Are Eskimos going to hell?

Leeboy
Leeboy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Are Eskimos going to hell?

If one doesn't believe in god, because god is unknown to them (in his xtian form), such as Eskimos (not so much today, but for the sake of argument, about 150 years ago when there were still Eskimos that didn't have any outside interference), or Africans, or any other "ignorant of god's love" tribe, do they automatically go to hell to be tortured, tormented or just plain screwed over, all because someone who created them did so in such a way that they would never hear about him, so they can't know him, and won't be saved? If they were to get baptised, wouldn't the water freeze? And just what WOULD you do for a Klondike Bar? Many questions, as of yet, all unanswered. Sorry for the run on sentences. I didn't want to break them all up. It's much too late for that.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

 

Regardless of what evolution is, theory or principle, there is necessarily a world view that accompanies it.  It is not neutral.  It strips humanity of everything.  It is a living death, a magilum planet.  You have no legitimate reason to strive for anything. 

You should be aware the largest group of Christians in the world, the Catholic Church sees evolution as a possible way that God created the Universe. So arguing that atheists alone use it as a worldview to strip humanity also says the Catholic Church does the same. see: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

and http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

and http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm

Generally the Catholic Church accepts that it's possible that God used that method to implement his creation. Benedict XVI and John Paul II at first seem to be at different points on this, but not really. The Church is allowing for evolution to have been the way God did it. So in your hate attack against it you attack their view too.

I of course disagree with them on a different level than you as I am an atheist ex-Catholic.

Read the Bible wrote:

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) acted perfectly consistent with what they were taught in school.  And why should anybody care?

As my daughter taught recreational soccer to some of the students at Columbine and several of the students shot and killed were relatives of her students I think you are a sick person for even trying to use this argument. Please indicate where in the Jefferson County School district curriculum this was taught. You brought this up as an issue so bring out your proof that teachers taught them to kill.

Read the Bible wrote:

Let’s just keep dancing.  Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.  

So what does a nursery rhyme that dates to the era of the black death have to do with your argument?

Read the Bible wrote:

Peggy Lee was right on for evolution:

Quote:

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is

I absolutely hate this song. When it came out in 1969 I was laying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to my head. I still have the bullet in my skull it missed my brain fortunately. They played this song constantly on the pop charts. It was so depressing that I just wanted to curl up and die right there. Your analogy to evolution and this song however bears no relation. The song was derived from a book called Disillusionment. In the song and the book it suggests death will be just one more disappointment. Which it will be for you theists as you won't get your reward in heaven because its not true. Evolution on the other hand is just a continuing process that attempts to insure survival. I think it is ironic that you see this song as support for your anti-evolution effort when it in fact suggests what you will get, nothing.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Loc:Evolution is just a

Loc:

Evolution is just a theory.   Problem: So is gravity.


If you had read the article I linked to (4th paragraph) you would have seen why this argument does not work.  Gravity, or the example used in the article, magnetism, is in fact a scientific principle because it is testable, evolution is not.  He concludes a little farther down:

Quote:
The unrepeatable or untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. Thus the concept of evolution as a principle of science is being questioned at a most fundamental level. Does it really qualify as a scientific principle? Some examples of deficiencies follow.

Four or five basic deficiencies follow and than a conclusion.  It is worth reading.


Loc:
I'm afraid there isn't much I can do for you there. If that's your outlook on life, no one can change it but you. I for one enjoy life, and find no despair in the fact of death. I would find myself unable to live as a Christian again:


We are not discussing this as if we could choose which world view we like and that will somehow become reality.  It is not a popularity contest.  One is true, the other is not.  The whole basis of my point is that evolution is inconsistent with the way people live their lives.  (If we had evolved and were in fact animals, we would not be like we are.)  This was an observation I made as a teenager.  If you live your life purely as a hedonist, then you might be somewhat consistent with evolution, because evolution is all about self and self preservation.  If you spend your life, as the majority of people do, fore going pleasure and immediate gratification for the benefit of others, and even life itself, as in the case of Michael A. Monsoor, (which is the only path to true happiness) then you are inconsistent with evolution itself and as a rational response to evolution as a world view, i.e. ashes to ashes.  This line is not gaining traction, so I will let it go.  Post 24 ronin-dog seems to think that we have become so complex as evolved animals that even non-animal behavior is quite expectable.  This, by the way, is the second deficiency of evolution that is mentioned in the article.

Quote:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.
    No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."


Loc:
God created me. I did not ask to be, but I am.
Now I will go to heaven or hell. God knows which one. I do not
I will live my life fraught with fear and guilt, always afraid I will go to hell.
Most of my friends and family will go to hell.
One day god will come back and destroy the earth, everything anyone has ever done will be meaningless
End result-we're all going to die and the earth be destroyed, most will go to hell. If anybody should be killing babies, it's you. Then they are guaranteed heaven. Please point out where I'm wrong.


God created you.


You will go to heaven or hell. 


God knows.   You can know that you have eternal life if you believe in Him.  (John 3:15; 1 John 5:13) 


God will hold you accountable for how you live your life.  You can confess your guilt and be forgiven or continue to rebel.  If you believe in the Lord, you will never come into condemnation, but you will pass from death to life.  (John 5:24)  You will never see the final state of being dead because the Lord Jesus has done that for you.  (Hebrews 2:9) 


Your friends and family are accountable to their creator same as you. 


One day, the Lord Jesus Christ will come back to judge those living on the Earth at that time.  Ultimately everyone will be judged according to their works. (Revelation 20:12-13) At no point will anything ever be meaningless.  Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment.  (Matthew 12:36) 


We are not all going to die (sleep).  (1 Corinthians 15:51-57)  When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in Glory.  (Colossians 3:4)


The Earth and the (physical) works will be burned up, never the less we, according to His promise look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein righteousness dwells.  (2 Peter 3:10-13)


Sadly, it seems most will choose the broad path that leads to destruction.  (Matthew 7:13-14)  God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9)


Abortion does indeed kill babies about which the Bible is perfectly clear.  Thou shalt not kill.  But even this sin the Lord took upon Himself at the cross and there is forgiveness with Him. 


Whether they are guaranteed heaven or not brings us back to the case of the Eskimos.  There is no scripture that I can think of guaranteeing heaven to children, born or unborn, of unbelievers.  That is not saying they will burn in hell.  They will not be in heaven as far as I can understand it.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic worte:

Quote:
You should be aware the largest group of Christians in the world, the Catholic Church sees evolution as a possible way that God created the Universe. So arguing that atheists alone use it as a worldview to strip humanity also says the Catholic Church does the same.

I apologize for not responding to your earlier posts.  You made some interesting points; I’m just very slow.  I am aware of this, not just with Catholics but a good many others as well.  I am speaking from my personal perspective which was without religion.  However the Lord said in John 5:47 “But if ye believe not his (Moses) writings, how shall ye believe my words?”   How can one that professes faith in Christ also deny His words?  If they deny Moses, they deny the Lord as well.  This very well could prove a fatal compromise.  “How long halt ye between two opinions?”  Elijah asked.

Quote:
As my daughter taught recreational soccer to some of the students at Columbine and several of the students shot and killed were relatives of her students I think you are a sick person for even trying to use this argument. Please indicate where in the Jefferson County School district curriculum this was taught. You brought this up as an issue, so bring out your proof that teachers taught them to kill.

This was a gross error.  I caught myself using a similar argument once before but somehow I wasn’t thinking this time.  Richard Dawkins makes it perfectly clear that religion, not the absence of it, is the cause of all evil.  Loc picked up on this as well.  The bible can be just as misused and cause people to commit acts of violence.  I was not meaning to say their teachers taught them to kill or that it was even OK or anything like that.   Maybe ronin-dog is right the perspective I have of despair that accompanies evolution/atheism is just my point of view. 

Quote:
I absolutely hate this song. When it came out in 1969 I was laying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to my head. I still have the bullet in my skull it missed my brain fortunately. They played this song constantly on the pop charts. It was so depressing that I just wanted to curl up and die right there. Your analogy to evolution and this song however bears no relation. The song was derived from a book called Disillusionment. In the song and the book it suggests death will be just one more disappointment. Which it will be for you theists as you won't get your reward in heaven because it’s not true. Evolution on the other hand is just a continuing process that attempts to insure survival. I think it is ironic that you see this song as support for your anti-evolution effort when it in fact suggests what you will get, nothing.

I used to listen to the radio all the time then and I don’t even remember it.  Someone mentioned it in conversation recently and I had to Google it.  That is what art is supposed to do, mean whatever you want it to. Seems to be substituting hedonism for genuine feelings.

"attempts to insure survival"?  Now that is strange!  An impersonal process you are talking about.  How can it ‘attempt’ something?  If it is going to insure anyone’s survival that is alive now, it better come up with something quick.  There is not much time. 


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ronin-dog wrote:Quote:Please

Ronin-dog wrote:

Quote:
Please note that your link is to a site that serves the 7th day Adventist church and is therefore very likely to be biased. You need to find an explanation to fit the evidence, not come up with an answer and then look for evidence to fit it.

That is correct and it was published in ’77 but I don’t see how you can just call it ‘biased’ and there for not valid.  (I am not of this group by the way.)  The article makes a very strong case.  Loc has tried this approach in a different way asking for my “scientific qualifications” and when I offered the names of some men who are qualified he responded with “I'm sure you can find several qualified people who will accept anything if you try hard enough.  Are you saying that because a minority reject it that makes it true?”  It wouldn’t be the first time the minority was right about something.  Sometimes the herd is running in the wrong direction.
This is the final deficiency of evolution from the article.


Quote:
Evolutionary biologists have a choice to make: either we agree with Mayr that narrative explanations are the name of the game, and continue drifting away from the rest of biology into an area ruled only by authority and consensus, or we insist that whenever possible our explanations be testable and potentially falsifiable and that evolutionary biology rejoin the scientific community at large.

An area ruled only by authority and consensus, it is, because we say it is and who are you to challenge us?


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Or here is another

Loc wrote:

Or here is another question.How many non-biased(eg not Lee Strobel) books have you read on evolution?

Most recently, (this winter) I spent several hours watching Google videos of Dawkins and others at an Atheist seminar and some of his 'four horsemen' videos.  That is infact part of the reason I am doing this.  How about you? 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:Loc

Read the Bible wrote:

Loc wrote:

Or here is another question.How many non-biased(eg not Lee Strobel) books have you read on evolution?

Most recently, (this winter) I spent several hours watching Google videos of Dawkins and others at an Atheist seminar and some of his 'four horsemen' videos.  That is infact part of the reason I am doing this.  How about you? 

Hay that's great for you.And perhaps I was a bit quick to judge there.Apologies then.

Well I've been starting to read Dawkins' stuff,and other articles.But like I saw,I'm no expert.Oh and I also read the Stobel stuff

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

"attempts to insure survival"?  Now that is strange!  An impersonal process you are talking about.  How can it ‘attempt’ something?  If it is going to insure anyone’s survival that is alive now, it better come up with something quick.  There is not much time. 

Evolution is simply a process that impersonally promotes survival of life in general. That doesn't mean it is us that will survive. The Earth will probably be here long after we are gone. Just because we think we are at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we are or that we will remain. I think there are billions of years of time before the sun goes into a red giant phase that will end life on Earth, whether we still have descendants here or not, so I don't know what you mean by there is not much time.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

Loc:

Evolution is just a theory.   Problem: So is gravity.


If you had read the article I linked to (4th paragraph) you would have seen why this argument does not work.  Gravity, or the example used in the article, magnetism, is in fact a scientific principle because it is testable, evolution is not.  He concludes a little farther down:

Quote:
The unrepeatable or untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. Thus the concept of evolution as a principle of science is being questioned at a most fundamental level. Does it really qualify as a scientific principle? Some examples of deficiencies follow.

Four or five basic deficiencies follow and than a conclusion.  It is worth reading.

I admit I only skimmed that article.However I'm sure the more learned here will tell you evolution can be tested.But since I really am not an expert on evolution,I don't want to get too bogged down on it.I hope you will understand that is merely because of my personal lack of knowledge,not because I don't think it has the answers.

I will read it,and here's a funny for you: http://www.rationalresponders.com/warning_gravity_is_only_a_theory

 

 

Read the Bible wrote:


God created you.


You will go to heaven or hell. 


God knows.   You can know that you have eternal life if you believe in Him.  (John 3:15; 1 John 5:13) 


God will hold you accountable for how you live your life.  You can confess your guilt and be forgiven or continue to rebel.  If you believe in the Lord, you will never come into condemnation, but you will pass from death to life.  (John 5:24)  You will never see the final state of being dead because the Lord Jesus has done that for you.  (Hebrews 2:9) 


Your friends and family are accountable to their creator same as you. 


One day, the Lord Jesus Christ will come back to judge those living on the Earth at that time.  Ultimately everyone will be judged according to their works. (Revelation 20:12-13) At no point will anything ever be meaningless.  Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment.  (Matthew 12:36) 


We are not all going to die (sleep).  (1 Corinthians 15:51-57)  When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in Glory.  (Colossians 3:4)


The Earth and the (physical) works will be burned up, never the less we, according to His promise look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein righteousness dwells.  (2 Peter 3:10-13)


Sadly, it seems most will choose the broad path that leads to destruction.  (Matthew 7:13-14)  God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9)


Abortion does indeed kill babies about which the Bible is perfectly clear.  Thou shalt not kill.  But even this sin the Lord took upon Himself at the cross and there is forgiveness with Him. 


Whether they are guaranteed heaven or not brings us back to the case of the Eskimos.  There is no scripture that I can think of guaranteeing heaven to children, born or unborn, of unbelievers.  That is not saying they will burn in hell.  They will not be in heaven as far as I can understand it.

Ok so after all that,we still get that god created us and we're all going to die.Say what you will, but the fact that the majority of people are going to burn for eternity doesn't seem particularly despair-less.I'd really rather just know that they're not existing after they die.

By the way, I HAVE read the bible.Posting verses here isn't going to convince anyone. it's called circualar reasoning

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Anonymoose (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote: Seeing

Read the Bible wrote:
Seeing that I have not been given a password as yet, I’m beginning to suspect that it is more due to censorship than mere moderating.

Hi there, fellow not-verified,

Just wanted to let you know that it's highly unlikely you're being censored. I'm an atheist myself, lurked for a while, just like you, and started posting a few weeks ago. Tried to register twice, and like you, I'm also still waiting for my password.

So anyway, nice thread. Looking forward to you answering some of the questions you've been asked, or refuting the arguments you've been given.

Hey, I was told there'd be eskimos here ! Where'd they go ?


Anonymoose (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

Loc:

Evolution is just a theory.   Problem: So is gravity.


If you had read the article I linked to (4th paragraph) you would have seen why this argument does not work.  Gravity, or the example used in the article, magnetism, is in fact a scientific principle because it is testable, evolution is not. 

Hi again !

I'm sure somebody else already gave you the definition of "just" a scientific theory, but I noticed this claim about evolution being untestable and thought I'd give you my opinion on that one.

Eh..well, I'm no expert either, but if by testable you mean "can be tested", then evolution is definitely testable. See, all the things you'd need to test it actually exist. It would take a damn long time, true, but it's possible. In contrast, intelligent design is completely untestable. All the things you'd need to test that one don't actually exist.

And anyways, can't they prove micro-evolution in a lab these days ?

Still no eskimos ? Darn.


skywolf
skywolf's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2008-01-16
User is offlineOffline
inuit atheism

as a part inuit atheist i would like to point out that there are no Tonrar however

inukpak anernerk still don't exist and there is no inuit word for hell so you know what the debaite is over there if the movie erik the red is true you go where you belive like christans go to heavan and hell and we inuit go to the sea or sky (easy and true huh humans are 70 percent water and i will rain down on my great great grand chiildren someday Smiling not exactly a big afterlife fan here but seriosly tho don't call people raw meat eaters unless they are eating sushi cause i tried sushi and no it don't taste good to me nope (eskimo is kinda an insult don't do that) and btw i like the viking myths to (hmm where did i get my blue eyes?) so valhalla if i pillage the village the sea and sky otherwise but no hell cause i don't belive in any mythos but according to christianity kjv

Revelations 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

so have you had sex? if you have then you are out of heavan are you a woman you are out of heavan too total sausage feast up there me personaly if there was a god and all this bullshit were real i would go to the women who i care for and if hell is where they are at then that's where i'll go [john wayne possesed me for a sentance or two there lol]

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/alaska/eskimo2.html

mohammed is mr poopy pants allah is a cootie queen and islam is a lint licker
http://seekerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/_blogger_5932_1957_1600_religion_of_peace_1-1.jpg


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is definately

Evolution is definately testable. There is a massive volume of evidence from observation that has tested it. Human breeding of domestic animals and plants has tested it. Selective breeding of bacteria based on nutrients and/or pollutants in the lab has tested it (I did this at uni). Observations of bacterial populations in response to antibiotics has tested it. Genetic studies showing the genetic link between organisms and gene evolution has tested it. The list goes on.

Evolution is not always about individual survival, we are a pack animal. You seem to forget that we are animals (that is a fact, not theory), yes we differ in intelligence, but if you observe animals closely you can see many "human" traits such as love and caring for each other.

Straight after Moses was given the "thou shalt not kill" commandment he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of people.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Read the Bible

Loc wrote:

Read the Bible wrote:

Loc wrote:

Or here is another question.How many non-biased(eg not Lee Strobel) books have you read on evolution?

Most recently, (this winter) I spent several hours watching Google videos of Dawkins and others at an Atheist seminar and some of his 'four horsemen' videos.  That is infact part of the reason I am doing this.  How about you? 

Hay that's great for you.And perhaps I was a bit quick to judge there.Apologies then.

Well I've been starting to read Dawkins' stuff,and other articles.But like I saw,I'm no expert.Oh and I also read the Stobel stuff

Let me help you get started: Atheists for Jesus, by Richard Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=20


Here is the flavor of it:

Quote:
Human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. It is also, although I haven't the space to go into detail about this third ingredient of my recipe, an apparent perversion of the sort of rational choice theory by which economists explain human behavior as calculated to maximize self-interest.

Let's put it even more bluntly. From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb. And yes, it is the kind of dumb that should be encouraged

This article, from the HIGH PRIEST OF ATHEISTS, proves the point I have been trying to make here about evolution being totally contradictory to human behavior.  Sometimes I feel that every time I see a Darwinist doing something nice, like holding a door for a woman at the store or even being nice to their own family member or pet, I should go tell them how dumb how they are.  If you want to keep being a Darwinist, you have to stop being nice people.  A selfish hedonist is what all Darwinists have to be or they are hypocrites.

However, Dawkins here recognizes that niceness is a good thing, even though it is the antithesis of his core belief system.   So his solution is to exploit one non-Darwinian trait (the irrational propensity toward things like religion) to develop another non-Darwinian trait (niceness).  NO COMMENT NEEDED.

I’m afraid that the utter lunacy of this article is beyond the comprehension of most people.  For example he uses the expression “in a wild population”.  What does that mean?  You have wild horses and domestic ones but isn’t all of humanity a wild population?  How did we get removed from our wild condition?  Does he mean ‘wild’ as in an Aboriginal population?  Are they never nice to each other?  He could only mean ‘wild population’ as in wild non-human population which is an argument divorced from his subject. 

Or this statement: niceness is a perversion of Darwinism.  IF a pure evolutionary environment existed, (which is the only possible kind) where could such a ‘perversion’ originate?  Human inventiveness perhaps.  OK.  So somebody gets the perverted non-Darwinian thought to be nice to a fellow human being.  In a ‘wild population’, according to Dawkins, the person would be eliminated by natural selection but somehow we ended up with this entire planet being occupied by humans in whom which some element of niceness can be found in the cruelest of us all.  We are all perverts of Darwinism.  How could that be?  Perhaps the pure evolutionary environment is a big fat lie!  Any teenager could figure that out.

Know ye, that the LORD, He is GOD.  It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves.

 


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Read the Bible wrote:

"attempts to insure survival"?  Now that is strange!  An impersonal process you are talking about.  How can it ‘attempt’ something?  If it is going to insure anyone’s survival that is alive now, it better come up with something quick.  There is not much time. 

Evolution is simply a process that impersonally promotes survival of life in general. That doesn't mean it is us that will survive. The Earth will probably be here long after we are gone. Just because we think we are at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we are or that we will remain. I think there are billions of years of time before the sun goes into a red giant phase that will end life on Earth, whether we still have descendants here or not, so I don't know what you mean by there is not much time.

I am speaking of time as in the number of years you personally have for evolution to provide you with a more permanent abode than the one you have.  Whatever futuristic dreams you devise for the human race, it has no relevance for you personally.  The cosmos has no meaning to you once your personal experiencing of it terminates. 

You could give this a try and perhaps gain a little more time:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/11/56482?currentPage=all


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
You are STILL looking at

You are STILL looking at evolution as a world view.It is not.It is true that evolution is an impersonal force,and does what must be done to continue species. I do not agree that kindness has no place in evolution,on the contary,there could be many benefits.The sense of community and therefore safety that could come from being kind would be advantegous.

I have said it before,you seem to be the type that could not imagine being or doing good without a god.That is sad,as there are plenty of people who manage it.

Read the Bible wrote:

A selfish hedonist is what all Darwinists have to be or they are hypocrites.

 

f any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. -- Luke 14:26

Guess a selfish hedonist is what all christians have to be or they are hypocrites.

Read the Bible wrote:

This article, from the HIGH PRIEST OF ATHEISTS

I'm hoping this was jest,you surely know there is no such thing.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Evolution is

ronin-dog wrote:

Evolution is definately testable. Observations of bacterial populations in response to antibiotics has tested it.

Could you explain this a little more?  Are you using the "peppered moth' explanation?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:I am

Read the Bible wrote:

I am speaking of time as in the number of years you personally have for evolution to provide you with a more permanent abode than the one you have. 

As evolution takes a long time and I'm already here it's very unlikely that anything can change for me as I'm already in this time-space dimension. Perhaps in a later generation.

 Are you projecting your own fear that your time is short?

Read the Bible wrote:

Whatever futuristic dreams you devise for the human race, it has no relevance for you personally.  The cosmos has no meaning to you once your personal experiencing of it terminates. 

The cosmos had no meaning for me before I arrived in this reality and it will have the same when I leave it.

If you want to play that way, tomorrow has no meaning for you today as its not here. Since its not here why do you buy food for more than the present moment? Why are you concerned about what happens even 1 minute in the future, you may not make it that long?

 

Read the Bible wrote:

You could give this a try and perhaps gain a little more time:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/11/56482?currentPage=all

Where did you get the idea I wanted what you do? 

 Maybe you have a fear yourself that your fantasy isn't real and you might need this since you seem to be the one concerned?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Evolution is

ronin-dog wrote:

Evolution is definately testable. There is a massive volume of evidence from observation that has tested it. Human breeding of domestic animals and plants has tested it. Selective breeding of bacteria based on nutrients and/or pollutants in the lab has tested it (I did this at uni). Observations of bacterial populations in response to antibiotics has tested it. Genetic studies showing the genetic link between organisms and gene evolution has tested it. The list goes on.

Here's some:

 

If evolution happens, there should be observable differences in a population over generations, with poorly survivable traits disappearing and advantageous ones becoming more common.  This is borne out: look up the Ames test, where an advantageous mutation occurs in a portion of a population, which become the only ones that survive to reproduce.

If evolution happens, we should find common genetic material in related species.  This is borne out: proteins can be traced back through species to help illustrate common descent.  We have some of the same structural proteins as rodents because very far back we came from the same stock of proto-mammals which had this protein.

If evolution happens, a colony of organisms split between differing habitats will change in different ways, eventually becoming so different that they cannot interbreed (i.e., becoming different species). This is borne out: look up "ring species", or the mosquitoes that evolved in the London Underground.

 

Scientists have been testing the theory of evolution for a while now, and it's scoring rather well.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Bacteria responding to the

Bacteria responding to the evolutionary pressure of antibiotics. It's simple, it happens in hospitals ("superbugs" such as MRSA etc), in the community (more so in countries with lax antibiotic control) and you can do it in vitro. In a bacterial population there are millions (possibly billions, especially in vitro) of individual organsisms, some of which through random mutation have resistance to antibiotics. If the population is exposed to an antibiotic to which some of the individuals are resistant, then they will survive and multiply.

This is why it is important to take your full course of antibiotics, even if you start to feel better. The antibiotics reduce the bacterial population and your immune system cleans up the rest. If you stop early there will be a higher bacterial population and more chance of some resistant strains surviving.

This is also why control of antibiotics are important. If they are used too much then there is more selection pressure to favour resistance. There is a higher incidence of antibiotic resistence in nursing homes, where people are often put on preventative antibiotics if they are prone to infection.

Sorry, don't know what you mean by "peppered moth" explanation.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords wrote:I

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

I then asked him "if god would automatically save these isolated peoples, why would missionaries make it a point to go spread the 'good word' to these people if once they heard the message and decided to not believe they would be damned."

 

This was exactly the conclusion I reached - and it makes perfect logical sense.  Just stop spreading the word of god, and everyone will be saved, due to their ignorance or him/her/it (if it exists).  If that's the loophole, then why not use it?  Ironically, such a loophole is enough evidence (to me) for a non-omniscient god.  It shows lack of thorough planning on the part of any "creator", which immediately proves the bible false.

One does not need religion to spread love and good-will.  In fact, the spreading of religion often results in hate and war.  It's pretty obvious to me...

 

 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Then you have to decide just

Then you have to decide just how fine the 'heaven line' is.

So eskimos that have never heard heard the gospel get a free pass?What about someone in a western country who wasn't raised religiously, who knows the gist of the salvation messge but never really heard it. Are they going to hell? How do you distinguish who truely hasn't heard?

I'm sure most christians will agree muslims are going to hell.But alot of the Middle East doesn't have christian missionaries,bibles,and churches. Based on the current criteria,I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a large amount of muslims will be sharing heaven with the christians.

I wonder how happy American christians would be to know Bin Laden could have blissful eternity with them if he's never heard the salvation message?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
microevolution

Quote:
Sorry, don't know what you mean by "peppered moth" explanation.

You mean you have never heard of it or you’re not sure what I would be specifically thinking about it?  It is worthy of investigation (Google ‘peppered moth’ ).  Read arguments from both sides of the debate.  At best it is an example of microevolution, which apparently most creations accept, and at worst, it is an example of the seemingly outright fraud sometimes perpetrated by overzealous Darwinists.  Wikipedia is slanted toward the defense of Darwinism and concludes with this propaganda statement: “there are no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species”.  I would say there are no barriers known to science preventing such changes etc.  Their statement goes beyond current scientific knowledge.  The bible states that each animal reproduces “after their kind” which is both a barrier and consistent with current knowledge.

Microevolution is not capable of injecting new genetic information into genes which is required if new species are to emerge.  Natural selection can only favor one preexisting genetic trait over another and thus produces loss of information if one or more traits are eliminated from a population.  Such is the case of the peppered moth vs. pollution and bacteria vs. antibiotics.  What you call a “random mutation” is in most cases (if not all) a preexisting genetic trait.  Your term sounds more Darwinian friendly but in fact is inconceivable that such improbable randomness could affect enough individuals to preserve the germ in widely diverse populations. 

But this is far from our topic of Eskimos and eternity or is it? 

Watch this:

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/

"Why don't we just teach the truth: We don't know how life came about?"

 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Yes, a little off the eskimo

Yes, a little off the eskimo topic, but I'm just following the thread.

I was wondering if you were talking about those peppered moths. I haven't looked into it since high shcool, but that is an example of natural selection. No one is doubting that speciation (I'm referring to one species growing apart and becoming two) is a pretty special and rare event. For two varieties of a species to stop interbreeding for long enough to become seperate species is pretty rare. But speciation is just one part of evolution. Genetic change and adaptation happen without new species forming. As it says in the origin of species, if the favoured variety (in this case the peppered moth) was favoured by the environment strongly enough and the original species selected against, then eventually the roles would reverse and the peppered moth would be in the majority and would be considered the species, with the original being the variety and possibly being bred out all together.

Microevolution is indeed capable of introducing new genetic information. Theis has been shown through studies of DNA. Random mutaion is not about pre-existing traits at all (I agree that what looks like a mutation can be an existing but hidden genetic trait, and this is also important for adaptation) but about genes being modified through actual change of the DNA. This has also been demonstrated. It has been shown in viruses and bacteria that there is a certain amount of "sloppiness" (my word) in DNA replication which allows mutation to occur. This is one of the reasons that viruses such as influenza change so rapidly and keeps ahead of our immune systems.

Your video is interesting, but off track.

Dawkins et al came forward and announced that they had been taken out of context in "that" movie, and indeed how it's makers had mislead them as soon as the movie was out.

Your video presenter (sorry, didn't catch his name) obviously doesn't understand evolution. As I said, speciation is a very special event, but it is not the only indicator of evolution. Evolution is happening all around us, all the time. but it rarely happens on a time scale that we would consider fast.

The idea that every organism should be aiming to be a "higher organism" is very homocentric and was never part of evolution theory. Evolution is just about surviving, so it about niches. Bacteria remain bacteria because they are perfectly capable of surviving like that. The web of life must be maintained. If everything became human we would die. We need the other organisms.

If you ask them, most scientists would tell you that we're not sure about the origin of life (we are working on it though, there are some good ideas being tested). But from that point on evolution is very demonstratable, has not been disproven and is the most likely explanation.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nice response.  Thank

Nice response.  Thank you.  Leeboy is questioning the fairness of God.  I attempted a biblical answer but in this environment that naturally leads us to this discussion.  I have tried to address the issue by demonstrating how reason (since the bible is not considered evidence) led me to recognizing the existence of a god, both as creator and judge, primarily by observing the degree of non Darwinian behavior in people.  Richard Dawkins (via the article linked to in post 63) made the point for me stating that religion, niceness and even contraception (not to mention abortion, what could possibly be more anti-evolutionary than that?) are certainly contrary behaviors to evolution.  I have often wondered what human behavior does conform to Darwinism.

Quote:
As I said, speciation is a very special event,
a pretty special and rare event
to become seperate species is pretty rare
rarely happens on a time scale that we would consider fast.

It has happened thousands of thousands of times, so it is only ‘special’ because it has never been observed.  Say an alien comes from another planet and knows nothing about our life cycle of birth to old age.  He meets some very old people who explain it to him.  He responds “I would like to see one of these babies you speak of.”  They respond, “Oh we can’t show you one.  In fact, we have never even seen one ourselves”.    The alien, in astonishment says, “If, as you say, people are born all the time; there should be abundant examples of every stage of life. “   If they cannot then produce a single baby and all they can show him are more old people, what will he think of their story?  Why is skepticism reserved for religion and never science? 

In evolutionary terms, every know species is a dead end.  Certainly the Cheetah is.  A recent Smithsonian Magazine article informed me that they are so genetically un-diverse that every individual is a virtual clone.  Skin grafts can be taken from one animal to another without rejection because their system cannot distinguish it from their own tissue.  I guess the design tolerances for an animal that goes from 0 to 70 mph in 4 seconds doesn’t leave much room for sloppiness in DNA replication.  So how did they evolve that way and how could they continue to evolve?  They are on a genetic island.  Perfection cannot be improved and a cheetah is perfection.  So are peregrine falcons, ospreys, owls, every animal is perfectly fitted to its ecological niche.  But it is not about improvement, just survival.  It’s not about color, design, or behavior.  Just about the brutal need for survival. 

Quote:
but it (speciation)is not the only indicator of evolution.

There are others?  What?

In the video, post 72, the interview was taken from the trailer to EXPELLED and it was obtained under false pretenses to the shame of the producer, but was not “out of context”.  Dawkins meant what he said.  He uses the example of a murder scene with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence.  Such evidence is only useful if there is only one suspect.  If there are two possible suspects to whom the evidence could apply, then you have to prove beyond any doubt that one of them either did or did not do it.  Science is very good in the witness stand, but when it moves itself to the judge’s bench, it has gone beyond its function.  The evidence (the data that science collects) is neutral towards the defendants but if they take it to the First Galactic Bank of Cosmic Supposition and use it and their own bias as collateral to borrow a verdict from possible future evidence then we, as the jury, need to be skeptical to say the least.  But this isn’t a real murder trial and “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer.  Skepticism is reserved for religion and science walks. 


Quote:
The web of life must be maintained. If everything became human we would die. We need the other organisms.

It is pretty tough to talk about evolution and not attribute some type of intelligence or purpose to it!   Sorry, but that is just not allowed.  Can you re-state that in acceptable terms?


Quote:
Bacteria remain bacteria because they are perfectly capable of surviving like that.

That is another point about evolution.  The huge diversity of life on the planet has evidence that something is going on beyond just the need for the “capacity to survive”.  Consider for just a moment the methods of propulsion used by diverse sea life.  Turtles, squid, fish, eels, jellyfish, sea horses, lobsters.  They all live in the same environment, why don’t they all use the same propulsion?  Clearly survival is not the defining factor.     


A while back you said something about watching animal shows on TV.  I watched those shows for years and years.  I read Discover magazine cover to cover and I still get Smithsonian as a gift subscription.  I am a little encyclopedia of animal knowledge.  I finally got to the place of not watching them at all because they do not give glory to the Creator for what He has done.  They always talk about evolution this and evolution that but there is never any proof.  All the evidence is circumstantial which is not conclusive in and of its self.  Turn your skepticism on science.  First put on a pair of your highest boots, waders if you have them. 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:  I

Read the Bible wrote:

  I have tried to address the issue by demonstrating how reason (since the bible is not considered evidence) led me to recognizing the existence of a god, both as creator and judge, primarily by observing the degree of non Darwinian behavior in people.  Richard Dawkins (via the article linked to in post 63) made the point for me stating that religion, niceness and even contraception (not to mention abortion, what could possibly be more anti-evolutionary than that?) are certainly contrary behaviors to evolution.  I have often wondered what human behavior does conform to Darwinism.

Well, much as we like and respect him, Dawkins is just a human and is allowed to occasionally say things in a way that even he might regret later, especially as he is quoted so often. He is not our pope or anything and we don't have to agree with everything he says. But he is definately very knowledgeable. I think he was actually referrinf to extreme niceness as being nice to each other definately has advantages and has been shwon in other animal species. Humans do have a lot of behaviour explained in evolutionary terms (that have been discussed in other threads many times), but we do indeed have behaviour that does not fit. It is not that we are "too good" for evolution (that would be like being too good for gravity), this is because our brains have developed to a extremely complex stage and we are surviving well enough that there is room for these behaviours without affecting our survival.

Quote:
As I said, speciation is a very special event,
a pretty special and rare event
to become seperate species is pretty rare
rarely happens on a time scale that we would consider fast.

Read the Bible wrote:

It has happened thousands of thousands of times, so it is only ‘special’ because it has never been observed. 

Very true. By rare I obviously mean that it doesn't happen frequently. Thousands of people have been struck by lightning, but I would still call it a rare event, not something most people would see in their lifetimes. That whole argument seemed very pro-evolutionary to me.

Read the Bible wrote:

In evolutionary terms, every know species is a dead end.  Certainly the Cheetah is.  A recent Smithsonian Magazine article informed me that they are so genetically un-diverse that every individual is a virtual clone.  Skin grafts can be taken from one animal to another without rejection because their system cannot distinguish it from their own tissue.  I guess the design tolerances for an animal that goes from 0 to 70 mph in 4 seconds doesn’t leave much room for sloppiness in DNA replication.  So how did they evolve that way and how could they continue to evolve?  They are on a genetic island.  Perfection cannot be improved and a cheetah is perfection.  So are peregrine falcons, ospreys, owls, every animal is perfectly fitted to its ecological niche.  But it is not about improvement, just survival.  It’s not about color, design, or behavior.  Just about the brutal need for survival. 

No species is a dead end until it is extinct. Perfection is an illusion. A species stabilizes for a while when it has carved a good niche for itself, as the cheetah has. But as conditions change (environment, habitat, change of prey, extra competition, disease) the species must adapt or die. Cheetahs are genetically un-diverse because we brought them close to extinction. this leads to many problems. Like clones of plants if there is not enough genetic diversity a new disease can wipe them out very quickly. All endangered species that have a small gene pool need a lot of protection because this lack of genetic diversity is a danger to the species.

You are correct, it is not about improvement, it is about survival.

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
but it (speciation)is not the only indicator of evolution.

There are others?  What? 

I already explained that. Please reread.

Read the Bible wrote:

In the video, post 72, the interview was taken from the trailer to EXPELLED and it was obtained under false pretenses to the shame of the producer, but was not “out of context”.  Dawkins meant what he said.  He uses the example of a murder scene with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence.  Such evidence is only useful if there is only one suspect.  If there are two possible suspects to whom the evidence could apply, then you have to prove beyond any doubt that one of them either did or did not do it.  Science is very good in the witness stand, but when it moves itself to the judge’s bench, it has gone beyond its function.  The evidence (the data that science collects) is neutral towards the defendants but if they take it to the First Galactic Bank of Cosmic Supposition and use it and their own bias as collateral to borrow a verdict from possible future evidence then we, as the jury, need to be skeptical to say the least.  But this isn’t a real murder trial and “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer.  Skepticism is reserved for religion and science walks. 

I was talking about the aliens bit (which has been discussed elsewhere).  You do realize that the murder scene bit is not a direct comparison to the way science works, it was just meant to try to explain things a bit. We are not picking from a pool of suspects. We are looking at the circumstantial evidence and trying to piece together what happened. As there is no evidence of god, it is more like we are saying: it looks like this murder was done by a person with weapon (x) and done like this... There aren't any real defendants here. But we do actually have current evidence (with modern studies as previously explained)

"I don't know" and "I'm not sure" are definately very good scientific answers when there is not enough evidence. If you ask about how life actually started these are the answers you will probably get (maybe follwed with, but we think it may have happened like this.... because...). Just because we don't know doesn't mean that god did it. There is no proof at all of that.

It is religion that states they know the answer with no proof at all. It is religion that when asked about the murder names someone who we don't even have any evidence of existing as the one and only suspect.

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
The web of life must be maintained. If everything became human we would die. We need the other organisms.

It is pretty tough to talk about evolution and not attribute some type of intelligence or purpose to it!   Sorry, but that is just not allowed.  Can you re-state that in acceptable terms? 

Sorry? Evolution is never attributed with intelligence or purpose! What I'm saying is that organisms fit niches and interact with each other. As humans we need other organisms to survive. We get sick without the bacteria in our gut. What would we eat? We need plants to recycle our CO2 back into O2, etc, etc.

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
Bacteria remain bacteria because they are perfectly capable of surviving like that.

That is another point about evolution.  The huge diversity of life on the planet has evidence that something is going on beyond just the need for the “capacity to survive”.  Consider for just a moment the methods of propulsion used by diverse sea life.  Turtles, squid, fish, eels, jellyfish, sea horses, lobsters.  They all live in the same environment, why don’t they all use the same propulsion?  Clearly survival is not the defining factor.    

How does that not make survival a defining factor? Are not all of these animals surviving just fine with their different methods? However you just brought up a point for evolution, thanks. Parallel evolution. Different organisms do often come up with similar solutions to the same problem. Consider the shape of sharks, ichtheosaurs and dolphins. Whales and whale sharks. The flipper wings of penguins. Bird and bat wings. etc, etc.

Read the Bible wrote:

A while back you said something about watching animal shows on TV.  I watched those shows for years and years.  I read Discover magazine cover to cover and I still get Smithsonian as a gift subscription.  I am a little encyclopedia of animal knowledge.  I finally got to the place of not watching them at all because they do not give glory to the Creator for what He has done.  They always talk about evolution this and evolution that but there is never any proof. 

Sounds like a case of "la-la-la, I'm not listening cos you aren't thanking god". Why should they give glory to god? There is no evidence for god.

I would take circumstantial evidence over no evidence any day.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Very true. By rare I

Quote:
Very true. By rare I obviously mean that it doesn't happen frequently. Thousands of people have been struck by lightning, but I would still call it a rare event, not something most people would see in their lifetimes. That whole argument seemed very pro-evolutionary to me.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound so pro-evolutionary.  Sometimes (for the sake of argument) I cast myself so much in the opposing views side that I seem to be arguing both sides at once.  It is very confusing to my wife. 

Shikko (post 45) made a similar observation.  (I think both statements are actually neutral.  The first quote says most people neither have the truth, nor do they genuinely seek it, though it is readily available and the second that when they are confronted with the truth, they see no need for it.)  

Speciation is not rare in the sense of people being struck by lightning.  We have lots of living accounts of that, though we are generally not eye witnesses to it.  It is rare in the sense that we have no record of it happening ever.  It is only supposition.  

How about turtles?  You don’t think they evolved do you? 
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-2-2005_pg9_1

You have to at least admit that they have some pretty stabile DNA!  Not much possibility for sloppy replication in there.  The interesting thing about turtles is that there is nothing they could have evolved from.  (Are there other animals that have their pelvic bone inside their rib cage?)  “They cracked the winning code 110 million years ago?”  WOW, why didn’t they take over the world?  Un-evolved for 110 million years, they sure didn’t contribute much to the diversity of life on the planet.   Would you call that a ‘dead end’ for evolution?  But wait a minute, how do they know they are 110 million years old?  The type of rocks they were found in and they couldn’t possibly wrong about that could they? 

Quote:
How does that not make survival a defining factor? Are not all of these animals surviving just fine with their different methods? However you just brought up a point for evolution, thanks. Parallel evolution. Different organisms do often come up with similar solutions to the same problem. Consider the shape of sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins. Whales and whale sharks. The flipper wings of penguins. Bird and bat wings. etc, etc.

An article I linked to earlier:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm
Quote:
The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive. A number of evolutionary scholars have labeled the principle of survival of the fittest a tautology.

Quote:
Another problem associated with the untestability of evolutionary theory is that the theory explains too much. Grene (1959) points out that "whatever might at first sight appear as evidence against the theory is assimilated by redefinition into the theory." Evolutionary theory is broad enough to accommodate almost any data that may be applied. Two ecologists Birch and Ehrlich (1967) emphasize this. They state:
Quote:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

    No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."


Time to move on.  Change gears. 
 


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:


Quote:
Bacteria remain bacteria because they are perfectly capable of surviving like that.

That is another point about evolution.  The huge diversity of life on the planet has evidence that something is going on beyond just the need for the “capacity to survive”.  Consider for just a moment the methods of propulsion used by diverse sea life.  Turtles, squid, fish, eels, jellyfish, sea horses, lobsters.  They all live in the same environment, why don’t they all use the same propulsion?  Clearly survival is not the defining factor.     

Yeah, it's almost like a large group of initially similar organisms spread out, encountered varying conditions and new environments and ended up with non-shared collections of beneficial genetic changes (over millions of years) that affected their physical structures in ways that made them (and their offspring) more likely to survive in these new niches and under these new conditions.

But that would be lunacy.

Quote:

A while back you said something about watching animal shows on TV.  I watched those shows for years and years.  I read Discover magazine cover to cover and I still get Smithsonian as a gift subscription.  I am a little encyclopedia of animal knowledge.  I finally got to the place of not watching them at all because they do not give glory to the Creator for what He has done.  They always talk about evolution this and evolution that but there is never any proof.

Here is your problem: you think you know what constitutes proof, but you don't.  Anything that goes against your unfounded assertion (you would probably call this your "faith&quotEye-wink you disregard at the outset because by definition anything which contradicts your faith is wrong.  You are moving exactly backwards from science: you have assumed a conclusion and then weigh evidence against what you hope is true.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

Speciation is not rare in the sense of people being struck by lightning.  We have lots of living accounts of that, though we are generally not eye witnesses to it.  It is rare in the sense that we have no record of it happening ever.  It is only supposition.

Wrong.  Not only do we have a record, we have a record of it happening within the last century.  Good try, though.  I already mentioned the mosquito speciation observed in London.

You want to see it in action?  Next time you get a bacterial infection, take antibiotics for three days, and then stop.  Do this with every antibiotic you get every time the infection comes back.  You will eventually evolve a strain of this infectious bacteria that might kill you, and anyone who catches it from you.  Sound like a good idea?  After all, if evolution doesn't happen, the above scenario can't happen.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Quote:

How about turtles?  You don’t think they evolved do you? 
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-2-2005_pg9_1

You have to at least admit that they have some pretty stabile DNA!  Not much possibility for sloppy replication in there.  The interesting thing about turtles is that there is nothing they could have evolved from.  (Are there other animals that have their pelvic bone inside their rib cage?)  “They cracked the winning code 110 million years ago?”  WOW, why didn’t they take over the world?  Un-evolved for 110 million years, they sure didn’t contribute much to the diversity of life on the planet.  

Ah, now I see another problem you are having: you are ascribing intent or an end goal to evolution.  It doesn't work that way; there is no "highest point" to which Life aspires.  Things stop evolving when there are no changes which make one set of offspring more likely to survive to reproduce than another.  Sharks have been fairly unchanged for 150 million years.  Why?  Their current form is quite well suited to their niche and so deviations from this form may not lead to increased survivability for offspring.

Sure, if a shark evolved frickin' lasers, they'd probably take over, but I don't see that happening.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Leeboy wrote: If one

Leeboy wrote:
If one doesn't believe in god, because god is unknown to them (in his xtian form), such as Eskimos (not so much today, but for the sake of argument, about 150 years ago when there were still Eskimos that didn't have any outside interference), or Africans, or any other "ignorant of god's love" tribe, do they automatically go to hell to be tortured, tormented or just plain screwed over, all because someone who created them did so in such a way that they would never hear about him, so they can't know him, and won't be saved? If they were to get baptised, wouldn't the water freeze? And just what WOULD you do for a Klondike Bar? Many questions, as of yet, all unanswered. Sorry for the run on sentences. I didn't want to break them all up. It's much too late for that.

 

The orthodox (small 'o') Christian answer is that if the deceased can honestly say they never even heard of Christ or the Gospel, it will not be held against them and they will be judged accordingly.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I guess I’m just not

I guess I’m just not smart enough to be an infidel.  I tried reading a couple of articles about these mosquitoes and the Ames test.  They are quite confusing and beyond my ability to truly comprehend.  Even if I did understand them, I would still have no means to verify their truthfulness.  The entire system of evolution is totally dependent on the conjecture and testimony of men.  There is absolutely nothing that I can do to personally confirm its truth.  The whole thing is nothing but a confidence trick.  No matter what is observed, we can devise “an appropriate evolutionary explanation.”

Here is how I see it.  You have these little barely substantiated facts that are like push pins.  Then you have this huge bowl of jell-o that you are going to try to stick on the wall.  There is more than just the theory of evolution in the bowl.  You can’t have evolution if there is no life.  So a means of spontaneous generation must be invented.  And there is the universe itself.  All you have to hold that piece of jell-o up is Sagan’s comment.  But he said it on TV so it must be true. 

As for the bible, it does at first come by the testimony of men but after that a person can read it and test its veracity for themselves.   Some here have suggested they could write a book as good as the bible.  If that is true and you haven’t done it, then you are missing a very lucrative career.  The bible wasn’t written by just one man though.  There are about forty authors and it took about 1500 years to complete.  Yes they all hold a uniform testimony about creation but that is not the purpose of the book.  God could create as many worlds like this one as there are electrons in it, in a heartbeat.  The real work that is described in the bible is redemption. 

Men have been writing books since the very beginning of their existence.  There isn’t anything like the bible.  If it is just another of man’s books, then why isn’t it seeing similar circulation to something like Bulfinch’s Mythology for example?  There is design and structure and internal evidence supporting the claims it makes for itself that has held sway in the minds of men from all walks of life throughout the centuries, in spite of all the attacks against it. 

If it had any fatal flaws, don’t you think they would be well known and men would treat it like other literature?  I have been personally reading and studying the bible for thirty five years and I haven’t found any.  I see tons of internal evidence but the real test is in personally knowing the risen Lord. 

And that is Not a confidence trick! 


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:I guess

Read the Bible wrote:

I guess I’m just not smart enough to be an infidel.

Don't sell yourself short.  You are obviously literate, and capable of following someone else's train of thought.  That's what it takes.

Quote:

I tried reading a couple of articles about these mosquitoes and the Ames test.  They are quite confusing and beyond my ability to truly comprehend. 

Okay, great!  I'm really glad you read the articles.  If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them as best I can.

Quote:

Even if I did understand them, I would still have no means to verify their truthfulness.  The entire system of evolution is totally dependent on the conjecture and testimony of men. There is absolutely nothing that I can do to personally confirm its truth. 

Okay, you've gone off the rails a bit right here.  You DO have the means to verify their truthfulness, it just won't be easy.  You can actually do experiments like this yourself with nothing more than several containers, sugar, water and a few packets of bread yeast.  How about evolving a strain of yeast that can deal with higher salinity than regular yeast?  That'd be cool, and it will cost you nothing but sugar, salt and time; heck, it won't even smell bad, which a lot of biology does.  Let's do it!  If you want any assistance with experimental design, I'd be willing to guess that any scientist here would be happy to answer questions and offer advice.

Evolution has absolutely no dependence on conjecture and trust.  When researchers write papers, they must include enough detail so that someone else can do the experiment over again to see if they get the same results, which actually happens.  Experiments with non-repeatable results are immediately viewed with heavy skepticism.

Quote:

The whole thing is nothing but a confidence trick.  No matter what is observed, we can devise “an appropriate evolutionary explanation.”

Actually, that's not true.  There are quite a few things that would kill evolution immediately; someone once famously said "rabbits in the precambiran" when asked what would disprove evolution.  The reason it seems this way to you is because it is an incredibly powerful concept, so it applies to lots of situations.  It also happens that the predictions evolutionary theory makes have all borne out, and that cannot be said for creation science (aka "Intelligent Design" ).

Quote:

Here is how I see it.  You have these little barely substantiated facts that are like push pins.  Then you have this huge bowl of jell-o that you are going to try to stick on the wall.  There is more than just the theory of evolution in the bowl.  You can’t have evolution if there is no life.  So a means of spontaneous generation must be invented.  And there is the universe itself.  All you have to hold that piece of jell-o up is Sagan’s comment.  But he said it on TV so it must be true.

You are making a very common mistake: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life or the big bang; anyone who says it does doesn't understand what they're talking about and therefore shouldn't be considered a reliable source.  Abiogenesis is completely separate realm from evolution, and the big bang is physics, not biology.

Quote:

As for the bible, it does at first come by the testimony of men but after that a person can read it and test its veracity for themselves.

So what about the errors and contradictions?  What do those say about the source of the bible?  Google around a bit, look around here; I'm sure you'll find many references you can check with either your own physical bible or with any online edition.

Quote:

Men have been writing books since the very beginning of their existence.  There isn’t anything like the bible.  If it is just another of man’s books, then why isn’t it seeing similar circulation to something like Bulfinch’s Mythology for example?  There is design and structure and internal evidence supporting the claims it makes for itself that has held sway in the minds of men from all walks of life throughout the centuries, in spite of all the attacks against it. 

If it had any fatal flaws, don’t you think they would be well known and men would treat it like other literature?  I have been personally reading and studying the bible for thirty five years and I haven’t found any. 

This is going to sound harsh, but it's an honest comment: if you've been studying it for 35 years and haven't found any errors on contradictions, you haven't been looking very hard.  Does the moon give its own light?  What's the value of pi?  As I said before, search around and find a list, then check it yourself.

Quote:

I see tons of internal evidence but the real test is in personally knowing the risen Lord. 

And that is Not a confidence trick! 

I beg to differ.  Conmen get you to trust them by acting trustworthy, then they steal your money.  The bible tells you to trust it because it's trustworthy, and then makes a bunch of errors and contradictions.

See the parallel?

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:If it

Read the Bible wrote:

If it had any fatal flaws, don’t you think they would be well known and men would treat it like other literature?  I have been personally reading and studying the bible for thirty five years and I haven’t found any.  I see tons of internal evidence but the real test is in personally knowing the risen Lord. 

 

 

Hey RtB,I'm back.

Well here's some flaws to start with,let me know the answers.

a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
 c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
 (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
 (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
 (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
 (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
 (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:Cool, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

 

Plants were made on the third day before the sun,making photosynthesis impossible.

Rabbits don't chew the cud-Leviticus 11:5-6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.''

Bats aren't birds.Lev 11:13,19 ''And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.''

Insects don't have four legs.Lev 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The sun doesn't go around the earth Judges 5:31 ''So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.''(indicated the sun moves.)

The earth doesn't move. 1 Chronicles 16:30 ''Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.''

Here's plenty more:http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/47

Maybe I'm not smart enough to be a believer.But I don't expect such a marvelous book as you describe to have these problems.Even if they aren't fatal flaws,they aren't very convincing of a perfect god.

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Shikko and Loc for

Thanks Shikko and Loc for weighing in. Good arguments.

 

Read the Bible wrote:

Speciation is not rare in the sense of people being struck by lightning.  We have lots of living accounts of that, though we are generally not eye witnesses to it.  It is rare in the sense that we have no record of it happening ever.  It is only supposition.  

Definately not true, Shikko is correct, plus we have a massive amount of evidence. Enough that people realised it was true way before they knew about DNA and chromosomes (there was enough evidence to see that it was true, they just didn't have the mechanism yet).

Read the Bible wrote:

How about turtles?  You don’t think they evolved do you?  

Umm, well actually I do, everything evolves.

Read the Bible wrote:

You have to at least admit that they have some pretty stabile DNA!  Not much possibility for sloppy replication in there.  The interesting thing about turtles is that there is nothing they could have evolved from.  (Are there other animals that have their pelvic bone inside their rib cage?)  “They cracked the winning code 110 million years ago?”  WOW, why didn’t they take over the world?  Un-evolved for 110 million years, they sure didn’t contribute much to the diversity of life on the planet.   Would you call that a ‘dead end’ for evolution?  But wait a minute, how do they know they are 110 million years old?  The type of rocks they were found in and they couldn’t possibly wrong about that could they?  

They have stable DNA because they haven't had to structurally change much in 110 million years. (They would have changed in non-structural ways, such as disease resistance etc) They are very well suited to their environment, so alterations are not desirable and structural evolution reinforces their current shape. They evolved from animals that are extinct now and are structurally similar to all of the other turtle species. Why would they take over the world? Once again, evolution does not drive species to take over the world. (I can think of many jokes about turtles trying to take over the world, but it's not the time).

Have another look at how fossils are typed, yes it is an estimate that has a few million years grey zone when you are working with stuff that old, but it is much more acurate than measuring the age of the world by counting geneology in an old work of fiction.

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive. A number of evolutionary scholars have labeled the principle of survival of the fittest a tautology.
 

I'm sorry but this argument is rubbish. "Survival of the fittest" is indead a bad term and is very misused. Darwin did not like this term and it was included in later additions because of pressure from the publishers. The concept is evolution (including origin of species) through natural selection. No circular reasoning there.

Read the Bible wrote:

    No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."  

The reason that no matter what is observed it can be explained by evolutionary means is that evolution is a sound theory. To disprove it you would have to find something that could not possibly evolve or that disobeyed the natural laws. A mythical creature. Even something severely out of place in the fossil record would cause a big stir.  

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The value of PI.  I’m


The value of PI.  I’m not going to give answers to all the points but this one came up twice and the answer is quite interesting.  Using this method of interpretation, the text is actually correct to .015 in.  for the circumference and PI is accurate to the fifth decimal. 

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

A more detailed answer:
http://ldolphin.org/pi/

The added letter is the same used when Abram was changed to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah.  (Gen. 17)
Compare that to other records.  (The first page, I have just shown to be false, but read the rest of it.)
http://pidayinternational.org/Pi_History/HISTORY_OF_PI_Biblical_Pi.htm


The yeast experiment is the same as the antibiotic experiment (though much safer and cheaper) which is the same as the peppered moth scenario which, like the video said, they didn’t turn into birds or bees. 

Quote:
Evolution has absolutely no dependence on conjecture and trust.

To the lay person and kids in school that is all it is.

Quote:
Actually, that's not true.  There are quite a few things that would kill evolution immediately; someone once famously said "rabbits in the Precambrian" when asked what would disprove evolution.  The reason it seems this way to you is because it is an incredibly powerful concept, so it applies to lots of situations.  It also happens that the predictions evolutionary theory makes have all borne out, and that cannot be said for creation science (aka "Intelligent Design" ).

If any observable facts could “kill evolution” it would never have seen the 20th century.  By all logic it should be quite dead but it is not going to go away until the Lord of Glory makes Himself known to all the Earth.  That is what creation theory predicts. 

Quote:
You are making a very common mistake: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life or the big bang; anyone who says it does doesn't understand what they're talking about and therefore shouldn't be considered a reliable source.  Abiogenesis is completely separate realm from evolution, and the big bang is physics, not biology.

You missed what I said.  Evolution does not cover origins.  I know that, but there has to be a beginning.  For evolution to be true, it is contingent on other events.  For discussion, I would like to get some feedback on this chapter.  It is only 4 pages in Word.  Check the bio on this guy too.

http://www.newble.co.uk/anderson/doubters/doubt1.html
 


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote:The concept of

Quote:
Quote:
The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive. A number of evolutionary scholars have labeled the principle of survival of the fittest a tautology .

 
Quote:
I'm sorry but this argument is rubbish. "Survival of the fittest" is indeed a bad term and is very misused. Darwin did not like this term and it was included in later additions because of pressure from the publishers. The concept is evolution (including origin of species) through natural selection. No circular reasoning there.

How is it without the phrase?  Sounds the same to me.

The concept of natural selection is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since select ability is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, 
organisms have been selected through the evolutionary process because they are more selectable, and the way one tells they are more selectable is that they survive. A number of evolutionary scholars have labeled the principle of natural selection a tautology.


Quote:
The reason that no matter what is observed it can be explained by evolutionary means is that evolution is a sound theory. To disprove it you would have to find something that could not possibly evolve or that disobeyed the natural laws. A mythical creature. Even something severely 
out of place in the fossil record would cause a big stir. 

 
I don’t suppose a platypus would qualify as a “mythical creature”.  I didn't think so. 

 

Let’s go down to the river and look for turtles. 

 

I don't see it as a sound theory.  I see it as jell-o.  The only thing about evolution that is evolving is the theory itself, expanding, modified, revised etc.  The tree of evolution has more missing links than you can shake a stick at, like turtles for instance.  Didn't Darwin say that if the links aren't found the theory is false?
 

Quote:
They are very well suited to their environment, so alterations are not desirable and structural evolution reinforces their current shape. They evolved from animals that are extinct now and are structurally similar to all of the other turtle species.


http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Diversity/turtle_origins.htm

There is your answer: He doesn't know, nobody has a clue really.

Quote:
Why would they take over the world? Once again, evolution does not drive species to take over the world.

There, you just said it yourself, humans did not evolve!  YEA, I won, I won!   Genesis 1:28 - "replenish the Earth and subdue it: and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the Earth." 

Now we can all be friends. Smiling

If turtles did take over the world wouldn't that make mother Gaia happy?  It would remove the peace on earth obstacle.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:The

Read the Bible wrote:


The value of PI.  I’m not going to give answers to all the points but this one came up twice and the answer is quite interesting.  Using this method of interpretation, the text is actually correct to .015 in.  for the circumference and PI is accurate to the fifth decimal. 

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

A more detailed answer:
http://ldolphin.org/pi/

The added letter is the same used when Abram was changed to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah.  (Gen. 17)
Compare that to other records.  (The first page, I have just shown to be false, but read the rest of it.)
http://pidayinternational.org/Pi_History/HISTORY_OF_PI_Biblical_Pi.htm

Numerology is not exactly what I would call strong support for a rebuttal.

The bible code and all associated claptrap is meaningless to anyone who does not already ascribe mystical significance to the source text.  I'm sure you've heard the adage about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare; this is the corollary: meaningful patterns can be found in any sufficiently large data set.  Ascribing meaning to coincidences or random patterns is called apophenia, and is a recognized mental condition.  You can find messages in a thesaurus, the classified ads or the phone book if you look hard enough or have the right formula.  Does this make the Yellow Pages an alien message?

The odds of that math randomly working out are not really low:

ways to write 111 with three letters: 5

ways to write 106 with two letters: 1

total possible combinations: 5

So there are five word combinations that would give this ratio.  I can't speak to relative chance of any one, since I don't speak Hebrew.  Do you?

Never mind the fact that the approximation used is still rather poor for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient being...

Quote:

The yeast experiment is the same as the antibiotic experiment (though much safer and cheaper) which is the same as the peppered moth scenario which, like the video said, they didn’t turn into birds or bees. 

Well, it probably eventually would turn into something non-yeast-like; just hang on several million years. 

Are you a believer in the micro/macro difference, or "kinds" of evolution?  The difference between them is the same as "trees" and "forest": when does one become the other?  You can plant one, or twenty or a hundred trees and still not have a forest.  But if you plant a few every day, eventually anyone looking at it would say "that's a forest", and it's nothing but a lot of trees.

The religious who got tired of thinking people thought they were stupid when they said "I don't believe in evolution", so they started saying "well, sure I believe in microevolution..." as if there was a difference in kind.  The problem is, like so many other things in popular discourse, that it sounds good and is utterly meaningless.

As an aside, you do of course realize that you are demanding a level of proof that your own beliefs are incapable of living up to, right?  That's another logical fallacy called a "double standard".

Quote:

Quote:
Evolution has absolutely no dependence on conjecture and trust.

To the lay person and kids in school that is all it is.

By your reasoning, so does the weak nuclear force.  Does that exist?  Have you ever seen evidence or records of the weak nuclear force?  No?  Well, it must not exist then, especially if you don't think you're smart enough to understand it and are left with trusting a mere "physics teacher" who also just got "told about it".

Come on, I already said it once: don't sell yourself short.  You are smart enough to understand this stuff.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, that's not true.  There are quite a few things that would kill evolution immediately; someone once famously said "rabbits in the Precambrian" when asked what would disprove evolution.  The reason it seems this way to you is because it is an incredibly powerful concept, so it applies to lots of situations.  It also happens that the predictions evolutionary theory makes have all borne out, and that cannot be said for creation science (aka "Intelligent Design" ).

If any observable facts could “kill evolution” it would never have seen the 20th century.  By all logic it should be quite dead but it is not going to go away until the Lord of Glory makes Himself known to all the Earth.  That is what creation theory predicts. 

No, no, no.  The reason it saw the 20th century (and is still doing well early in the 21st) is that the "observable facts" actually concur with evolutionary theory.  Actually creation theory does make several predictions:

- no evidence common descent. (there would be none if every organism was purpose-built)

- no transitional forms (ditto).

- no fossil striation (fossils would simply not exist).

- no vestigial organs or structures in any organism (why would a perfect god build organisms with parts it does not use or need?).

Of course, those predictions are all wrong but they were at least implied by creation theory/intelligent design.

Quote:

Quote:
You are making a very common mistake: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life or the big bang; anyone who says it does doesn't understand what they're talking about and therefore shouldn't be considered a reliable source.  Abiogenesis is completely separate realm from evolution, and the big bang is physics, not biology.

You missed what I said.  Evolution does not cover origins.  I know that, but there has to be a beginning.  For evolution to be true, it is contingent on other events.  For discussion, I would like to get some feedback on this chapter.  It is only 4 pages in Word.  Check the bio on this guy too.

http://www.newble.co.uk/anderson/doubters/doubt1.html

Here's my favourite part, bolded and in context:

Sir Robert Anderson wrote:

Men whose minds are enslaved by a preconceived determination to refuse belief in God must be content here to stand like fools, owning their impotency to solve the elementary problem of existence, and, as humble disciples in the school of one Topsy, a negro slave-girl, dismissing the matter by the profound and sapient formula "I 'spect I grow'd" ! But the free thinker, unblinded by prejudice, will reject an alternative belief which is sheer credulity, and, unmoved by the sneers of pseudo-scientists and sham-philosophers, will honestly and fearlessly accept the goal to which his reason points, and there set up an altar to an unknown God.

My longer critique of this piece is: do you know what an "argument from ignorance" is?  This article is a very good example of it: If I don't know how something happened, god must have done it.  I don't know how life came to be, therefore god must have created it.

In the article you linked to, it looks like this:

Question: how did the first life start?

Susie Scientist: I don't know.

Timmy Theist: Creation.

The scientist gave an answer she could back up: she literally has no idea how it happened, just that it did (because here we are).  The theist asserts "creation" with no backup (and please don't tell me it has been proven, because the bible says it happened.  You can't use the bible to prove the bible.).  Asserting an answer in the face of a lack of information is an argument from ignorance.

Secondly, he made several logical errors in his first sentence:

- loaded terms: "enslaved", "determination to refuse belief", "stand like fools", "impotency", "elementary".

- shifting the burden of proof: "refuse the belief in God", as if it had been conclusively proven and anyone who disagreed with him was simply being pigheaded.

So what did you find convincing about this piece?

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Numerology is not

Quote:
Numerology is not exactly what I would call strong support for a rebuttal.
The bible code and all associated claptrap is meaningless to anyone who does not already ascribe mystical significance to the source text.  I'm sure you've heard the adage about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare; this is the corollary: meaningful patterns can be found in any sufficiently large data set.  Ascribing meaning to coincidences or random patterns is called apophenia, and is a recognized mental condition.  You can find messages in a thesaurus, the classified ads or the phone book if you look hard enough or have the right formula.  Does this make the Yellow Pages an alien message?

It seems you are willing to pull out any type of method to discredit this interpretation.  This is not ‘numerology’.  It is a numerical question so how are you going to answer that without numbers?  It is not bible code either (I will not describe the difference here) or any other type of mysticism. 

No, I do not speak or read Hebrew.  I know the alphabet has 22 letters, two of which make the word for ‘line’.  That is what should appear in the text.  Instead there are three letters and the ratio of what is there and what should be there gives the number of PI to the fifth decimal in a sentence that is giving two measurements of a circle.  If that is apophenia to you, then oh well.


Quote:
Well, it probably eventually would turn into something non-yeast-like; just hang on several million years.

Or several HUNDRED million years, if they are like turtles.
Quote:
Are you a believer in the micro/macro difference, or "kinds" of evolution?  The difference between them is the same as "trees" and "forest": when does one become the other?  You can plant one, or twenty or a hundred trees and still not have a forest.  But if you plant a few every day, eventually anyone looking at it would say "that's a forest", and it's nothing but a lot of trees.

I am agnostic here. 
Quote:
The religious who got tired of thinking people thought they were stupid when they said "I don't believe in evolution", so they started saying "well, sure I believe in microevolution..." as if there was a difference in kind.  The problem is, like so many other things in popular discourse, that it sounds good and is utterly meaningless.

This is a very good argument to remain agnostic.  I am not a big fan of the creationism debate and much less of ID.  The bible certainly puts a great deal of emphasis on the fact that God is the creator.  The real work is redemption however.  When Christians make themselves creation evangelists they have missed the most important thing.  To me creation science is something like ‘Atheists for Jesus’.

Quote:
As an aside, you do of course realize that you are demanding a level of proof that your own beliefs are incapable of living up to, right?  That's another logical fallacy called a "double standard".

Far from it.  You don’t admit the bible as evidence.  I do.  It far exceeds any level of proof you could imagine. 

Quote:
My longer critique of this piece is: do you know what an "argument from ignorance" is?  This article is a very good example of it: If I don't know how something happened, god must have done it.  I don't know how life came to be; therefore god must have created it.

I’m just guessing here, but you didn’t read much more than the concluding paragraph and you probably didn’t read that very close. 

I did not know what an argument from ignorance is.  I have seen the term used but never looked it up until this morning.  Then I reread the article.  The preceding sentences to that which you quoted are these:
“Evolution - that is, Science - thus leads us to a point at which either we must blindly and with boundless credulity accept as fact something which is not only destitute of proof, but which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to it; or else we must recognize an existence which, disguise it as we may, means nothing less than God. There is no escape from this dilemma. Our choice lies between these alternatives. The skeptic will at once reject the first; his acceptance of the second is, therefore, a necessity.”


Obviously Anderson did know what it is.  The only weakness to his claim that I can see is the phrase “which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to it”.  So if get your loan from the First Galactic bank of Cosmic Supposition for proof that you do not as yet have in hand, then you can hold your position.  The skeptic will not accept that however.  It should be noted that 100 years have passed since the book was written and the situation for science has not improved, not one iota. 

Quote:
I don't know how life came to be; therefore god must have created it.

According to the current Darwinian-Dawkins atheism, saying that God did it is equivalent to saying “I don’t know” and being able to explain anything in naturalistic terms (like conception and birth for example) is equivalent to saying God did not do it. 

Quote:
Question: how did the first life start?
Susie Scientist: I don't know.

It would be interesting to see if any science text books answer the question of the origin of life with a straight “I don’t know”.  It is actually a very bad scientific answer because science has to fill the place of God in impressionable young minds or they will surely fall prey to diabolical theocratic conspirators.  That is what Dawkins school of Darwinism is all about. 

“THE MAIN OBSTICAL TO PEACE ON EARTH IS RELIGION”. 

Educators can never teach the truth: “We don't know how life came about?"  That leaves the mind’s door wide open to the Sunday school teacher.  Teaching evolution has nothing to do with preparing public school students to become world class scientists.  If that was the goal of public schools don’t you think they would teach them how to think and how to read as well?  That is like fighting a war on terrorism in Iraq and leaving the borders wide open.  Everything is really just a shell game. 

Dawkins is quick to point to all the evils perpetrated by religionists, but at the same time he would be perfectly happy to found his own brand of Christianity, devoid of miracles and Divine Revelation of course, to promote niceness.  Doesn’t that seem odd, that he would purposely publish an article to that end?  (Tongue-in-cheek of course.  I’d like to see him try that with Islam.  How far would he get from the air port in Riyadh wearing a T shirt saying “Atheists for Muhammad”?) 

So if it’s not religion in general, that he is after, what is it?  Diabolical theocratic conspirators.  That sounds bad not to mention oxymoronic.  What do they want to do?  Exactly what turtles could not do in 110 million years; take over the world, but for Jesus.  (I told you it was a shell game.)That is their own personal brand of Christianity or brands of it because they are not all of one camp.  It is a very big war going on, a war of ideas and paradigms which is what this website is all about.  Its counterpart is here:
http://www.theamericanview.com/


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
Numerology is not exactly what I would call strong support for a rebuttal.
The bible code and all associated claptrap is meaningless to anyone who does not already ascribe mystical significance to the source text.  I'm sure you've heard the adage about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare; this is the corollary: meaningful patterns can be found in any sufficiently large data set.  Ascribing meaning to coincidences or random patterns is called apophenia, and is a recognized mental condition.  You can find messages in a thesaurus, the classified ads or the phone book if you look hard enough or have the right formula.  Does this make the Yellow Pages an alien message?

It seems you are willing to pull out any type of method to discredit this interpretation.  This is not ‘numerology’.  It is a numerical question so how are you going to answer that without numbers?  It is not bible code either (I will not describe the difference here) or any other type of mysticism.

I am not claiming the significance of this coincidence; you are, so you have to support your claim that the coincidence is somehow more than just statistics.  I've argued against the "what are the odds?" position, but it's not up to me to disprove it; you have to prove it.

Quote:

No, I do not speak or read Hebrew.  I know the alphabet has 22 letters, two of which make the word for ‘line’.  That is what should appear in the text.  Instead there are three letters and the ratio of what is there and what should be there gives the number of PI to the fifth decimal in a sentence that is giving two measurements of a circle.  If that is apophenia to you, then oh well.

Isn't to the fifth decimal place a bit slapdash for an omnipotent and omniscient being?  Isn't "good enough" falling a bit short of the mark for a being of supposed perfection?

What I was attempting to point out is that for the situation you describe, there are five total combinations that would give the same result.  One of five isn't as unlikely as one of 10 million, and even that isn't exactly huge.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, it probably eventually would turn into something non-yeast-like; just hang on several million years.

Or several HUNDRED million years, if they are like turtles.

Yes, exactly my point.  Life has been evolving on this planet for thousands of millions of years, so why do you think it reasonable to demand something akin to bumblebees turning into antelopes in a time frame humans can directly experience?  This isn't a dodge of the question, it's a recognition that large amounts of change take large amounts of time; why don't evolution deniers make the same admittance?

Quote:

Quote:
Are you a believer in the micro/macro difference, or "kinds" of evolution?  The difference between them is the same as "trees" and "forest": when does one become the other?  You can plant one, or twenty or a hundred trees and still not have a forest.  But if you plant a few every day, eventually anyone looking at it would say "that's a forest", and it's nothing but a lot of trees.

I am agnostic here.

Okay, that's fine.  However, if you agree that a few trees aren't a forest, but a million would be, how else can you make a forest but to let a million trees grow?

Quote:

Quote:
The religious who got tired of thinking people thought they were stupid when they said "I don't believe in evolution", so they started saying "well, sure I believe in microevolution..." as if there was a difference in kind.  The problem is, like so many other things in popular discourse, that it sounds good and is utterly meaningless.

This is a very good argument to remain agnostic.  I am not a big fan of the creationism debate and much less of ID.  The bible certainly puts a great deal of emphasis on the fact that God is the creator.

Then you seem to have few choices: either disregard anything that speaks against the bible, or disregard what the bible says when it comes into conflict with verifiable evidence.  Is there another way?

Quote:


Quote:
As an aside, you do of course realize that you are demanding a level of proof that your own beliefs are incapable of living up to, right?  That's another logical fallacy called a "double standard".

Far from it.  You don’t admit the bible as evidence.  I do.  It far exceeds any level of proof you could imagine. 

No, it doesn't.  Words like "evidence" and "proof" have specific meanings that are not open to interpretation, and the bible is incapable of offering much of it at all.

Quote:

Quote:
My longer critique of this piece is: do you know what an "argument from ignorance" is?  This article is a very good example of it: If I don't know how something happened, god must have done it.  I don't know how life came to be; therefore god must have created it.

I’m just guessing here, but you didn’t read much more than the concluding paragraph and you probably didn’t read that very close. 

Actually I read the whole thing, closely enough to have a couple of reactions and form an opinion.  I'll have to read it again. before I can comment fully on this section below.

Quote:

I did not know what an argument from ignorance is.  I have seen the term used but never looked it up until this morning.  Then I reread the article.  The preceding sentences to that which you quoted are these:
“Evolution - that is, Science - thus leads us to a point at which either we must blindly and with boundless credulity accept as fact something which is not only destitute of proof, but which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to it; or else we must recognize an existence which, disguise it as we may, means nothing less than God. There is no escape from this dilemma. Our choice lies between these alternatives. The skeptic will at once reject the first; his acceptance of the second is, therefore, a necessity.”

However, I can say: this section details what is called a False Dilemma: that's where someone says "the only answers are either A or B.  A can't be true, therefore B" when in fact the person does not deal with other possible answers.

Quote:

Obviously Anderson did know what it is.  The only weakness to his claim that I can see is the phrase “which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to it”.  So if get your loan from the First Galactic bank of Cosmic Supposition for proof that you do not as yet have in hand, then you can hold your position.  The skeptic will not accept that however.  It should be noted that 100 years have passed since the book was written and the situation for science has not improved, not one iota. 

What situation?  Are you trying to tell me there have been no confirmatory results in biology, chemistry or genetics in the last 100 years?

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know how life came to be; therefore god must have created it.

According to the current Darwinian-Dawkins atheism, saying that God did it is equivalent to saying “I don’t know” and being able to explain anything in naturalistic terms (like conception and birth for example) is equivalent to saying God did not do it. 

No, it is not equivalent; "God did it" is what people say instead of being honest and saying "I don't know."  When you say "God did it" you're asserting as fact something that should be testable.  This assertion is not testable, and therefore it is worse off than "I don't know" because it is asserting an uncertainty.

Quote:

Quote:
Question: how did the first life start?
Susie Scientist: I don't know.

It would be interesting to see if any science text books answer the question of the origin of life with a straight “I don’t know”. 

Mine did.  It then went on to say "current hypotheses are: ...".  Maybe I was just lucky; I was in schools that weren't beholden to any conservative religion, be they Dominionist Christians or orthodox Jews.

Quote:

It is actually a very bad scientific answer because science has to fill the place of God in impressionable young minds or they will surely fall prey to diabolical theocratic conspirators.  That is what Dawkins school of Darwinism is all about. 

Correction: a verifiable, accurate answer is never a bad scientific answer.  If the answer is "I don't know", the question gets asked in the "future work" section of the paper.

I think I am beginning to see what this is about: there is a very well-known mindset that hates uncertainty, and will do everything in its power to avoid and eradicate it.  These are also the people that would seemingly rather shoot themselves than be forced to "confess" that they didn't know something.  It's a security issue; they are made to feel insecure if they don't have an answer about something, so they take any answer, regardless of its veracity, as long as it makes them feel secure or cared for.

Scientists deal with uncertainty all the time, because they accept that it's impossible to know everything.

Quote:

“THE MAIN OBSTICAL TO PEACE ON EARTH IS RELIGION”. 

I disagree with the above: the main obstacle to peace on earth is irrationality.  Unfortunately, religion often asserts the irrational, so religion is often an obstacle to peace.

Quote:

Educators can never teach the truth: “We don't know how life came about?"  That leaves the mind’s door wide open to the Sunday school teacher.  Teaching evolution has nothing to do with preparing public school students to become world class scientists. 

How do you figure?  If you wouldn't take your car to a mechanic that thought it was powered by gremlins, why would you go to a doctor that didn't hold with evolution?  I wouldn't trust a physicist that denied the physical forces, nor a pilot who was a flat earther.

Quote:

If that was the goal of public schools don’t you think they would teach them how to think and how to read as well?  That is like fighting a war on terrorism in Iraq and leaving the borders wide open.  Everything is really just a shell game. 

The role of public education in the United States is best left to a separate thread (as is the stated vs actual aims of the war in Iraq), but my feeling on the matter is that it's more about supplying industry with cheap labour than having a well-educated populace.  Thinkers are harder to control than non-thinkers; they have a tendency to question what you tell them, which makes getting what the politicians (actually, their owners) want done harder to accomplish.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Read the Bible (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am not claiming the

Quote:
I am not claiming the significance of this coincidence; you are, so you have to support your claim that the coincidence is somehow more than just statistics.  I've argued against the "what are the odds?" position, but it's not up to me to disprove it; you have to prove it.

I don’t see how you can call it a coincidence.  It is the text of the bible so there is nothing to prove.  It’s just there.  The only thing to debate perhaps is why it is there.  That is for the reader to decide.

Quote:
Isn't to the fifth decimal place a bit slapdash for an omnipotent and omniscient being?  Isn't "good enough" falling a bit short of the mark for a being of supposed perfection?

There is such a thing as Significance arithmetic.  “A result that is written with too many significant figures can be taken to imply a higher precision than is known.”  The noted calculation resolves the equation to .015 in.  That is less than 1/64 of an inch and less than ½ mm.  For measurements most likely taken with a string, that is sufficiently adequate.  It was probably not a perfect circle either.  There are other explainations if you search "PI bible".

Quote:

This isn't a dodge of the question, it's a recognition that large amounts of change take large amounts of time; why don't evolution deniers make the same admittance?

The obvious answer is that I won’t be here.  Why do evolutionists keep making claims that for all reasonable people have no meaning?  The statement can’t be falsified.  To quote an earlier reference, it "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."

Quote:

No, it doesn't.  Words like "evidence" and "proof" have specific meanings that are not open to interpretation, and the bible is incapable of offering much of it at all.

How would you know that?  People who have actually investigated the evidence provided in the bible have quite a different opinion.  Of course not all people accept the evidence provided as our discussion about PI has shown thus far.

Quote:

Actually I read the whole thing, closely enough to have a couple of reactions and form an opinion.  I'll have to read it again. before I can comment fully on this section below.
 

Thank you for reading it.  I will offer my apology to anyone who may have taken offence for referencing an article containing what may have been perceived as a racial slur contained in the quote from the slave girl. 
Quote:

However, I can say: this section details what is called a False Dilemma: that's where someone says "the only answers are either A or B.  A can't be true, therefore B" when in fact the person does not deal with other possible answers.

There are no other possible answers.  All possibilities are derived from either Creation as described in Genesis 1 or some form of evolution.  That’s it. 

Quote:

What situation?  Are you trying to tell me there have been no confirmatory results in biology, chemistry or genetics in the last 100 years?

The situation related to spontaneous generation.  To quote the article:
"Or, if we turn to a teacher, happily still with us, whose dictum will carry still greater weight, Lord Kelvin will tell us that “inanimate matter cannot become living except under the influence of matter already living. This is fact in science which seems to me" he declares, "as well ascertained as the law of gravitation." And he goes on to say, "I am ready to accept as an article of faith in science, valid for all time and in all space that life is produced by life, and only by life."

Science has not produced anything to make Kelvin alter that statement.

Quote:
Quote:

According to the current Darwinian-Dawkins atheism, saying that God did it is equivalent to saying “I don’t know” and being able to explain anything in naturalistic terms (like conception and birth for example) is equivalent to saying God did not do it.

No, it is not equivalent; "God did it" is what people say instead of being honest and saying "I don't know."  When you say "God did it" you're asserting as fact something that should be testable.  This assertion is not testable, and therefore it is worse off than "I don't know" because it is asserting an uncertainty. 

When people who know the Lord, say “God did it”, they are being perfectly honest and stating the truth: whether or not they have a natural explanation for it.  For example, building a house:
Psalm 127:1  Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain.
When you say something evolved, you are claiming as fact something that is not testable.  This was stated in the video that evolution would not stand up the rigors required of ID.  A ‘double standard’ you called it earlier.  I hold to evidence you (probably) have not examined.  You hold to evidence that is not yet established.  But hang in there, what’s a few hundred million years anyway?
Quote:
Correction: a verifiable, accurate answer is never a bad scientific answer.  If the answer is "I don't know", the question gets asked in the "future work" section of the paper.

I am speaking of public schools, not science papers.  The vigorous battle that is waging over creation/evolution is not about the quality of education being provided.  As you say yourself, education is being sidestepped to produce a deliberately uneducated population.  You are right that it is for another discussion.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Just to pick two morsels

Just to pick two morsels from this dog's breakfast...

Quote:
There are no other possible answers.  All possibilities are derived from either Creation as described in Genesis 1 or some form of evolution.  That’s it.

There are many other alternative Creation "answers" to be found in the world's various religions, past and present. There are also different ways of reading Genesis within a Christian context.

If you propose that a specific reading of one religion's creation story is true, the burden of proof is upon you.

Quote:

"Or, if we turn to a teacher, happily still with us, whose dictum will carry still greater weight, Lord Kelvin will tell us that “inanimate matter cannot become living except under the influence of matter already living. This is fact in science which seems to me" he declares, "as well ascertained as the law of gravitation." And he goes on to say, "I am ready to accept as an article of faith in science, valid for all time and in all space that life is produced by life, and only by life."

Science has not produced anything to make Kelvin alter that statement.

Which has exactly zero to do with evolution, since evolution by definition involves intra-organic changes and not abiogenetic transitions.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
It is obvious that we are

It is obvious that we are not going to get anywhere with you. You have closed your mind to anything that you think contradicts your bible. It is this kind of irrationality that we don't like.

I did not say that humans didn't evolve. That is bad logic on your part, but not unexpected. I can't even be bothered explaining, I was prepared to follow this thread to its logical conclusion, but as logic has gone out the window it obviously won't have one.

If we go back to the crime scene scenario, we are saying that we have a wealth of evidence which may be circumstantial but it is obvious that a human committed this crime. You are saying I reject all of your evidence because I have a book that says an invisible guy with magic powers did it.

You would reject all of the evidence in the world for a book that there is no proof was influenced in any way by a god. Most religions have their sacred, god-inspired texts. There is nothing special about your bible.

If there was a god and he cared if we believed in him, I'm sure he would provide some obvious proof (please don't belittle yourself and start quoting "biblical proof" again). Basically, if god exists, he has gone out of his way to hide himself. Even to the point of planting fossil evidence and making everything in a way that people 150 years ago could see looked like they were evolutionary linked. Even the DNA evidence points to evolution. If god exists he must just want us to leave him alone.

I don't suppose it would help to point out that basically every scientist in the world (including religious ones) agree with evolutionary theory. No one has ever discounted evolution based on science. It has only been rejected because of religion. There is no world-wide conspiracy that all scientists have to sign up for to promote evolution. What would be the point anyway? What would be the agenda? There are, however, religious-backed orginizations set up purely to debunk science for the purpose of religious dogma.

 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible wrote:Quote:I

Read the Bible wrote:

Quote:
I am not claiming the significance of this coincidence; you are, so you have to support your claim that the coincidence is somehow more than just statistics.  I've argued against the "what are the odds?" position, but it's not up to me to disprove it; you have to prove it.

I don’t see how you can call it a coincidence.  It is the text of the bible so there is nothing to prove.  It’s just there.  The only thing to debate perhaps is why it is there.  That is for the reader to decide.

I call it a coincidence for the reasons I gave: there are four other combinations of Hebrew letters that would give that ratio.  The bible actually has quite a bit to prove: the text of the bible makes several specific claims which can be checked.  However, when we check them against the knowledge we have gained in the last dozen or so centuries, what is written does not match the facts we have.  Why is that?  Believers will say our understanding (either of their holy texts or of our facts) is somehow wrong.  Scientists say the claims are wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
Isn't to the fifth decimal place a bit slapdash for an omnipotent and omniscient being?  Isn't "good enough" falling a bit short of the mark for a being of supposed perfection?

There is such a thing as Significance arithmetic.  “A result that is written with too many significant figures can be taken to imply a higher precision than is known.”  The noted calculation resolves the equation to .015 in.  That is less than 1/64 of an inch and less than ½ mm.  For measurements most likely taken with a string, that is sufficiently adequate.  It was probably not a perfect circle either.  There are other explainations if you search "PI bible".

I know what significant figures are, and what is too much.  I think a whole number (circumeference stated as 30 instead of 31, which is a much closer approximation than the one used in the bible) is quite signifigant when measuring a distance equivalent to the distance from your elbow to the tip of your middle finger.

The text you linked to explained this away with "hey, how are we to know what rounding entailed in those days?  Maybe 31 was routinely rounded to 30"  But that doesn't jive with a culture that was careful enough with numbers that they routinely wrote out a specific number in two different ways to keep from spelling out the name of god.

Quote:

Quote:

This isn't a dodge of the question, it's a recognition that large amounts of change take large amounts of time; why don't evolution deniers make the same admittance?

The obvious answer is that I won’t be here.  Why do evolutionists keep making claims that for all reasonable people have no meaning?  The statement can’t be falsified.  To quote an earlier reference, it "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."

Untrue; it can very easily be falsified, as I believe I've already mentioned.  Evolution makes several claims, all of which have been borne out by research.  The claims of creationism have all been falsified by research.  Actually, I take that back: the testable claims of creationism have all been falsified by research, and the untestable claims aren't worth much.

So let me put it to you: what would falsify your belief in a god?  What would it take to make you say "you know what, I believed that, but now I don't; I was wrong."  Would anything make you say that?  This is a serious question.

Quote:

Quote:

No, it doesn't.  Words like "evidence" and "proof" have specific meanings that are not open to interpretation, and the bible is incapable of offering much of it at all.

How would you know that?  People who have actually investigated the evidence provided in the bible have quite a different opinion.  Of course not all people accept the evidence provided as our discussion about PI has shown thus far.

I think you need to admit that people who have "actually investigated the evidence provided in the bible" and come to a "different opinion" are believers.  Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:

Quote:

Actually I read the whole thing, closely enough to have a couple of reactions and form an opinion.  I'll have to read it again. before I can comment fully on this section below.
 

Thank you for reading it.  I will offer my apology to anyone who may have taken offence for referencing an article containing what may have been perceived as a racial slur contained in the quote from the slave girl. 

I didn't take offence at the racist content; I took it as a hallmark for when it was written.  He was arguing against a position that has matured since then, so many of his arguments no longer apply.

Quote:

Quote:

However, I can say: this section details what is called a False Dilemma: that's where someone says "the only answers are either A or B.  A can't be true, therefore B" when in fact the person does not deal with other possible answers.

There are no other possible answers.  All possibilities are derived from either Creation as described in Genesis 1 or some form of evolution.  That’s it.

The Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Cree, Egyptians, Sioux, Aborigines, Santerians, Jains, Hindus, Celts, Vikings, Mayans, Incans, Chinese and Africans would all disagree with your second sentence.  The false dichotomy offered is "evolution or (Christian) creation".  There are countless creation myths; what evidence do you have (other than the bible, which says to trust it because it's trustworthy) that the Christian creation story is right, but those others (along with evolution) are all wrong?  Every religion has their creation myth, and every religion thinks they're right.  It is impossible for them to all be right, but it is entirely possible for them to all be wrong.

This is the same reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work (well, there's more than one reason): he is assuming the only two possibilities are "no god or the Christian god, specifically the Catholic version of the Christian god".

Quote:

Quote:

What situation?  Are you trying to tell me there have been no confirmatory results in biology, chemistry or genetics in the last 100 years?

The situation related to spontaneous generation.  To quote the article:
"Or, if we turn to a teacher, happily still with us, whose dictum will carry still greater weight, Lord Kelvin will tell us that “inanimate matter cannot become living except under the influence of matter already living. This is fact in science which seems to me" he declares, "as well ascertained as the law of gravitation." And he goes on to say, "I am ready to accept as an article of faith in science, valid for all time and in all space that life is produced by life, and only by life."

Science has not produced anything to make Kelvin alter that statement.

In order for Kelvin to alter that statement, science would also have to discover how to reanimate the dead. Smiling

Using the state of a science from 100+ years ago as its current state is not a good argument.  The conclusions reached in the 19th century do not automatically still hold; new data either confirms predictions of the theory or forces the theory to be modified so that it can account for the data.

Quote:

When people who know the Lord, say “God did it”, they are being perfectly honest and stating the truth: whether or not they have a natural explanation for it.  For example, building a house:
Psalm 127:1  Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain.

When people who "know the lord say 'god did it'", the are being perfectly honest, but they are NOT stating the truth; they are stating their opinion, since the truth is backed up by data, which faith is not.  There is a difference between the truth and an opinion; sometimes they coincide, often they do not.

Quote:

When you say something evolved, you are claiming as fact something that is not testable.  This was stated in the video that evolution would not stand up the rigors required of ID.  A ‘double standard’ you called it earlier.  I hold to evidence you (probably) have not examined.  You hold to evidence that is not yet established.  But hang in there, what’s a few hundred million years anyway?

But if a biologist claims that something evolved, they have just come up with a way to test the claim; that test will either support or refute their claim.  If I claim that a form of insect evolved due to a change in environment, the immediate tests are: find a form of this insect elsewhere that did not evolve; see if the change can be duplicated.  Genetic studies of these organisms can help pinpoint their point of divergence from the main branch.

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.