Creation vs. Evolution

[TheDuke]

ad hominem...attacking the source instead of their claim.
...
Duke...Either you are ignorant of history, or you are a history denier
...
denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements.

Congratulations, for the first time ever, you've actually managed to properly assign a fallacy. However it matters not, since the entire purpose of your apologetic source is to rationalize the obvious religion-inspired ignorance in the past, in order to justify a self-imposed ignorance in the future. Go ahead, if you think this strengthens your position, accuse me of it. I still don't have any reason to consider such excuses, as I shall explain later on. Furthermore, the passage you've mentioned is really the least of your worries (go back and look at all the verses I had quoted). Interesting to note is, the simple fact that even your petty source admits to something you never would: The bible is a metaphor !!!!

No problems from me with ltitle Galileo said. Keep in mind his perspective that God's Word is inerrant.

Here's a tip for you, when you're jumping on a tiny piece, clinging on to it like a bulldog and vociferously denying/ignoring the rest of the picture (like you always seem to do in every matter we've ever discussed so far), then it's a sure sign of dogmatic dishonestly. But if that's what you need in order to feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, so be it.

That quote was actually from a history professor. DavisBJ seemed to agree with it. If you want to be a history denier, perhaps argue with those two.

For someone who denies science, that's a very bold statement. So here you go:
Show me a calculation of the earth's circumference made in Europe after the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance. Be aware that Indian scholars could get the value (not to mention the cosmology) up to less than 1% wrong in the 6th century, muslim scholars in the 11th.
And of course, the Greeks also knew very well about the spherical shape. Despite all of this, your "inerrant" book somehow managed to rely instead on the Babylonian flat earth concept (technically, not surprising as the cult of Yahweh grew especially prominent in the Hebrew diaspora in Babylon). As far as I know, before Copernicus no one could really figure it out back in Europe, and those who tried, couldn't penetrate the citadel of ignorance perpetuated by arrogant religious zealots.
But here's your chance, prove me wrong!


Epilogue: Since you seem to be adamant that christianity had anything to do with the renaissance and the scientific revolution, explain this: How come it wasn't before the extended contact with the muslim world that european scholars even realized they had foundations laid down by Greek and Roman philosophy?

 

[TheDuke]

That's a very good point. It's interesting how often creationists try to bash science by saying "It's just like our religion!"

Not sure, but I believe that's called a Freudian slip

 

[TheDuke]

I'm very sorry about that post number. What a bummer! It is Post #16547. See what you think!! The book is FREE online. I made it that way. The only time you have to pay for it is if you get it from Barnes & Noble, or Amazon.com. Then, it's $14.95! Sheesh!

Dear Michael,
Thanks for the reference to your post. I was just about to click on the link, when I remembered that not so long ago, you were complaining to me about having to spend the same amount of time (2h) on a video I recommended. Then I was reminded by your narrative that there's really little point in my reading about your fantasies. So thanks, but I'll pass.

I'm very glad that you and others here are agnostic! It means that you're on your journey and that you're not sure or not about God, but at least you don't refuse Him. Yeaaah!!

Yeah, but you'll be disappointed to learn that my agnosticism is purely philosophical and concerns the more general question about the limits of human knowledge especially with regard to the supernatural. The hypothetical existence of invented deities (such as your own) is really so simple to refute, kinda like the Easter bunny.

 

[ok doser]

The hypothetical existence of invented deities (such as your own) is really so simple to refute....

but you acknowledge that reason dictates that there must be a supernatural source of all creation, right?

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Michael,
Thanks for the reference to your post. I was just about to click on the link, when I remembered that not so long ago, you were complaining to me about having to spend the same amount of time (2h) on a video I recommended. Then I was reminded by your narrative that there's really little point in my reading about your fantasies. So thanks, but I'll pass.

I have, and have carefully read, a couple of editions of Michael’s book. You will find little in there that he hasn’t already shared earlier in this thread, to include complete reversals in some of his beliefs from one edition to the next.

 

[Lon]

"From what I can tell" being the key part.

:nono: It invited your correction, not your ridicule.

Nope, not even close. Did you bother reading the paper?

Why yes. Yes I did. "From what I can tell" I don't find it necessary. One question: Why is 'evolution' at all necessary to the paper? What would it prove that couldn't be said without it? I'm really not seeing the need. Explain that to me.

Can you cite anywhere in any paper where the scientists write "evolution did it"?

Subtly, yes but I did invite dialogue contrary. Explain the need to me.
I 'think' I could rewrite this good paper and remove 'evolution' and not do injustice to the article at all. Again, I'll be open to correction. In a rare moment, I'm being genuine and not against you much here. Take advantage.

It'd probably help if you actually read the paper.

I'll even give you grace here as well. Take advantage. I 'think' I could rewrite the paper without losing meaning, and by removing a need for "evolution." For the most part I'd 'describe' rather than bin the label.

Yeah, that happened over a century ago. Or are you suggesting that scientists have to re-establish fundamental conclusions over and over and over again, before they can do any new work?

So you admit to the indoctrination. :up:

Why would you think your musings on this subject are of any value whatsoever, especially given how you are directly contradicted by the people who are actually doing the research?

Oh, an a sundry of reasons... I can/could have gone the science route, I was getting A's. I don't remember having "evolution" as necessary to any test I took. It never came up in all of 20 years of school.

Basically what's going on here is we've posted a series of published papers that describe in some detail how evolutionary theory is the entire basis for some important genetic research, and now you're coming along and declaring "No it isn't" and expecting everyone to just take your word for it.

:nono: I'm saying it is a sloppy bin word. In writing, especially creative, but all writing Languag Arts, the direction isn't "tell" but "describe." We tend to bin ideas too often and I think science does a terrible job of it with 'evolve.' It is, to the best of my reasoning skills and exposure to science, unnecessary.

I can't believe someone as incredibly intelligent as you would think that to be at all compelling.

I was already trying, but this puts it over the top. It is an incredibly kind thing to say to me. Thank you and I return the compliment. Most of the time you and I are too mean and opinionated. Thanks.

 

[6days]

That's a very good point. It's interesting how often creationists try to bash science by saying "It's just like our religion!"

No Jose... Biblical creationists love science. Modern science was largely founded by Biblical creationists.
However we do mock some of the frauds...and shoddy interpretations evolutionists have made.

 

[6days]

modern science may not have arisen at all

modern science may not have arisen at all

No problems from me with what Galileo said. Keep in mind his perspective that God's Word is inerrant.

Here's a tip for you, when you're jumping on a tiny piece, clinging on to it like a bulldog and vociferously denying/ignoring the rest of the picture (like you always seem to do in every matter we've ever discussed so far), then it's a sure sign of dogmatic dishonestly. But if that's what you need in order to feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, so be it.

It would seem Galileo also clung like a bulldog and vociferously stood for the absolute truth of God's Word. He rejected religious leaders who were standing with aristolean science of his day. Fortunately there have always been a minority of scientists who claim like Galileo that "scripture can not err".

That quote was actually from a history professor. DavisBJ seemed to agree with it. If you want to be a history denier, perhaps argue with those two.

For someone who denies science, that's a very bold statement.

Uh... DavisBJ doesn't deny science....but he doesn't seem willing to follow the evidence to our Creator.

That quote was actually from a history professor. DavisBJ seemed to agree with it. If you want to be a history denier, perhaps argue with those two.

So here you go:
Show me a calculation of the earth's circumference made in Europe after the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance.

Fallacy of moving the goal posts. The quote was by Peter Harrison
Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford,
Fellow of Harris Manchester College.... As well, Harrison was also professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia "Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science"

 

[Tyrathca]

No Jose... Biblical creationists love science. Modern science was largely founded by Biblical creationists.

Actually modern science as a whole owes itself more to rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy for its foundation.

Regardless even if you did find it modern science has long since left you behind and disowned you. Much like alchemist were the origins of modern day chemists, but whose ideas have long since been moved on from.

However we do mock some of the frauds...and shoddy interpretations evolutionists have made.

If by that you mean disagree with the majority of modern physics, geology & biology but put forward practically no original research if your own...

 

[6days]

Regardless even if you did find it modern science has long since left you behind and disowned you.

Not at all... science is science is science. What you are talking about that has left the roots of modern science behind is evolutionism.
I like what Margret Thatcher said “I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:

“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”

 

[TheDuke]

but you acknowledge that reason dictates that there must be a supernatural source of all creation, right?

Not at all.

Firstly what you just did there is called "begging the question". It may be your opinion that there has to be a supernatural source, but that does not make it reasonable. You must show why it is reasonable, i.e. provide a "reason" for it being so.

For instance, the same logic could be used a 1000 ya, to show that earthquakes must have a supernatural cause. We now know better. The reason why it's generally not a useful thing to call upon the supernatural in order to explain the natural, is because so far it has never lead to an actual understanding of how and why something in nature happens.

That being said, of course, I don't know whether there is something supernatural out there. I'm not exactly counting on it, but since I can't tell - I'm not going to make unreasonable assumptions either way.

 

[6days]

That being said, of course, I don't know whether there is something supernatural out there. I'm not exactly counting on it, but since I can't tell - I'm not going to make unreasonable assumptions either way.

It is a reasonable assumption that our universe has a super natural cause. Otherwise what? ..... Nothing caused everything? Atheists, skeptics and agnostics avoid the most obvious answer.

One of the more curious debates in science focuses on the laws of physics and why they seem fine-tuned for life. The problem is that the laws of physics contain various constants that have very specific, mysterious values that nobody can explain. Various scientists have calculated that even the tiniest of changes to these constants would make life impossible. That raises the question of why they are so finely balanced?
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/
The article continues on discussing possible scenarios that don't involve a "unseen omnipotent being", and an argument to avoid having to consider The Creator.

I agree that science should always consider alternate explanations. Sometimes in doing research, the obvious answer may not be the correct answer. But, when the obvious points towards design ... shouldn't a Designer be considered as an explanation? The problem atheists have is they can not allow themselves to even consider the most obvious answer.

 

[alwight]

It is a reasonable assumption that our universe has a super natural cause. Otherwise what? ..... Nothing caused everything? Atheists, skeptics and agnostics avoid the most obvious answer.

Except that you still haven't explained anything. Simply invoking a supposed supernatural is a cop out not an explanation.

 

[Interplanner]

Except that you still haven't explained anything. Simply invoking a supposed supernatural is a cop out not an explanation.

That would depend on what that god-being was like. It is actually a complete answer because there are so few limitations on what he can do.

I'm interested in this accusation of a cop-out because of two items that have come up recently about uniformitarianism. One was "Making North America" by PBS last fall. The person asserted that everything happened very slowly and predictably, except for a layer of a metallic dust found at a certain era, pretty much universally, from an asteroid impact.

2nd, I noticed a Bing news feature this week is that there is a new theory on a physical event that began the earth and moon, and it is also a collision that split a previous object (I believe the name given the previous or of the arriving object was 'Theia.') And then off they spun into the shapes and relationship we have today.

I'm simply noting here that U'ism always leaves a dramatic door open. I don't have any confidence in the PBS guy because there are indications everywhere of massive relocations of sedimentary materials. But I do credit him with mentioning something catastrophic. As for the Bing article, it makes the current earth more of a dicier, chancier thing than ever, when in fact there is system after system in coordination--the opposite of chance.

I don't know why it is so necessarily difficult to imagine a god who is more designedly powerful than these chance things or who is also interested in them providing us with goodness, but those two things--together--are what the Christian view is. And as an added benefit, the Christian view is not to blow you up for not believing it!

 

[TheDuke]

It is a reasonable assumption that our universe has a super natural cause. Otherwise what? ..... Nothing caused everything?
...
Sometimes in doing research, the obvious answer may not be the correct answer. But, when the obvious points towards design ... shouldn't a Designer be considered as an explanation? The problem atheists have is they can not allow themselves to even consider the most obvious answer.

Have you learnt nothing yet?

Science works mainly because it does not presume an answer before looking at the facts.

As I've explained in my previous post, no, it's not reasonable to make grand assumptions about something you don't know. And in your particular case, the obvious answer is "we don't know yet".

Come on, you can do it. Just repeat after me:
WE DON'T KNOW (YET).
It's easy, like 1-2-3.........

Making up an answer 'ex culo' is the worst kind of substitute for actual knowledge. But as I said, since that seems to make you happy - whatever.


PS: BTW the level of complexity, convolutedness, imperfections and general lack of traces of an underlying conceptual scheme very much do not point in the direction of design.

PPS: And if you were a follower of a polytheistic faith, I bet you'd be using the very notions I've just described as an "argument" in favour of 'design by committee'.

 

[alwight]

That would depend on what that god-being was like. It is actually a complete answer because there are so few limitations on what he can do.

I'm interested in this accusation of a cop-out because of two items that have come up recently about uniformitarianism. One was "Making North America" by PBS last fall. The person asserted that everything happened very slowly and predictably, except for a layer of a metallic dust found at a certain era, pretty much universally, from an asteroid impact.

2nd, I noticed a Bing news feature this week is that there is a new theory on a physical event that began the earth and moon, and it is also a collision that split a previous object (I believe the name given the previous or of the arriving object was 'Theia.') And then off they spun into the shapes and relationship we have today.

I'm simply noting here that U'ism always leaves a dramatic door open. I don't have any confidence in the PBS guy because there are indications everywhere of massive relocations of sedimentary materials. But I do credit him with mentioning something catastrophic. As for the Bing article, it makes the current earth more of a dicier, chancier thing than ever, when in fact there is system after system in coordination--the opposite of chance.

I don't know why it is so necessarily difficult to imagine a god who is more designedly powerful than these chance things or who is also interested in them providing us with goodness, but those two things--together--are what the Christian view is. And as an added benefit, the Christian view is not to blow you up for not believing it!

I don't really see any point here of conflating the details regarding the physical formation of the Earth and Solar system with the origins of the universe?
Adding a supernatural layer into the natural mix is the same as saying that from this point on, an explanation of any kind is no longer required and that somehow a supernatural is a satisfactory conclusion to hold, but which in reality isn't anything of the kind.

 

[ok doser]

Not at all.

Firstly what you just did there is called "begging the question".

nope

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

It may be your opinion that there has to be a supernatural source, but that does not make it reasonable. You must show why it is reasonable, i.e. provide a "reason" for it being so.

it's been done before, ad infinitum

didn't think it would be necessary

you've heard of entropy, yes?


the laws of thermodynamics?

and their implications?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why yes. Yes I did. "From what I can tell" I don't find it necessary. One question: Why is 'evolution' at all necessary to the paper? What would it prove that couldn't be said without it? I'm really not seeing the need. Explain that to me.

I've done that a number of times on this thread. Here are a few posts you can read through...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4602609&postcount=16465

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4606148&postcount=16505

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4601637&postcount=16459

Subtly, yes but I did invite dialogue contrary.

You're dodging. Again, where in any published scientific paper do they write "Evolution did it"?

I 'think' I could rewrite the paper without losing meaning, and by removing a need for "evolution." For the most part I'd 'describe' rather than bin the label.

Then explain how you would know which genomes to compare, what to look for in the genomes, and how to make sense of what you find with absolutely no understanding of the relative evolutionary relatedness of different taxa, or evolutionary mechanisms.

So you admit to the indoctrination.

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

Oh, an a sundry of reasons... I can/could have gone the science route, I was getting A's. I don't remember having "evolution" as necessary to any test I took. It never came up in all of 20 years of school.

Honestly, no one cares.

I'm saying it is a sloppy bin word. In writing, especially creative, but all writing Languag Arts, the direction isn't "tell" but "describe." We tend to bin ideas too often and I think science does a terrible job of it with 'evolve.' It is, to the best of my reasoning skills and exposure to science, unnecessary.

And the scientists who actually do the work say the opposite. So why do you think anyone would ever take your baseless say-so over the evidence-based work of actual geneticists?

I was already trying, but this puts it over the top. It is an incredibly kind thing to say to me. Thank you and I return the compliment. Most of the time you and I are too mean and opinionated. Thanks.

Your cluelessness is noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Biblical creationists love science.

Just like AiG, eh? They "love science"only as long as it doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs.

 

[6days]

Science works mainly*because*it does not presume an answer before looking at the facts.

Very good; you understand the basics.*

So, you now understand why evolutionists were wrong to jump to conclusions about "junk" DNA?...psueudogenes?...useless organs?....transitional humans?....poor eye design? Etc etc etc.

Science works because it does not presume an answer.

Come on, you can do it. Just repeat after me: WE DON'T KNOW (YET).
It's easy, like 1-2-3.........

It seems easy but why can't evolutionists just admit that instead of jumping to false conclusions?

PS: BTW the level of complexity, convolutedness, imperfections and general lack of traces of an underlying conceptual scheme very much do not point in the direction of design.

You should take your own advice and admit you may not understand the purpose and design. Then you might not have so much egg on face.