Darwin's theory

Delirium · 19-10-2014 08:28AM

J C wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs · 19-10-2014 09:27AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

yellowlabrador · 19-10-2014 10:14AM

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

SaveOurLyric · 19-10-2014 10:47AM

yellowlabrador wrote: »

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

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

PopePalpatine · 19-10-2014 10:53AM

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

smcgiff · 19-10-2014 10:54AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

is their conclusion not equally valid

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

namloc1980 · 19-10-2014 11:10AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

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

rozeboosje · 19-10-2014 11:13AM

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

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

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

SaveOurLyric · 19-10-2014 11:38AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

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

yellowlabrador · 19-10-2014 11:43AM

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

kingchess · 19-10-2014 11:53AM

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

Knasher · 19-10-2014 12:32PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

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

rozeboosje · 19-10-2014 01:20PM

Interestingly, though:

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

J C · 19-10-2014 02:13PM

kingchess wrote: »

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

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

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

J C · 19-10-2014 02:39PM

rozeboosje wrote: »

Interestingly, though:

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

My comments in blue below

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

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

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

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

namloc1980 · 19-10-2014 02:39PM

J C wrote: »

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

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

19-10-2014 02:46PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

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

J C · 19-10-2014 02:47PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

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

J C · 19-10-2014 02:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

al22 · 19-10-2014 02:58PM

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

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

MrPudding · 19-10-2014 03:03PM

J C wrote: »

My comments in blue below

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

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

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

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

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

MrP

J C · 19-10-2014 03:15PM

MrPudding wrote: »

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

MrP

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

J C · 19-10-2014 03:19PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

... while some Theists believe in M2M Evolution, all Atheists believe in it ... indeed Prof Dawkins goes as far as saying that :-
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

There is some Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.

J C · 19-10-2014 03:23PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

In response to your earlier post, I think it would be reasonable for you to offer proof that CFSI is actually a thing before asking anyone to refute it.

It is self-explanatory ... it is information that is complex, specified and functional. All functional information is CFSI, for example Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.

J C · 19-10-2014 03:37PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All atheists believe in evolution for the simple reason that any opposing theory requires unnecessary evocation of a deity. All atheists believe in gravity too. Does that mean the two are somehow connected?

Dawkins isn't some kind of spokesperson for atheists or evolutionists by the way. He's just a man who happens to be pretty passionate about both.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on all right. Just not where you're claiming it is.

... but Prof Dawkins didn't say that the existence of gravity made him an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
I believe in gravity as does every other person I know ... and anytime anybody has any doubts about it, they can test it's existence by letting a brick fall on their big toe!!!:eek:

... so there is no controversy over the existence of gravity ... and, unlike evolution its existence or non-existence has no implications for the existence of the God of the Bible ... or the worldview of its adherents.

... and there is serious Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.:)

Delirium · 19-10-2014 03:39PM

J C wrote: »

... but Prof Dawkins didn't say that gravity made him an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
I believe in gravity as does every other person I know ... and anytime anybody has any doubts about it they can test it's existence by letting a brick fall on their big toe!!!:eek:

... so there is no controversy over the existence of gravity ... and, unlike evolution its existence or non-existence has no implications for the existence of the God of the Bible ... or the worldview of its adherents.

At least we're getting to the core of your issue with evolution.

J C · 19-10-2014 03:42PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It really isn't. Your argument is a bit like me saying my bedsheets and the trees outside are both green so they must be somehow connected.

If your sheets are made from Linen then they are 'connected' to the trees outside by both being plant material.

The fact that the information in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information is complex, specified and functional is self-evident ... or are you saying that this information isn't complex, specified and functional?

J C · 19-10-2014 03:46PM

SW wrote: »

At least we're getting to the core of your issue with evolution.

Atheism is also at the core of the Atheist's belief in evolution. Prof Dawkins has elevated it to the point of allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

J C · 19-10-2014 03:51PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Again, Dawkins is not a spokesperson for the rest of us. I assume Dawkins' point was that evolution provided proof that we weren't created in the way stated in the bible, whereas previous to the theory this could only be assumed.

Aside from that though, you're taking one mans opinion and extrapolating it to all atheists, and indeed theists who accept evolution, and that's just silly.

Prof Dawkins point is valid, if M2M Evolution occurred ... it would indeed make all Atheists intellectually fulfilled by having a proven 'origins' explanation ... and one that would destroy the Christian explanation that God did it.

The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.

Delirium · 19-10-2014 03:51PM

J C wrote: »

Atheism is also at the core of the Atheist's belief in evolution. Prof Dawkins has elevated it to the point of allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Nonsense. a person doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect as people from all major religions also accept evolution.

Darwin's theory

Comments