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

Darwin's theory

1…4647495152…78

Comments

  • #1442
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.

    That's purely because it contradicts your belief in Genesis. Biological sciences currently operate using current understanding of evolution. There is no scientific endeavour that currently uses predictions based on creationism.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1443
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    SETI looks for complex functional specified information encoded in radio-waves coming in from space to try and detect extra-terrestrial intelligent life.
    CFSI is found in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.
    ... or are you simply in denial because of the implications of CFSI in genetic information for the existence of God?


  • #1444
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? :confused:

    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1445
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    A Theist who accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist is logically a Practical Atheist themselves.


  • #1446
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Oh I get that, I'm just not sure how his point does his argument any favours.
    One could say the same about the majority of his content arguing against evolution :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1448
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.


  • #1449
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    Why would they believe in God ... if everything created itself ?
    What role would the introduction of a Divine Being have, under such circumstances?


  • #1450
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1451
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    That is a very telling post.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1452
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    No, we've established that you have religious reasons for rejecting evolution.
    ... 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.
    Science accepts evolution occurs, and still occurs today, so whatever maths a creationist dreamt up are clearly wrong.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1453
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.

    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.


  • #1454
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    No, we've established that you have religious reasons for rejecting evolution.
    ... 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.
    SW wrote: »
    Science accepts evolution occurs, and still occurs today, so whatever maths a creationist dreamt up are clearly wrong.
    Please show me where it is wrong.


  • #1455
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,445 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    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.

    I presume you will now back this up with said scientific proof??


  • #1456
    yellowlabrador
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭yellowlabrador


    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.

    You are not really understanding the issue.

    You are also moving the problem on. Who created god?


  • #1457
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.

    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.

    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?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1458
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.


  • #1459
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... and you have 'religious' (i.e no-faith in God) reasons for accepting Evolution and rejecting Creation.
    Incorrect. I accept what science says about evolution because I've not seen any evidence provided for alternative explanations.
    ... so that suggests that we both may be biased in our viewpoints ... so let the evidence lead us where it may.
    But you've admitted that you won't take your own advice because you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with evolution.
    Please show me where it is wrong.
    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1460
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.


  • #1461
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    There is currently no physical evidence for the existence of God. But you seem to accept that God exists regardless. Why should you accepting evolution be any different? Millions of theists seem to be able to manage it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1462
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    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.
    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.
    Scientists already have. It's the very evidence you've rejected due to problems for your religious beliefs.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1463
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Incorrect. I accept what science says about evolution because I've not seen any evidence provided for alternative explanations.
    I have presented such evidence for an alternative explantion. However, be that as it may, your first point is also invalid ... no evidence for an alternative (even if such were the case) isn't evidence for M2M Evolution ... and you need positive unassailable evidence for it, if you are to claim scientific credibility for it.
    SW wrote: »
    But you've admitted that you won't take your own advice because you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with evolution.
    I have no problem letting the evidence lead me where it may ... and currently it is leading me in the direction of ID and away from Spontaneous Evolution ... but I'm prepared to look at where I may be in error.
    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.
    ... and so it does (for M2M Evolution) but I accept the Brown Moth / White Moth (but always a Moth) type of 'evolution'.


  • #1464
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.
    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.


  • #1465
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,445 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    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.

    ID is just another of those things that creationists go on about which has no basis in reality. So using one fairy story (ID) to prove another fairy story (god / creationism) is ridiculous in the extreme.


  • #1466
    Tordelback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    How does even ID prove the existence of the Christian God in particular? Even if there was a single piece of evidence in support of ID (and I've never seen one), why would it point to NuJehovah, and not Uranus, Baal or Ymir and his cow emerging from the bloody Ginnungagap? Try to answer the question without using the word 'bible', beacuse you can find all those other fellas in books too nowadays.


  • #1467
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.


    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?


  • #1468
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    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?

    goddidit!!!! LOL


  • #1469
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    JC if you'd never read the bible you wouldn't believe in creationism, it's really that simple. A scientific theory doesn't need a book of fables to be based on. You're putting bad science to fairytales to desperately try make them real and then laughing at people using observable results. It's quite sad really.


  • #1470
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    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?

    Indeed, the idea that we "spontaneously changed from pond life to man" (nowhere does evolution suggest this but JC doesnt seem to grasp the basics of science so I dunno) is ludicrous but yet us being magicked literally out of thin air isn't? If nothing can come from nothing then where did God come from? Christianity seems to go out of it's way to poke holes in it's own nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #1471
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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?

    I think we found the problem - somebody clearly doesn't know what spontaneously means.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement