Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Neverfox View Post
    Given the content of your posts thus far, may I attempt to summarize what I think it is you believe? If I'm wrong, I apologize.
    1. God created the first living things.
    2. Those living things have not evolved since that creation, but were created as they are today.

    You obviously have not read many threads here, because I quite frequently criticize evolutionists for their "straw man" characterization of creationist belief like your second point. Why would anyone who ever visited the animal barns at a county fair ever think that animals or other creatures do not change over time?

    You think creationists are quite stupid don't you?

    Makes you feel good about yourself I'll bet.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bob b View Post
      Of course not, but a high degree of ordered complexity does.
      What criteria do you use to determine whether there is a "high degree" of ordered complexity?
      Militant Moderate

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bob b View Post
        You obviously have not read many threads here, because I quite frequently criticize evolutionists for their "straw man" characterization of creationist belief like your second point. Why would anyone who ever visited the animal barns at a county fair ever think that animals or other creatures do not change over time?

        You think creationists are quite stupid don't you?

        Makes you feel good about yourself I'll bet.
        Bob, the poster could have meant "no change" outside of the original determined biblical kinds. I realize that the poster could have been more explicit, but I think you are jumping to an uneccessary conclusion by thinking that he thinks creationists are "stupid".
        Militant Moderate

        Comment


        • Originally posted by noguru View Post
          Bob, the poster could have meant "no change" outside of the original determined biblical kinds. I realize that the poster could have been more explicit, but I think you are jumping to an uneccessary conclusion by thinking that he thinks creationists are "stupid".
          Are you blind?

          Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid. One could make a lot of money placing bets on this for any random selection of evolutionists.

          Why do you think an atheist would come to a forum like this if not for "kicks" and/or ego self-stroking?
          Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
          Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by noguru View Post
            What criteria do you use to determine whether there is a "high degree" of ordered complexity?
            The number of interrelated and interdependent automatic feedback control systems, such as is found in any cell.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bob b View Post
              Are you blind?

              Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid. One could make a lot of money placing bets on this for any random selection of evolutionists.

              Why do you think an atheist would come to a forum like this if not for "kicks" and/or ego self-stroking?
              Sounds like the one who has a mountain of contempt for the "other side" is you, Bob. People come here to learn- because there is no teacher quite as effective as someone who disagrees with you completely. It forces you to re-examine your ideas, to lay them out in clear terms, and to defend them. Some YECs are brighter than others, but holding what I view as an erroneous belief doesn't make someone stupid. If they wanted ego-stroking they would go to a website where they were the majority, and could look forward to simply reinforcing their beliefs.
              "Those who have crossed
              With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
              Remember us--if at all--not as lost
              Violent souls, but only
              As the hollow men
              The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                Sounds like the one who has a mountain of contempt for the "other side" is you, Bob. People come here to learn- because there is no teacher quite as effective as someone who disagrees with you completely. It forces you to re-examine your ideas, to lay them out in clear terms, and to defend them. Some YECs are brighter than others, but holding what I view as an erroneous belief doesn't make someone stupid. If they wanted ego-stroking they would go to a website where they were the majority, and could look forward to simply reinforcing their beliefs.
                You are not an atheist.
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                  You are not an atheist.
                  Not anymore. It wasn't that long ago that I was, so I still feel a bond with them, and I believe that they share the same reasons for being here that I do. The majority of athiests here seem interested in serious discussion on a wide range of topics and come here because of the varied views under discussion. It broadens the mind. Those who come to gloat soon leave, when they find that the believers here bite back.
                  "Those who have crossed
                  With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                  Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                  Violent souls, but only
                  As the hollow men
                  The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                    Those who come to gloat soon leave, when they find that the believers here bite back.
                    But many do not give up that easily, since that would be an admission of defeat.

                    In other words they get "hooked".
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                      The number of interrelated and interdependent automatic feedback control systems, such as is found in any cell.
                      What types of systems do you use for comparison, when judging that one system has a more "highly ordered complexity"? IOW, which "more highly ordered" systems spefically are you referring to, and which systems are you measuring them against.
                      Militant Moderate

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                        But many do not give up that easily, since that would be an admission of defeat.

                        In other words they get "hooked".
                        Yep- and if they don't want to "admit defeat" it is because they have found intellectual stimulation and challenge.
                        "Those who have crossed
                        With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                        Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                        Violent souls, but only
                        As the hollow men
                        The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                          Are you blind?

                          Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid. One could make a lot of money placing bets on this for any random selection of evolutionists.

                          Why do you think an atheist would come to a forum like this if not for "kicks" and/or ego self-stroking?
                          What makes you say this, Bob? Have atheists told you that is the most common reason they come here?

                          You seemed to use evolutionist and atheist interchangeably in this response. You do realize that a person can be an evolutionist and not an atheist?

                          Bob, your response seems to be spotlighting your paranoid side.
                          Militant Moderate

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                            But many do not give up that easily, since that would be an admission of defeat.

                            In other words they get "hooked".
                            Are you speaking from personal experience Bob?
                            Militant Moderate

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                              It isn't faith, I am simply allowing for the possibility that the study of abiogenesis will determine if/how life arose from non-life. You are writing the entire field off from the get-go because of religious objections. How very intellectually honest of you!
                              Christians don't have faith, but rather a justification for believing that a God exists. Abiogenesis, anthropic principle and the meaning of life all gives a reasonable justification for invoking God. Then there IC and SC which is another method of detecting design. If these fail then either a designer never created or there is another way to detect design. Religious objections? How ridiculous of you because I never ONCE brought religion to this discussion now did I? Nice way to twist the conversation and paint the picture of me being the bad guy. I am proposing a theory which makes the prediction that abiogenesis will never be figured out. However, this is not to say that it can't be figured out because Paley's theory merely does what all science must do and that is make predictions against an observation. Here is one evidence against a naturalistic explanation:


                              One of the major obstacles to the naturalistic explanations is our atmosphere. The ozone (O3) forms when molecular oxygen (O2) is struck by cosmic radiation. Without oxygen in our atmosphere, there can be no ozone and without it the ultraviolet radiation would destroy any life that is exposed to the sun. Not to mention that ultraviolet radiation can penetrate tens of meters beneath the ocean’s surface which would cause ocean currents to circulate (deep water included) and expose the organic contents to destruction. According to Cairns-Smith, this ultraviolet rays would convert surface materials into materials that destroys organic molecules even more effectively than oxygen gas. Scientists realize that oxygen is a hinderance to the origin of life so they had to come up with the myth of a primitive atmosphere. Reductionism doesn’t work there and it goes only so far until you end up with a pause even with the so-called “simple life”. Without the existence of life, there can’t be any production of oxygen and no ozone so there simply cannot be life! There has been no successful naturalistic explanation for this as of yet. Furthermore, oxygen would be produced by photo-dissociation of water vapour and oxidized minerals have been found in rocks as early as 3.8 billions years old which is in itself 300 million years older than the earliest life.


                              So, faith is good when you have it, but bad when others have it?
                              What is your definition of faith? Is it the biblical definition or blind faith? What justification do you have for believing in naturalism anyways? How does your world-view account for logic when our cognitive faculties in the naturalistic world-view would merely be adaptive beliefs and not true beliefs? There are arguments against a naturalistic epistemology and simply no arguments for it. To assume that nature is all there is, is bogus reasoning.

                              ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
                              The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                Not anymore.

                                If you don't mind me asking, what changed your mind? BTW, what type of agnostic are you?
                                The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X