disprove you.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    A propos of my various postings about the intellectual vacuity of creationism and the deeply dishonest habits of creationists, the following article by Richard Dawkins which was published in the Times last week seems relevant:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-196-1619264,00.html

    On a slightly lighter note ('coz it's the weekend), the infamous 'institute for creation research', a California-based bunch of creationists (on the internet here), has spawned a chemical counterpart, the reDiscovery Institute) which highlights the controversy surrounding the periodic table (see here).

    Enjoy!


  • #203
    Spudminister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Spudminister


    God is gay.


  • #204
    Eoghan-psych
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭Eoghan-psych


    J C wrote:
    Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculated the odds of producing the biochemical sequences of an Amoeba using undirected processes at 10^^-40,000. This means that all life including any ET life that may be discovered must have been created.

    I should point out that Sir Fred Hoyle was a former Astronomer Royal i.e. the top astronomer in Britain – and so his calculations carry considerable academic “weight”.

    Chemical interactions are not "undirected", so WHOOSH goes that silly argument. Given elements interact in given ways with other elements - e.g. the well known interaction preferences of Carbon.

    Fred Hoyle may have been a great astronomer, but astronomers aren't biochemists.

    The chances of selecting the correct lottery numbers are *highly* improbable [(52x51x50x49x48x47)/(1x2x3x4x5x6) if my leaving cert maths are holding up - and that's just one draw] yet people do it, week in and week out.


  • #205
    Eoghan-psych
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭Eoghan-psych


    J C wrote:
    You are correct, science cannot claim to know how the universe was CREATED because Creation Week was a once-off event that cannot be repeatably observed (which is a condition required by The Scientific Method).

    Wrong - only the *effects* must be repeatedly observable. Unless you want to argue that pompeii didn't happen? I hope not, because you'll look silly.
    J C wrote:
    You are also correct that Science should come up with theories based on evidence and should be willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence. However, the evolutionists on this thread have shown a distinct reluctance to change their opinions in the face of mounting evidence proving Evolution to be invalid – and Creation to be true.

    Citations for this please - Nature and Science publish dozens of papers a month on this area. Please direct us to *five*. Unless you're lying?

    J C wrote:
    Creation Science IS based on repeatably verifiable evidence – some of which I have already shared with you on this thread.

    Citations for peer reviewed journals please.

    J C wrote:
    As a Creation Scientist, I can confirm that Galileo was correct on both of these issues!!!

    If you are a creation scientist, please provide us with citations of your work from peer reviewed sources.


  • #206
    Eoghan-psych
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭Eoghan-psych


    J C wrote:
    1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.

    Quantum physics says you're lying. Your pathetically simplistic notions of cause and effect have been shown to be false. Strike one.

    J C wrote:
    2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.

    Again, science says you're lying. Strike two - certain domains of the universe work no more like clockwork than they work like giant parsnips.

    Your baseless assertion that this god has testicles is also noted.
    J C wrote:
    3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.

    Only possible solution? Bollocks. Strike three - you're out.

    Oh wait, there's more:

    J C wrote:
    4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

    Bollocks. Ever stare at clouds? Information is a post-hoc phenomenon. Strike four [not looking good for you, is it?]

    J C wrote:
    5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.

    Nylon bug. Stop lying. Strike five.
    J C wrote:
    6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

    Bollocks again. Demonstrate that this fairy of yours exists, period, and then set about demonstrating that she had anything to do with the universe.

    You're worse than the climate change deniers - they at least have economic reasons for their lies, whereas you have only dogma. Pathetic.


  • #207
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Playboy
    Jc if you cant understand that the evolution theory has practical applications to modern science (esp. genetics) then I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. You are obviously too narrow minded to accept that there is a distinct possibility that the evolution theory is correct.
    Evolution can only have practical applications if it is TRUE. As a former evolutionist myself I am open to all possibilities. I have looked for evidence of ‘muck to man evolution’ and I didn’t find any. I must also say that I am not alone in this – nobody on this thread has provided any evidence either.
    It most certainly wouldn’t be a waste of time for you to share any discoveries that you may have made in this regard – you would be the first evolutionist to produce repeatably observable evidence for evolution – and you would therefore be in line for a Nobel Prize!!!


    Quote Playboy
    Evolutionists generally accept that like most theories evolution is under constant revision in order to try and improve and perfect it.

    But Evolution is NOT like most SCIENTIFIC theories – which remain largely unchanged once they have been established and tested by empirical evidence. Evolution is a SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS that has undergone massive change over the past 100 years – and unlike valid scientific theories it still has no repeatably observable evidence to support it.

    Quote Playboy
    Creationism has no evidence to support it apart from the fact that it was written in a book (which is not evidence btw). Your 'proofs' for the existence of God are completely laughable, unfounded and immature.

    Please note that none of my proofs mentions the Bible, which is a faith-based book – and I have explicitly stated that my proofs for the existence of God were CIRCUMSTANTIAL and therefore not SCIENTIFIC. However, these circumstantial proofs are most definitely well founded on observable reality – and circumstantial evidence has a status of proof approaching scientific evidence.
    If you have an alternative better explanation for any of the following circumstantial proofs I would certainly like to see it.
    Each proof provides FACT, EVIDENCE and REASONING as PROOF for the existence of a personal God and His activities in the Universe.


    1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
    2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
    3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
    4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
    5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
    6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God


    Quote Playboy
    If you honestly use them (proofs of God) to convince yourself of the existence of God then you really don’t show much interest in trying to understand it properly or else you would have realised that practically every point you gave, as a proof is completely unfounded

    Every proof that I gave is founded on observable reality and uses evidentially based logical reasoning.


    Quote Playboy
    What proof do you offer that the creation story is true?

    The proofs that Divine Special Creation occurred are contained in Proofs 4 to 6 above.


    Quote Playboy
    You gave us your proofs of the existence of God but what makes this God the God of the bible?

    The God of the Bible is the only God that I know of who has claimed to be a transcendent personal God who single-handedly created the Universe and all life therein in six days. He is also the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits’ every one of my six proofs above and many more besides.
    He also happens to be the only God that I am aware of who loved you and me personally so much that He humbled Himself to take on our Human nature and to suffer the most horrible death imaginable in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins. All that He asks in return is that we turn to Him and repent of our sins – which is literally ‘nothing’ in comparison with what He has done for us.

    Quote Playboy
    I am not an atheist and I do believe in a God. I also believe that the essential message of loving and forgiveness given to us by the New Testament is amazing.

    If you do believe in a God – why do you reject my objective fact-based proofs for His existence?
    I would also point out that belief in “a God” or indeed in “loving and forgiveness” will not save you – you must believe on Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour in order to be saved.

    Quote Robin
    if one wishes to fritter one's life away propagating rather poorly-written and unimaginative Sumerian legends, then going to all the hassle of receiving a proper education in science, or anything else, is certainly a complete waste of time!

    The Holy Bible is the infallible word of God – any resemblance, which may exist, between it and deficient Sumerian legends is due to the fact that various cultures around the world have passed down corrupted versions of historical events such as Divine Special Creation and Noah’s Flood through ‘word of mouth’ folklore. The Sumerian creation and flood legends are obvious examples of such stories. The full definitive truth of these events however, is only to be found in the Bible.
    On your second point it is self-evidentially a waste of time to fritter away one’s life propagating a belief in an unfounded assertion that ‘muck evolved into man’. The resultant conclusion from such a belief that each person comes from nothing and leads a meaningless, unaccountable existence while waiting to go nowhere is quite depressing and pointless indeed.

    Quote Robin
    On a slightly lighter note ('coz it's the weekend), the infamous 'institute for creation research', a California-based bunch of creationists (on the internet here), has spawned a chemical counterpart, the reDiscovery Institute) which highlights the controversy surrounding the periodic table (see here).

    If you wish to comment on the Discovery Institute then please direct people to the real Discovery Institute site and not a SPOOF “reDiscovery Institute” site which has no links whatever to the real Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/.

    Evolutionists should read the writings of Creation Scientists rather than wasting their time on spoof creationist sites.


    Quote Robin
    A propos of my various postings about the intellectual vacuity of creationism and the deeply dishonest habits of creationists

    All Creation Scientists that I know are honourable people who believe in Jesus Christ’s statement that ‘the truth will set you free’.

    In relation to the Times article I would make the following observations:-
    1. The religious right AREN’T trying to ban the teaching of Evolution in Kansas. Creation Scientists and indeed other professional scientists are asking that the balancing evidence against Evolution be presented in public schools AS WELL AS any evidence, which may exist for Evolution. The questioning of existing theory is quite normal for all other scientific disciplines – the amazing thing is that a hearing must be held into allowing ANY criticism of Evolution.
    2. Creation Scientists certainly don’t take pleasure in science’s inability to explain certain phenomena. In fact, just like all other professional scientists, they devote their working lives in the pursuit of new knowledge on precisely such issues. All they ask is that what is known to science currently should be clearly identified and equally what is not scientifically established should also be clearly flagged. They also reasonably ask that any scientist (including themselves), who is engaging in speculation, should state that they are doing so. All of this is encompassed in the Scientific Method and it is actually a pre-requisite to scientific progress.


  • #208
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > nobody on this thread has provided any evidence either

    Because you're looking to have religious people provide you with facts about biology -- perhaps you should try asking a biologist, or maybe you could try again in the skeptics forum, where you were provided with plenty of evidence (all of which you cheerfully ignored) and where your half-baked opinions were given a good roasting earlier in the year? That's before your threads were locked for your habit of continuously going around in circles and not listening to a word that anybody was saying to you.

    BTW, as though it weren't obvious, asking about biology in a religious forum is as useful as landing in a vegetarians' forum looking for recipes for rump steak.

    > The religious right AREN’T trying to ban the teaching of
    > Evolution in Kansas.

    Almost -- they're doing their best to discredit 'theories' and all that frightful business with honesty and limitations -- see this link. Actually, since I know that you almost never follow any references which folk like me go to the trouble of finding for you, I'll quote this useful article here in full:
    Kansas Board of Ed Bans All Theories From Classroom
    The Kansas Board of Education has determined that every element of the school curriculum based on anything called a theory should be re-evaluated and that alternative views should be presented. "Our recent inquiries into the biology curriculum and the role of the so-called theory of evolution have made it abundantly clear that "science" is full of theories," said board member Kathy Martin. "We've heard compelling evidence to suggest that evolution does not deserve a place in our classrooms, and I think we owe it to the children of Kansas to make sure that other questionable theories don't slide in under the radar." The Board's four-day hearings on the teaching of evolution, held in early May, ended in acrimony as mainstream scientists accused the Board of attempting to sneak creationist views into the science curriculum under the guise of "intelligent design." Scientists say this is a form of creationism veiled in pseudoscientific jargon to appear more palatable as an alternative to the widely accepted theory of evolution. While many observers anticipated that the Kansas hearings would end favorably for intelligent design proponents - since several members of the Kansas Board of Education stated prior to the hearings that they did not accept the theory of evolution - many were surprised at the sweeping scope of their recommendations.

    "One does wonder what exactly they expect Kansas schoolchildren to study," said Martin Freeman, professor of geology at the University of Kansas. "If the Board's intention was to send a message to the world, they've succeeded. The message is: "Stay Away From Kansas.""

    In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data available.

    "By definition, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know," explained Freeman. "Aha!" shouted Martin. "See? They admit they can't prove any of it! On the other hand, the truth of the Bible is absolute. This can be easily proven, because the Bible says so. Q.E.D., mister scientist. Q.E.D."

    Among the theories besides evolution that would be eliminated from the curriculum by the Kansas Board of Education's ruling are the theories of gravity, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, acoustic theory, plate tectonics, algorithmic information theory, computation theory, graph theory, number theory, and probability theory. Critical theory and literary theory would also be banished, effectively removing virtually all books from the curriculum as well. "Well, that's not really a loss," said Martin. "You see, we figure that if the books agree with the Bible, they are superfluous; if they contradict it, they are dangerous. We are really just doing our job to make schools safe for our children."

    "This is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of," said Freeman. "Anyone leaving Kansas now? Can I get a lift?"
    Even though this is a joke, I still can't distinguish it from what's going on in Kansas. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz knows? Perhaps it's another one of Bush's attempts to render the sabre-tusk of satire toothless?

    > Every proof that I gave is founded on observable reality
    > and uses evidentially based logical reasoning. [...] Creation
    > scientists who devote their working lives in the pursuit of
    > new knowledge on precisely such issues. [...] questioning of
    > existing theory is quite normal [...] a pre-requisite
    > to scientific progress.

    I have to agree with Eoghan-psych and say that this is complete and total bollocks. The six points above which you listed above are fantasy and have been pulled, still steaming, out of a horse's ass. For your 'new knowledge', you're as indebted to your imagination as you are to the twitchless quill of a four-thousand-year dead Iraqi scribe and your opinions belong back then too; your convictions need a ground-up reconstruction as much as present-day Iraq does now, and for much the same reasons. Your understanding of science would discredit an idiot and your grasp of truth is sweaty and kak-handed. Your grasp of scientific principle shows that for every front row in a science class, there must be a back row too and your contribution to this debate, for all the converts you've gained to this square-jawed creed, might as well have been farted in triplicate from the top of the Cliffs of Moher in a hurricane. Progress for you is a backwards three-legged race uphill with a bag on your head and chips up your nose, and you wouldn't notice a good question if it sprouted legs, jumped up, and exploded at chest height. You wouldn't recognise reality if it came up and offered you the keys to its car. Logic and you have never met and you couldn't identify reason if it was squat-bang in front of you with a orange fireworks on top. You can't distinguish evidence from tapioca; you couldn't observe something even if it produced twelve-foot flames under your nose and you can't tell a solid proof from a West Clare catfish.

    Actually, upon reflection, maybe you should indeed stick to creationism and let us all know what kind of wooden eggs can be found at the end of the wild-goose chase laid on by the clueless pseuds in the fake "discovery institute" and its bogus friends. Because with such feeble and faulty analytical powers as your own on offer, I can assure you that you'd be laughed off any team of real biologists before you could uncork your hookah and unroll your mat on your first tea-break. But then again, you probably knew that anyway :)


  • #209
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Chemical interactions are not "undirected", so WHOOSH goes that silly argument. Given elements interact in given ways with other elements - e.g. the well known interaction preferences of Carbon.

    All “ordinary” chemical reactions of random chemical mixtures only produce impure (and biologically useless) compound mixtures – and chemicals must be purified and reacted in controlled specific ways to produce specific organic compounds – ask any chemical engineer. All living processes are observed to be based on extremely complex cascades of highly controlled specific chemical reactions. If these go out of control you die!!!
    The “well known interaction preferences of Carbon” have never been observed to produce anything approaching life spontaneously – so WHOOSH my proof remains valid!!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Fred Hoyle may have been a great astronomer, but astronomers aren't biochemists.
    As Astronomer Royal, Sir Fred Hoyle also had legitimate overview responsibility for examining the origins and possible distribution mechanisms of life in the Universe – and he therefore would have had professional access to biochemists in this regard. We can therefore take his pronouncements in regard to the mathematical impossibility of the spontaneous generation of the bio molecules required for a simple organism as scientifically valid – and they haven’t been successfully challenged in this regard, as far as I am aware.


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    The chances of selecting the correct lottery numbers are *highly* improbable [(52x51x50x49x48x47)/(1x2x3x4x5x6) if my leaving cert maths are holding up - and that's just one draw] yet people do it, week in and week out.

    The odds of winning the National Lottery are a highly PROBABLE c 5 million to one – and the Law of Big Numbers ensures that the Lotto is won on average every time that c 5 million tickets are purchased which is roughly every week. In fact all Lotteries are deliberately designed to have odds of winning to match their target markets.
    Sir Fred Hoyle’s number however, is in a completely different league at 10^^-40,000. To put this number into perspective the estimated number of electrons in the Universe is only 10^^82. The Law of Big Numbers would indicate that the bio-molecules for an Amoeba would be produced on average after 10^^40,000 attempts – an impossible task even if every electron in the Universe were harnessed effectively almost for eternity to do so.


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    You are correct, science cannot claim to know how the universe was CREATED because Creation Week was a once-off event that cannot be repeatably observed (which is a condition required by The Scientific Method).

    Wrong - only the *effects* must be repeatedly observable. Unless you want to argue that pompeii didn't happen? I hope not, because you'll look silly.

    I did say that the EVENTS of Creation Week cannot be repeatably observed – so the EVENTS of Creation itself cannot be verified scientifically.

    You are correct that the EFFECTS of Creation and it’s aftermath CAN be subjected to scientific research – and this is precisely what Creation Scientists do every day in their work.


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    You are also correct that Science should come up with theories based on evidence and should be willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence. However, the evolutionists on this thread have shown a distinct reluctance to change their opinions in the face of mounting evidence proving Evolution to be invalid – and Creation to be true.

    Citations for this please - Nature and Science publish dozens of papers a month on this area. Please direct us to *five*. Unless you're lying?

    The fact is that Evolutionary scientists in general refuse to recognise the work of former Evolutionary Scientists who become Creation Scientists. To refuse to recognise work and then demand that the author of the work produce proof that it is recognised is certainly an interesting idea!!!!

    I believe that it is called a ‘Catch 22’.


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.

    Quantum physics says you're lying. Your pathetically simplistic notions of cause and effect have been shown to be false. Strike one.

    Quantum mechanics only applies at sub-atomic levels of resolution. Could I remind you that what we are dealing with in living systems is decidedly above the sub-atomic level.
    Quantum mechanics has no relevance to any plausible mechanisms for the undirected production of living organisms whose life processes work at a distinctly macro atomic levels.
    Please do bear in mind that science is actually all about identifying and measuring the effects of causes and indeed the causes of effects!!!!
    Your strike one is OUT!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.

    Again, science says you're lying. Strike two - certain domains of the universe work no more like clockwork than they work like giant parsnips.

    The observed Universe down to atomic level is so predictable and machine-like that we can literally set our (atomic) clocks by it.
    Parsnips of all possible sizes also show evidence of purposeful design and are made up of cells that work like micro-precision machines.
    Your strike two is OUT!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.

    Only possible solution? Bollocks. Strike three - you're out.

    Ignoring your un-parliamentary language for a moment – I would like to point out that this point is based upon the Second LAW of Thermodynamics – which remains a valid Law of Physics last time I checked – or do you believe in Perpetual Motion Machines?
    Your strike three is OUT!!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

    Bollocks. Ever stare at clouds? Information is a post-hoc phenomenon. Strike four [not looking good for you, is it?]

    Again, ignoring your un-parliamentary language – I would like to point out that this point is based upon Information Theory. Clouds are random accumulations of largely inert water vapour – and a random cloud has no meaningful relationship with the massive amounts of purposeful encoded information observed in even the simplest cell?
    You may well believe that the information encoded in your writings is “a post hoc phenomena”.
    My purposeful logical comments certainly aren’t – nor is any other information that I have ever observed!!!!!
    Your strike four is OUT!!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.

    Nylon bug. Stop lying. Strike five.

    Do tell me about the Nylon bug – and why are you accusing IT of lying?
    Your strike five is OUT – I think??!!!
    Or maybe your lying Nylon bug can ‘save the day’ for you!!!!


    Quote Eoghan-psysch
    Originally Posted by J C
    6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

    Bollocks again. Demonstrate that this fairy of yours exists, period, and then set about demonstrating that she had anything to do with the universe.

    Once again, I have to say that your un-parliamentary language is very unbecoming.
    I would like to point out that my point is based upon the Law of Biogenesis – which is actually one of the few currently valid Scientific Laws of Biology – or have YOU observed life spontaneously generating from inanimate matter recently – if so and you can prove it, a Nobel Prize will be making it’s way to you soon!!!!
    The sovereign awesome Creator God of the Universe certainly exists and objectively proves that He does. His invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
    Your strike six is OUT!!!

    GAME SET AND MATCH TO GOD!!!!


  • #210
    solas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    havent participated in this discussion for a while and so I'm not so up to date on the posts but after reading this over at paranormal I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Robin
    I have to agree with Eoghan-psych and say that this is complete and total bollocks. The six points above which you listed above are fantasy and have been pulled out of a horse’s ass. For your ‘new knowledge’, you’re as indebted to your imagination as you are to the quill of an Iraqi scribe from four thousand years ago and your opinions belong back then too; your convictions need a ground-up reconstruction as much as present-day Iraq does now, and for much the same reasons. Your understanding of science would discredit an idiot and your grasp of truth is sweaty and kak-handed. Progress for you is a backwards three-legged race with a bag over your head and you wouldn’t know a good question if it sprouted legs and exploded. You wouldn’t recognise reality if it came up and offered you the keys to its car. Logic and you have never met and you couldn’t identify reason if it was squat-bang in front of you with a flashing blue light on top, spitting both fire and brimstone. You can’t distinguish evidence from tapioca; you couldn’t observe something even if it produced twelve-foot flames under your nose and you can’t tell a solid proof from a West Clare catfish.

    Actually, upon reflection, maybe you should indeed stick to creationism and let us all know what kind of wooden goose-eggs can be found at the end of the wild-goose chase laid on by the clueless pseuds in the “discovery institute”. Because with such feeble, but resolutely square-jawed, analytical powers as your own on offer, I can assure you that you’d be laughed out of any team of real biologists before you could even unroll your mat and hookah on your first tea-break.

    I hope that you are feeling better now that you have ‘coughed up’ all of this ‘bile and vitriol’ – are you sure that you have got rid of it all, Robin?
    In any event, you haven’t made a single valid criticism of ANY of my proofs for the existence of God.
    Such personalised attacks show that when you have NO answer to the message of my evidence, reasoning and logic you try to ‘shoot the messenger’. I might also add that your intemperate language also doesn’t help persuade any objective observers of your argument – but then you don’t have a real argument to present against my views or indeed in favour of Evolution – do you?
    The people of Kansas are waking up to the truth about Evolution – and the ‘overselling’ of this invalid theory does indeed threaten the very credibility of all of Science in the minds of the general public. It is quite likely that other branches of science will have to call Evolutionists to account on this issue – if they are unwilling to do so themselves. The very authority of all of science is 'on the line' on this one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement