J C wrote: » The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm not saying any of that, because it's a nonsense term. I'm outright denying that the comparison between all those forms of information is anything even approaching appropriate or fitting. 3 can be proven to be created by humans, and you're including the 4th purely because it fits your argument, without any basis whatsoever.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with anything?
SW wrote: » 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.
J C wrote: » A Theist who accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist is logically a Practical Atheist themselves.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Oh I get that, I'm just not sure how his point does his argument any favours.
SW wrote: » JC wishes to reinforce the idea that a person cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. Probably something to do with the inability of creationists to put forward any evidence for their claims.
SW wrote: » only if one struggles with the concept of logic. Just because a person accepts evolution does not mean they lost their belief in God. It is silly to suggest otherwise.
J C wrote: » If M2M is true, then Christianity is just wishful thinking. If everything created itself, where is there any room for God? ... the answer is obvious ... there is no room for such a Being ... and the Atheists are correct that He doesn't exist, or if He does, he has no claim on any of us for anything and for all practical purposes He can be treated as non-existent. It's as stark as that ... and we all need to face up to it ... and become Practical Atheists, if M2M Evolution happened.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » That is a very telling post.
J C wrote: » It is indeed very telling ... I'm a realist ... and if M2M Evolution occurred, this represents the 'death knell' for the relevance and indeed the existence of God. ... so we're still back to the question of whether M2M Evolution occurred.
... and the fact that every medium sized biomolecule has a combinatorial space that is in excess of the Universal Probability Bound proves the M2M is an impossibility.
SW wrote: » All this does is once again highlight the fact that your issue is a faith based one. That it causes you problems with regards to religious belief. I don't envy you that problem. But the solution isn't to try and get religious folk to reject science that doesn't fit with their beliefs.
SW wrote: » No, we've established that you have religious reasons for rejecting evolution.
SW wrote: » Science accepts evolution occurs, and still occurs today, so whatever maths a creationist dreamt up are clearly wrong.
J C wrote: » The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore the Atheist belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.
J C wrote: » The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore their belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid. So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated. So rather than making fallacious arguments that Atheists have no beliefs and Evolution isn't intimately connected to their worldview ... we should accept that we both have faith-based beliefs that impinge on the 'origins question' ... and get on with examining the evidence for M2M Evolution and its competitor theory of ID.
J C wrote: » The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore their belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid. So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » As I've already pointed out earlier in the thread I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a God existing, and would accept it if evidence came out in the morning proving it. Atheism is meaningless to me, it's simply the most accurate description of my current religious beliefs, and I'd imagine most people feel similarly.
J C wrote: » ... and you have 'religious' (i.e no-faith in God) reasons for accepting Evolution and rejecting Creation.
... so that suggests that we both may be biased in our viewpoints ... so let the evidence lead us where it may.
Please show me where it is wrong.
SW wrote: » There has been no evidence discovered to prove that life was created by God. The current working theory is abiogenesis is explanation for the origin of organic life. There would have been noble prizes, and announcements, for such a massive discovery regarding the question of the origin of organic life.
SW wrote: » Why not step away from the frequent denial of evolution on threads like this one? Would it not be a better idea to accept your religious choice and leave it at that rather than spreading misinformation/false claims about the veracity of evolution?
J C wrote: » Atheism would be meaningless if there is objective proof for the existence of God ... and similarly, Christianity would be meaningless if God doesn't exist ... or has had no involvement in the creation of anything. I would have a serious problem with the concept of God existing, if there is no physical evidence for His existence. Such a belief would be bordering on the delusional ... and has been (correctly) compared to believing that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
J C wrote: » There would be Nobel Prizes, etc., if abiogenesis were to be proven ... but proof that God did it isn't allowed to even be considered a priori by conventional science. So even when the existence of God has been proven (and it has been proven by ID) this is deemed to be 'outside science' and therefore not worthy of any further consideration.
Why not provide the evidence for M2M Evolution ... and not something as illogical and implausible as invariably damaging mutagenesis. as the supposed producer of the genetic diversity upon which NS acts.
SW wrote: » Incorrect. I accept what science says about evolution because I've not seen any evidence provided for alternative explanations.
SW wrote: » But you've admitted that you won't take your own advice because you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with evolution.
SW wrote: » pick up a biology book. you'll see that evolution is taught as part of the lesson plan. yet you claim that the maths make it impossible for evolution to occur.
SW wrote: » No. They problem is that creationists have been unable to show evidence/proof that God exists. He may very well exist, but as yet no one has managed to prove that He does. It would be international news on the day that someone manages to do so.
J C wrote: » It has been proven by ID ... and it hasn't merited a paragraph on page 3 of any newspaper ... now that says something quite disconcerting in relation to the anti-God bias within our media.
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.
floggg wrote: » Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind. You have correctly say that would he impossible. But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam. Please tell me how that's possible?
J C wrote: » ... if our brains weren't spontaneously produced by materialistic process acting over time and using selected mistakes ... are you saying that our brains were Directly Created then?
