The New Origin of Species

  
Via:  tig  •  2 years ago  •  334 comments

The New Origin of Species

A review of:  The New Origin of Species - Darwin’s Work Is Being Undone by Modern Genetics

Answers in Genesis is, without question in my mind, a con outfit.   They routinely put forth articles like this attempting to discredit science so as to push a literal interpretation of the Bible:  Earth < 10,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, etc.

Here is a recent article that illustrates the game played by an organization that works overtime to keep their (paying) flock misinformed (and loyal).    My comments will simply critique select quotes from the article.   Readers of course have access to the full article (and the author's book) for context.

This article is about a brilliant PhD researcher (Nathaniel T. Jeanson) - a Harvard graduate - who has been a lifelong Young Earth Creationist and who now seeks to use his knowledge of biology to illustrate that evolution -as commonly understood- is wrong.   Note: I do not question the credentials or the intelligence of Dr. Jeanson.  I have no doubt this is a very smart individual who understands biology.

Quoting from the article ...

You don’t know what you don’t know. In his time, Charles Darwin sought to fill huge gaps in his knowledge regarding species. And armed primarily with an 1800s education and his two eyes, perhaps Darwin did the best he could—at least the best anyone could who starts out to explain creation without the Creator. Yet Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Since then, science has exploded astronomically, developing enthralling new fields no one in those pre–Civil War days foresaw. No doubt, a peek at the technology in a twenty-first-century laboratory would have blown Darwin’s mind.

First, Darwin does not explain creation.  He explains origin of species.  This is not a subtle point.   Perhaps this an honest mistake by this brilliant man?   Moving on.

The quote in general implies that since Darwin's knowledge was far less than what we know today, his fundamental finding - biological evolution - is no longer valid.   It implies that science today has effectively overturned evolution (but the scientific community does not realize it).   You think I am exaggerating?    Look at the next quote:

In other words, today’s men and women of science can scrutinize more biological data than Darwin ever imagined. In fact, in Jeanson’s revolutionary book, Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species, he argues that today’s ocean of new knowledge has overwritten Darwin’s explanations for the origin of species. One of Jeanson’s goals for writing Replacing Darwin is to point evolutionists to fresh, eye-opening research.

What interesting word choice:  'overwritten'.   The implication is that Darwin was wrong.   The reality is that science has indeed discovered an amazing amount of evidence that corroborates Darwin's findings.   Corroboration vs overwritten.  Rather big difference.   Let's continue.

... is to point evolutionists to fresh, eye-opening research.

As if 'evolutionists' are not aware of modern advances in evolutionary biology?   Think I am exaggerating?   Look at the next quote (from Jeanson himself):

“In publishing Replacing Darwin, I know I’m challenging the scientific views of 97–99% of the professional scientific community. ..."

So think about it.  Is the confusion more likely yours (Dr. Jeanson) or (in effect) the entire worldwide scientific community?    Digging a whole

--- skipping over Dr. Jeanson's biography, his religious calling, his employment at AiG, etc. ---

THE FIELD OF SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH INHERITANCE IS THE FIELD OF GENETICS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS, ULTIMATELY, A QUESTION OF GENETICS.

Didn’t Darwin examine genetic data?

Hardly, Jeanson explains: “In 1859, genetics wasn’t even a field of science. The term genetics wasn’t invented until after the turn of the century. The molecule that we know now as the substance of heredity, DNA, wasn’t recognized as such until nearly 100 years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species.

This is sophistry.   He is implying that since evolution ultimately is a question of genetics (it is not, by the way, since that ignores the environment's role in natural selection) that Darwin could not possibly have come up with the right answer.   Darwin did indeed come up with a correct (per current knowledge) explanation of how species originate even though he had no knowledge of genetics.   This is like arguing that Einstein's theory of Relativity is flawed because it predated accurate instruments (e.g. orbiting telescopes) to measure cosmological bodies and subsequent discoveries (e.g. dark energy / matter).   This is not only nonsense, it is offensive.   This is the kind of crap AiG routinely puts out to dumb down the public.

When we graph all these differences in human mitochondrial DNA, we discover that the human family divides into three different groups (see green dots in Figure 2). This is just what we would expect if all humans came from three women who got off Noah’s Ark just a few thousand years ago.

How convenient.  The above quote is one of several claims.   Basically, Dr. Jeanson is out to correlate data with his YEC beliefs.  The article does not offer sufficient details, basically just claims.   But Dr. Jeanson is, in effect, claiming that HE -using the same scientific tools and data as the rest of the world's scientists- has found an alternate and valid interpretation that is different than 97-99% of the world scientists and this interpretation, coincidentally, aligns neatly with his religious views of a young Earth.

Without a doubt, Jeanson’s Replacing Darwin: A New Origin of Species will ignite controversy.

Yes folks, Dr. Jeanson is going to turn all of science on its ear and illustrate that the entire field of biology is wrong.   He will show that all lifeforms are no more than about 6,000 years old and argue (no doubt) that the dating methods (and the evidence) that show life dating back at least 3.5 billion years are all wrong.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    2 years ago

This article from AiG I found particularly offensive.   These folks have no shame IMO.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 years ago

Hi TiG, your article is very well written and perfectly demonstrates the level of intellectual dishonesy many theists (especially YECs) engage in to undermine or subvert science in favor of dogma. It's like some people prefer sheer ignorance over knowledge. It boggles the mind.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    2 years ago

Well, it kind of reminds me of the new Directv commercials, "Some people prefer cable over Directv, just like some people like getting run over by a train." (que someone getting run over by a train and, laughing at the same time).

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

I wouldn't really worry about it.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science,

- Richard Dawkins

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    2 years ago

Good morning,

It always astounds me that Darwin is (symbolically) presented as leaping full-grown from the brain of Zeus... as though Darwin's theory was born from nothing. Ummm.... farmers??   patience They have been cross-breeding both animals and plants since roughly the day after they first moved on from hunting-and-gathering. It has been known to be possible to promote desirable traits since... forever, basically.

What Darwin did was explain the mechanism by which all living things, themselves, unwittingly, promote desirable traits.

No guide / invisible hand / God needed. And that is why the Bible-thumpers feel the need to discredit Darwin.

Nor did Darwin develop his ideas in splendid intellectual isolation. No ivory tower. For "natural selection" to operate, the world needs time. Lots and lots of time. While Darwin developed his theory, the (silly, IMHO) reconstruction of the age of the world by addition of the life spans of Biblical personages, by James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, two centuries earlier, was contemporaneously being demolished by the new science of geology. Geologists looked at the ways the Earth had been sculpted by water and wind, guesstimated the time required, and concluded that many, many, many, many, many millions of years were needed.

In fact, "natural philosophers" were already presenting various theories to explain the remarkable warmth of the Earth after so much time.

Gregor Mendel's work, explaining the impact of dominant and recessive traits in heredity, was sadly lost during Darwin's time, but its existence is a demonstration that "the time was ripe" for Darwin's theory.

And of course, Alfred Russel Wallace came to the same conclusions as Darwin at the same time, if with far less meticulous documentation.

There seems to exist a notion among Young Earthers (first cousins of Flat Earthers) that if only they can discredit Darwin, the edifice of natural selection will crumble. No.

Darwin was brilliant, but his ideas were of their time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 years ago

In context of your entire post, it is troubling that the forces such as AiG have successfully preserved a cultural mindset that evolutionary science is wrong because it contradicts the biblical age of the Earth per Ussher's literal analysis of the Bible.

Why do skeptics speak out?   One answer is purposeful acts to keep millions ignorant simply to preserve their revenue stream.   Religion is a business and it does what it takes to remain viable.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 years ago
Why?

Money and power.

The Unthinking Faithful TM must always be told the same stories; they must hear those unchanging stories from the same Authoritative Sources TM, both political and religious, so that they never have any reason to ask questions. Those Authoritative Sources TM have come to see their interests (money and power) to be so tightly knit that they have effectively fused into a single entity.

Smiley31-1.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=cropThis fusion between the Evangelical movement and tho GOP is beginning to cause problems, since there still quite a few people who kinda sorta listen to Christ's message, and have a hard time finding it in Donald Trump and the ultra-rich. I've been seeding a lot, lately, about the growing unrest among genuinely Christian Evangelicals (as opposed to the purely political Evangelicals who are currently in control of the movement). 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.1    2 years ago
Money and power.

Indeed.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.3  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 years ago

Those who have neither need different tactics.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 years ago
In context of your entire post, it is troubling that the forces such as AiG have successfully preserved a cultural mindset that evolutionary science is wrong because it contradicts the biblical age of the Earth per Ussher's literal analysis of the Bible.

Do not mistake a small group of nutters for a movement or a "successfully preserved cultural mindset".

There are fewer of these idiots than there are people who believe in astrology. (which is also nuttery)

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.4    2 years ago

Not true

38% of Americans believe in the Biblical view of Creation

1 in 5 Americans with a post graduate degree hold that view

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

It takes far more faith in evolution than to believe the Biblical record.

And for those who don't know my view on this.

There is no contradiction between the literal Book of Genesis record and the age of the earth being 4.5-6 billion years of age

There is no contradiction between the literal Book of Genesis record and the consensus view of modern man being present approximately 10,000 years

Fortunately we still have many hundreds of accomplished scientists (including Nobel winners) in all the scientific disciplines including anthropology and biology who categorically reject this phony "science".

Website on age of the earth

http://swordandspirit.com/library/writings/science/writings_science/beginning.html

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/twenty-one-more-famous-nobel-prize-winners-who-rejected-darwinism-as-an-account-of-consciousness/

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

http://www.idscience.ca/evolution_in_crisis.html

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/list-of-scienti.html

http://www.idscience.ca/evolution_in_crisis.html

obviously you didn't bother to read what I linked- 21 Nobel Laureates oppose evolution as fact. I think that's pretty reputable

The following link with a list of UK Academic Scientists including Prof Norman Nevin who has over 300 peer reviewed publications in genetics oppose evolution

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/217.html

http://www.idscience.ca/scientific_consensus.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro

Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing a new approach to biology. Thanks to technological advances, the life sciences have become very effective at acquiring facts. What they need now is a theoretical foundation that makes sense of these facts. Some still claim that Darwin’s theory does just that, but the ongoing struggle to make sense of genomic data (for example) indicates otherwise.

Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. That’s a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the the fact it appears to be correct) it doesn’t do much for biology if left at that. Yet it could be the gateway to big things if interested biologists are allowed to work from that starting point. The science establishment is decidedly against this, but the truth is that no one will know how much the design-centered approach will benefit biology until that approach is taken by enough people for a full theory to come out of it.

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.4    2 years ago
Do not mistake a small group of nutters for a movement or a "successfully preserved cultural mindset".

This group may not be as small as you might think.  About 1 in 10 Americans hold that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

YEC's are substantially more prevalent than, say, flat earthers.   And organizations such as AiG are quite substantial businesses actively seeking to maintain a healthy supply of faithful.   This is to be taken seriously IMO.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
2.1.7  A. Macarthur  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.5    2 years ago
Biologic Institute

The Biologic Institute conducts biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design, funded by the Discovery Institute even though "many scientists regard intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in pseudoscientific clothing".[1][2] It has offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington.[3]

Scientific study does not begin with an "aim" other than to discover what is real, repeatable and verifiable … and ever subject to being re-examined for accuracy. Any "research" that aims for a preferred outcome is bias-loaded and subject to faked conclusions.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.5    2 years ago
Not true

No....it really is.

38% of Americans believe in the Biblical view of Creation

1 in 5 Americans with a post graduate degree hold that view

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

And?  There is a gargantuan difference between believing God created man and believing He did so in a 24 hour period or that He is testing us with fake dinosaur fossils, or other such ridiculous bullsh*t.  

And for those who don't know my view on this.

There is no contradiction between the literal Book of Genesis record and the age of the earth being 4.5-6 billion years of age

Correct.  Which is what most Christians believe, why my initial statement was correct, why we don't actually disagree, and why your desire to argue this is a bit puzzling.

obviously you didn't bother to read what I linked- 21 Nobel Laureates oppose evolution as fact. I think that's pretty reputable

I realize you may find this disappointing but I don't search your profile reading all of your comments before I post on a seed.  Maybe everybody else does and I'm just the odd one out, but I kinda doubt it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    last year

This group may not be as small as you might think.  About 1 in 10 Americans hold that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

From your own link:

Pollster George Bishop surveyed the diversity of survey responses in 2006 and concluded: “All of this goes to show how easily what Americans appear to believe about human origins can be readily manipulated by how the question is asked.”

It is also widely known that Americans are utter and complete morons when it comes to math.  How else does Bernie Sanders (the king of mathematically impossible policy) get ten million votes? 

Americans cancel trips to Europe over fear of terrorism.  Liberals scream about how Fox News determines the outcomes of elections despite the fact that fewer than 1% of Americans actually watch.  The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand how to describe 1 billion....much less the difference between millions, billions and trillions.  Millions of people have downloaded "tip calculator" apps for their phones because we as a nation cannot manage to calculate 15% of a restaurant tab.

Scroll through your Facebook feed and it doesn't take long to find 200 adults arguing about the correct answer to a 7th grade math problem, with most of them getting it wrong.

Asking them a question about 10,000 years vs 5 billion years is like asking them a question in ancient Hebrew.

YEC's are substantially more prevalent than, say, flat earthers.   And organizations such as AiG are quite substantial businesses actively seeking to maintain a healthy supply of faithful.   This is to be taken seriously IMO.

Between 31% and 45% of Americans believe astrology is a science. 

Now, we allow people that foolish to drive cars, vote, sign contracts, raise children and walk around in public without supervision.  Why aren't we taking that seriously?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    last year
Asking them a question about 10,000 years vs 5 billion years is like asking them a question in ancient Hebrew.

It would seem so.

And I would say this is addressed by constantly attempting to educate.   We cannot just shrug our shoulders and say que sera sera.    Especially when there are forces such as AiG working overtime to keep people misinformed (and uninformed).

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    last year
Especially when there are forces such as AiG working overtime to keep people misinformed (and uninformed).

Of course you can and there will be no catastrophic consequences.    However, you could make an instructional video about tilting at windmills.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    last year
And I would say this is addressed by constantly attempting to educate.   We cannot just shrug our shoulders and say que sera sera.    Especially when there are forces such as AiG working overtime to keep people misinformed (and uninformed).

We have hundreds of millions of people who can't do basic math.  We have a couple hundred thousand at most who think the world was created in 144 hours. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.4    last year
There are fewer of these idiots than there are people who believe in astrology.

Yet, astrology has survived for thousands of years. It is the "nutter" that you must watch out for in every society.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    last year
About 1 in 10 Americans hold that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How many billions of people is that? They do have children and, they teach their children what they believe.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
2.1.15  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.14    last year

I personally believe the earth is billions of years old.

just sayin.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.14    last year
How many billions of people is that?

You're joking, surely.

They do have children and, they teach their children what they believe.

You have me worried that you're not actually joking.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.13    last year
Yet, astrology has survived for thousands of years. It is the "nutter" that you must watch out for in every society.

Ambrose Bierce and I would argue it is the idiots you must watch out for in every society.  His quote:

Idiot - A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.18  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    last year
We have a couple hundred thousand at most who think the world was created in 144 hours.

I wish that were true but it is not.   YECs hold that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days.   All biblical literalists (a superset of YECs) believe likewise.   All those who simply take Genesis literally (a larger superset still) believe likewise.

It is estimated that 1/10 of the USA population are YECs.   That would be approximately 32 million people just in the USA.   That is the smallest set in the above analysis.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    last year
I wish that were true but it is not.   YECs hold that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days.   

That is not what your own cited article says.  That is not the definition they use. 

It is estimated that 1/10 of the USA population are YECs.   

Not the way you are defining them.  At least not the way your source defines them

You do realize the irony of complaining about other people being bad a science while misinterpreting a scientific article, yes?

Also, you never did answer why you're worried about these people and not worried about the 100+ million astrology morons.  Why do you care about one and not the other?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.19    last year
That is not what your own cited article says.  That is not the definition they use.

Which citation are you referring to.   Show me where YECs do not believe that the Earth was formed in 6 24 hour days. 

Not the way you are defining them.  At least not the way your source defines them

Again, be specific.  Which source are you referring to?   Show me the quote.   Don't just make vague claims.

You do realize the irony of complaining about other people being bad a science while misinterpreting a scientific article, yes?

Excuse me?   If you are going to make claims that I am wrong about a fact back up your claims with a quote.   

Also, you never did answer why you're worried about these people and not worried about the 100+ million astrology morons.  Why do you care about one and not the other?

Not the topic, but the immediate answer is that these are not serious organizations trying to force creationism as scientific curriculum and engaging in an organized, serious effort to dumb down millions of people in the US alone.   There are plenty of beliefs that I think cause societal harm.   Astrology, psychics, etc. can be treated in their own topic.   My question to you is why you are insisting on this tangent rather than focusing on the topic?

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.21  cjcold  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    last year

Pretty damn sure that mom was a virgin.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.22  cjcold  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @2.1.15    last year

But the Earth didn't really exist until I was born.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.20    last year
Which citation are you referring to.   Show me where YECs do not believe that the Earth was formed in 6 24 hour days. 

From your NCSE link....

In 2009, Bishop ran a survey that clarifies how many people really think the earth is only 10,000 years old.

He establishes that definition, then proceeds to talk about continental drift before making his 1 in 10 conclusion.

Not the topic, but the immediate answer is that these are not serious organizations trying to force creationism as scientific curriculum and engaging in an organized, serious effort to dumb down millions of people in the US alone.   

1.  "Answers in Genesis" is a "serious organization"???  Not in 10,000 years.  Or 5 billion years...take your pick.

2.  Why is "forcing creationism" more important than legitimizing astrology, or distributing false videos on Facebook (Patriotic Millionaires), or simply issuing HS diplomas to a hundred million people who don't know how much a billion is? 

3.  As far as "dumbing down"....that ship has sailed.

There are plenty of beliefs that I think cause societal harm.   Astrology, psychics, etc. can be treated in their own topic.   My question to you is why you are insisting on this tangent rather than focusing on the topic?

The topic is a case study in "focusing on small issues while ignoring large ones".

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.24  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.23    last year
He establishes that definition, then proceeds to talk about continental drift before making his 1 in 10 conclusion.

I correctly reported his 1 in 10 conclusion - your 'math' complaint seems to have disappeared.   You seem to be (oddly) complaining that because the author did not include the 6 24 hour day factor when describing YECs that his 1 in 10 estimate is wrong.    You do (one would expect) understand that YECs believe quite a bit more than a young Earth.    Do you really expect the author to enumerate their beliefs rather than give a general description??   

Here is a simple summary:

  • YECs believe creation took 6 24 hour days.  
  • YECs believe the Earth is < 10,000 years old.  
  • The analysis by my source estimated (in conclusion) that 1 in 10 Americans believe in a young Earth (and thus technically YECs).  

The above seem to be facts.  

1.  "Answers in Genesis" is a "serious organization"???  Not in 10,000 years.  Or 5 billion years...take your pick.

Yes.   The fact that they are promoting nonsense does not take away from the fact that they are running a serious business.   This is not a blog site, this is fully functioning business with high quality marketing, an active product line, at least two substantial paid attractions, a research staff, sales, recruitment, etc.  Disagree with them all you wish (I certainly do) but to be objective one cannot ignore the fact that this is a serious organization.

2.  Why is "forcing creationism" more important than legitimizing astrology, or distributing false videos on Facebook (Patriotic Millionaires), or simply issuing HS diplomas to a hundred million people who don't know how much a billion is? 

This is a critical article on actions by AiG (a major YEC organization).  You seem to think I am supposed to write about everything in a single article.   Look, write your own critical article on astrology.   I will then come into your article and repeatedly complain that you are not ALSO taking on worldwide religious indoctrination.   Would that be appropriate?

The topic is a case study in "focusing on small issues while ignoring large ones".

So you would have us never discuss specific topics - all discussions must exclusively be broad scoped, big picture??   Take a look around Jack.   That is not how human beings operate.   We discuss all sorts of topics from extremely narrow scope to extremely broad scope.   Your complaints are unrealistic.  

If you think astrology is THE BIG topic to discuss then write an article on it rather than attempt to disrupt an article on AiG/YEC with pointless complaints.   patience

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.24    last year
I correctly reported his 1 in 10 conclusion - your 'math' complaint seems to have disappeared.   

*sigh*

You seem to be (oddly) complaining that because the author did not include the 6 24 hour day factor when describing YECs that his 1 in 10 estimate is wrong.    You do (one would expect) understand that YECs believe quite a bit more than a young Earth.    

I expect that if you are going to cite a scientific article you should understand the importance of the specific definition of success or failure per outcome used within the study.  The study would be useless without those definitions, and it becomes useless when you attempt to ignore those definitions.  . 

Do you really expect the author to enumerate their beliefs rather than give a general description??   

The article is not about his beliefs.  It is a technical article that details his research methods and conclusions.  That's why the details matter and why pretending he meant to say things he didn't is not a credible assessment.

Here is a simple summary:

  • YECs believe creation took 6 24 hour days.  
  • YECs believe the Earth is < 10,000 years old.  
  • The analysis by my source estimated (in conclusion) that 1 in 10 Americans believe in a young Earth (and thus technically YECs).  

The above seem to be facts.  

The article agrees with point 2 and 3.  It says nothing about point 1, which is your own (as yet unsubstantiated) belief.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.26  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.25    last year
I expect that if you are going to cite a scientific article you should understand the importance of the specific definition of success or failure per outcome used within the study.  The study would be useless without those definitions, and it becomes useless when you attempt to ignore those definitions.

Here again is the author's concluding estimate:  "In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans".   If you do not understand (and of course you understand) that the author estimates about 1 in 10 Americans are YECs then there is no point trying to explain it to you.

It says nothing about point 1, which is your own (as yet unsubstantiated) belief.  

thumbs down The NCSE article was not cited to corroborate 6 24 hour days.  (You know that too.)   If you disagree that this is one of the YEC beliefs then you are not very familiar with YEC.  But it is a very simple process to use Google to get the answer.   


At this point I am going to ask you to either make comments on the actual article or cease commenting on this article.   The benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely attempting to add value, in my judgment, is long gone.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3  Hal A. Lujah    2 years ago

“When we graph all these differences in human mitochondrial DNA, we discover that the human family divides into three different groups (see green dots in Figure 2). This is just what we would expect if all humans came from three women who got off Noah’s Ark just a few thousand years ago.”

Cue massive eye roll.

This is what religionists do.  In attempting to bolster one religious point, the take another one for granted.  As if the whole ark scenario is a given.  The great flood and the ark present some of the most ridiculous concepts in the Bible, period.  If he’s going to pretend to be scientific about detailed biology, then he should extend that courtesy to an analysis on what kind of structure could:

- be made by hand by a handful of people with hand tools

- be big enough to house an impossible number of animals and food and shelter to keep those animals alive for several week without them eating each other

- be able to withstand the kind of weather that would come with a planet whose surface is entirely water (aka hurricanes)

And by the way, where did that impossible amount of water come from, and where did it go?  And seriously - male/female pairs of animals that only exist in exotic places somehow found their way across the planet to the ark?  That anyone could buy into such garbage is disheartening for our species.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3    2 years ago

AiG is also well known for cherry-picking science.   They will use (albeit reinterpreted) scientific findings for credibility while (ironically) arguing against other scientific findings such as (and typically) evolution.

What still amazed me is the power of faith.   Here we have clearly a knowledgeable biologist who is channeling his knowledge to try to twist reality into something that matches the naive understanding of ancient men looking around and wondering how those dots of light got up there and what they mean.


Importantly, from the article, observe that AiG pats Darwin on the head and notes that he did pretty good but alas he only had 19th century tools:

And armed primarily with an 1800s education and his two eyes, perhaps Darwin did the best he could—at least the best anyone could who starts out to explain creation without the Creator.

Do the faithful not realize the irony that they themselves are literally taking the words of ancient men going back to 1,000 BC as literal truth and discrediting the findings of a 19th century scientist??  Genesis is estimated to have been penned by ancient men looking up at the sky and observing their local terrain about 3,000 years ago.   One could say they did the best they could with what they had.   

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    2 years ago

9D20C775C81844EEA0F99B39ED1C12B7.jpeg

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1.1    2 years ago

I also like this:

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

How would ancient Hebrew writers know that the moon is simply reflecting light from the sun?   To them it looks like a 'great light' so they write about it as such.  They did the best they could.   Of course had there been divine insight, Genesis could have delivered impressive evidence of at least a profoundly advanced extraterrestrial intelligence by offering knowledge that these ancient men could not possibly posses.   

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1.1    last year

Have many times dressed warm, laid out in a heavyweight sleeping bag on a pool lounger with a six pack of beer and a few joints in the hope of seeing "stars fall from the sky".

 
 
 
Kathleen
4  Kathleen    2 years ago

Good article, what I can't understand is if you travel, there are many museums that have evidence of fossils that date back millions of years ago. 

I do have some respect for the followers that do so privately, it is their choice, but not when it is forced upon others for control and profit.

I remember reading about Darwin as a small child, I thought he was right about many things.  I was a nature lover all my life, so it fit in quite nicely.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @4    2 years ago

It’s just another exercise in mental gymnastics.  They will tell you that God intentionally designed the earth to appear like it is billions of years old, just to test our faith.  There is no explanation that is too stupid for a young earth creationist to swallow.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    2 years ago

I always keep this in the back of my mind that I have friends and family members that believe. So I will not purposely try to mock religion around them. It's the ones that use it to control and hurt people that I would confront them with what I think. 

I do think that it is wrong to do that to people that hold it dear to their heart and never try to push it on others.  Do you agree?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.1    2 years ago

I don’t mock religion around me religious friends and relatives, but I will challenge it without hesitation.  Online, however, anything goes.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.2    2 years ago

Even online I try to be careful, no I will not usually challenge it, only if someone would tell me I am going to hell. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.3    2 years ago

Heaven and hell would eventually be the same place, if you have no choice but to endure it for eternity.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    2 years ago
They will tell you that God intentionally designed the earth to appear like it is billions of years old, just to test our faith.

I call this, "God the Trickster".

Why would anyone worship such an odious entity? By what intellectual pretzel-tying can one combine such cruelty with "God is love"?

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.6  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    last year

It still werids me out how the devil hid all of those dinosaur bones just to be found.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    last year

Ya mean that all of these rocks in my collection aren't as old as they claim to be?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @4    2 years ago
Good article, what I can't understand is if you travel, there are many museums that have evidence of fossils that date back millions of years ago.

Here is one woman answering your question.   This is a classic.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    2 years ago

I can’t even watch the full 2 min 52 sec of that.  I will compliment Dawkins on his amazing restraint in what I did see though.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    2 years ago

Complete denial, very sad. You cannot escape from natural history. He kept his composure, that's for sure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.2.1    2 years ago

Hopefully you saw the part where she noted that if evolution were true there would be all sorts of physical evidence in the museums.   Dawkins calmly notes that museums are full of such evidence and listed off prime examples.   Her reaction was perfect - pure confirmation bias.   It is as if Dawkins had not said a word.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    2 years ago
It is as if Dawkins had not said a word.

This is a constant problem in many conversations.

The other person "knows", so it doesn't matter what you say. They don't even hear what you say.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.4    2 years ago
The other person "knows", so it doesn't matter what you say. They don't even hear what you say.

Does seem to be the norm.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.5    last year

I first recognized the phenomenon on a different forum, "Baen's Bar", run by SF publisher Bean's Books . This was the time of the "Sad Puppies" attempt to hijack the Hugo Awards.

First, I posted an article to NT about the Sad Puppies. to Baen's Bar, saying that their basic premise, "the Hugos have been hijacked by far-left 'Social Justice Warriors' " simply wasn't true. I cited George  R. R. Martin's excellent year-by-year analysis that clearly proved that no such hijacking had occurred, that the awards went to a variety of sub-genres.

That was just another very specialized opinion piece... for about a week... and then all hell broke loose, with several senior Barflies (as members of the Baen forum style themselves) signing up on NT, just to post vitriolic reactions to my piece. I recounted the episode in a follow-up article, Sad Puppies and Paranoid Barflies, including a two-day roller-coaster ride on Baen's Bar. I concluded the narrative with this:

So... What's the upshot of all this?

Sometime during my second day on Baen's Bar, I began getting criticism for "moving the goalposts". I found this odd, since I was in fact just repeating what I had said earlier. Then I had my Eureka!! moment.

These folks had not misunderstood me.

They had not heard me at all.

What they heard was a voice in their heads: an "Anti-Sad Puppies" archetype telling them the things that "everyone knows that Anti-Sad Puppies say".

Me? I was not saying those things, but the Barflies did not notice, because they were not listening to me.

When I insisted loudly that I did not say that, they very honestly felt that I had moved the goalposts. The goalposts had started where those voices in their heads had stipulated, and here I was, daring to say differently! How dare I deviate from what they knew I must be saying!

Once we understand that Barflies and Sad Puppies are not listening to anything other than their own preconceptions, everything becomes limpidly clear. It becomes obvious that their outrage in not being recognized as the only true carriers of the "real SF" flame is genuine. They believe it and therefore it is Truth! And they are noble because they defend the Truth.

The thing is.... there's a name for "hears voices": paranoia.

There's a word for "mistakes internal voices for real ones": delusional.

And the thing about delusional paranoids is that... they can never see that they are either delusional or paranoid.

Ultimately, the Sad Puppies failed miserably in their attempted coup. People who did not appreciate their muscle methods voted en masse against their candidate authors, preferring even "no award" in a couple cases.

I have not heard anything about Baen's Bar, or MadMike, or any of the rest of it. I kinda imagine that their paranoia hasn't gotten any better.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.4    last year

Far right wing fascists only hear what they want to hear.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
4.2.8  Cerenkov  replied to  cjcold @4.2.7    last year

Yeah. Leftist fascists are SO much more tolerant...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
4.2.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    last year

See, this is what happens when someone uses too much blond hair color, it soaks into the brain, straight through the skull and, "bleaches" out the intelligence.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.2.10  cjcold  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.8    last year

Tolerant is not in this liberal's lexicon. Fuck all far right fascists with a huge stick.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @4    2 years ago
what I can't understand is if you travel, there are many museums that have evidence of fossils that date back millions of years ago.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.3.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3    2 years ago

Insightful!  It seems a bit pathetic when someone must resort to attempting to discredit science to hold onto a belief.   But science does not offer everlasting life so ... there you go.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.3.2  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3    2 years ago

I think she needs to go back to school and get an education, plus lay off the cheap beer.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3    2 years ago

I have a very hard time accepting that this woman believes what she's saying. Occam's Razor says she's speaking in Bad Faith.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.3.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.1    2 years ago

And to discredit it in part by calling paleontologists greedy.  They're all in the 1%, right?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.3.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.3    2 years ago

I wish I could agree, but I'm not so sure.  I think she went to school with this idiot.  The smarmy misguided sense of superiority is common to each.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.3.6  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.1    last year

Damn!!! I was really looking forward to immortality as a scientist.

 
 
 
Kavika
5  Kavika     2 years ago

The old saying, ''it takes all kinds'' seems to really fit in this instance. I rarely ever comment on religious articles, (seems pointless to me). But this is beyond the ridiculous, IMO...

 
 
 
Shepboy
6  Shepboy    2 years ago

What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

Debunking Evolution
Scientific evidence against evolution - the clash between theory and reality

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

The Biggest Problems for Evolution

http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution

http://www.icr.org/creation-biology

Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

The scientific case against evolution

https://creation.com/scientific-against-evolution

What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/what_are_the_to/

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6    2 years ago

Links alone do not a point make.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 years ago

Especially when some of those links go to creationist sites and/or biases.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.2  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.1    2 years ago
Especially when some of those links go to creationist sites and/or biases.

LOO.. oh oh I want to control the debate... I want to use my views and not let anyone else use theirs.. I want to control all terms of the debate.. Hey gordy .. Tough teets... I will use what ever I want to use.. you have an issue with it? Tough..  I will whatever evidence I wish to use.. You got it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.2    2 years ago

It would be good if you were to actually express your views.   Honestly, logically and factually.   Posting a bunch of links from creationists, YECs, Intelligent Design advocates means nothing.   Most everyone already knows those groups exist and are trying their best to discredit evolutionary science because it conflicts with their religious views.   Net no new info.

Note that this article actually focuses on one such link - we know they exist.   But what I do in this article is offer a critique of this one link.   I did not simply write 'oh yeah, well look at these other links that disagree'.   If you disagree (which you do of course) then make an argument rather than toss platitudes.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.4  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 years ago
Links alone do not a point make.

sure it does.. it shows that scientists have an issue with  Darwinian evolution.  Got a problem with it, write them and tell them they are wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.4    2 years ago

There are a tiny minority of scientists who attempt to discredit evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.   The subject scientist, Dr. Jeanson, is one of them.   Dr. Jeanson himself offered this in the article:

“In publishing Replacing Darwin, I know I’m challenging the scientific views of 97–99% of the professional scientific community. ..."

So you publishing links from that tiny minority does not offer any new information.   

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.6  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    2 years ago
So you publishing links from that tiny minority does not offer any new information.

The Majority doesnt always mean right either.  In todays world its either a conform or die mentality. 

Remember goo to you  is nothing more than an explanation, a best guess, but still does not mean it is correct. 

Your asking for people to believe in a process that has supposed to have only happened one time, and is not happening any more, it can not be demonstrated, and it has no been observational by anyone .

I just dont live my life and views by best guesses especially by people who are influenced by Grant money.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
6.1.7  A. Macarthur  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.4    2 years ago

"Scientists" do not have an agenda; they work in protocols of objectivity, test and retest what they learn and allow for scrutiny.

Religionists are compromised before they begin any "scientific" study in that they must dismiss as (pardon the expression) "fake news," any/all information that tests their (blind) faith.

Ironically, their views are "fossilized" in stone of dogma.

Religionists can test their "creationism" beliefs, that, by, upon incurring infections, declining any subsequent antibiotic treatments after the first become ineffective … thus manifesting their true rejection of the ability of pathogenic, et al organisms, to evolve and persist!

Go for it true believers.

To be candid, while I find organized religion and religionist dogma to be both offensive and dangerous, I find in NATURE, many reasons to believe in a Creator, a Great Spirit if-you-will; but this does not negate a process of adaptation and evolution … until humanity can create (i.e.) a tree from "scratch," open minds can accept both creation and evolution … a beginning and an on-going set of processes.

But even if the tree were to be made from "scratch" …

Inquiring minds will want to know …

"Where'd the 'scratch' come from?"

NOTE: I have a degree in biology and a specialty in fresh water ecology and ichthyology.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.2    2 years ago

Is unjustified condescension and mockery a Christian trait?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.6    2 years ago
The Majority doesnt always mean right either.

Quite true.   

But here we are talking about highly evidenced, highly scrutinized findings across multiple scientific disciplines wherein a super-super-majority of scientists worldwide are in agreement.   If 97-99% of the scientists worldwide concur, based on the evidence, that evolution is an accurate explanation for the origin of species, one better have some Earth-shaking evidence to claim they are all wrong.

And should such evidence emerge, there would be a major level of excitement in the scientific community.   At this stage, finding evolution to be wrong and showing instead that species simply emerged on this planet within 6,000 years would be the biggest scientific breakthrough of any of our lives

But that is not what is happening.   Instead we have individuals like Dr. Jeanson trying to twist science to conform to his religious beliefs.

Remember goo to you  is nothing more than an explanation, a best guess, but still does not mean it is correct. 

Goo?   What are you talking about?   Are you trying to refer to abiogenesis?   That is a different topic and science routinely states that abiogenesis is hypothetical and that it is not yet known (with sufficient confidence) how life emerged on Earth.   This topic is biochemical evolution - in particular, the original notion of natural selection offered by Darwin.   

Your asking for people to believe in a process that has supposed to have only happened one time, and is not happening any more, it can not be demonstrated, and it has no been observational by anyone .

Pay attention to the topic man.   This topic is evolution, not abiogenesis.   And I am not asking anyone to believe in anything.   That would be religion - I am talking science.

I just dont live my life and views by best guesses especially by people who are influenced by Grant money.

Seems to me, you run your life based on ancient words penned in ancient, errant documents and deem well established scientific findings to be 'guesses'.   


And, with that, you have again not offered any rebuttal or offered any information to further the discussion.   The message you have communicated to me is that you have no rebuttal.   Why bother commenting if you are just going to talk around the debate?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
6.1.10  A. Macarthur  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.6    2 years ago

The Majority doesnt always mean right either.  In todays world its either a conform or die mentality. 

That is a pair of platitudes, neither of which are substantive in terms of "evidence" and probability vs. conjecture and the inherent bias of vested interests and religionist power brokerage.

"Creationism" is an ideology that, by design and intent, precludes for its adherents, any form of rationality that allows for disparate thought!

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.11  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    2 years ago
Seems to me, you run your life based on ancient words penned in ancient, errant documents and deem well established scientific findings to be 'guesses'.

Yup , I rather believe in the people who lived here and actually witnessed stuff instead people people today who just think and believe in stuff they never seen happen.

I am not talking about abiogenesis. I am well aware of what that is. When i say goo, I am talking about the simplest little life cells that some how gained all this genetic information and we eventually get mankind. Its absurd, and it has never been observed lifeforms gaining so much information to become something else completely new regardless of how much time has passed.

The worst thing the evolution has going against it right now is mankind itself. Here we are and its been quite a while, when do you think we will be gaining some new genetic information to evolve into another new type of species... I dont see any chimps slowly evolving into humans.. evolution shouldnt be a one time only event. We should be witnessed the entire evolutionary process repeating itself over and over again.

So here let me focus this discussion down to one thing because it will get crazy in here with all the typical people who are in the conversation the comments are going to explode, and there will be too many for  me to address. So you and only you I will focus on talking to.  Hit me with one specific thing you would like to talk about.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.11    2 years ago
Yup , I rather believe in the people who lived here and actually witnessed stuff instead people people today who just think and believe in stuff they never seen happen.

You seriously believe that?

I dont see any chimps slowly evolving into humans..

Why would you expect them to?

evolution shouldnt be a one time only event.

It isn't.  It's ongoing.  The change from one species to another isn't one discrete event.  It's a series of small changes over time.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.2    2 years ago

You can use whatever you want.  I could care less. But your biased sources only shows your lack of credibility and everybody can see that too.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.4    2 years ago

Scientists can take issue with anything. But no actual scientist has offered anything which discredits Daring or evolution in the slightest. So their issues lacks any merit.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.11    2 years ago

In other words, you prefer dogma over actual scientific fact or evidence and display an ignorance about evolution in the process.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.16  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.11    2 years ago
Yup , I rather believe in the people who lived here and actually witnessed stuff instead people people today who just think and believe in stuff they never seen happen.

Consider this.   Modern scientists (millions of them across the world) are living NOW and actively conducting research and verification NOW.   You prefer static words written thousands of years ago by ancient men because they ostensibly witnessed something back in their time and reject what modern science is witnessing today with contemporary evidence and methods.

Further, are you of the opinion that the biblical authors actually witnessed the creation of the planet and all the species of life on it?    Do you think they were literally keeping track of the ages (in modern years even) of the various characters in the Bible - that they actually witnessed Methuselah age to 969 years?

Come on man, you really accept without question everything written in the Bible?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.11    2 years ago
I dont see any chimps slowly evolving into humans.. evolution shouldnt be a one time only event. We should be witnessed the entire evolutionary process repeating itself over and over again.

And why do you think evolution has stopped?   Because it is imperceptibly slow?    Are you simply ignoring the time scale of evolution for complex creatures such as chimpanzees and human beings?   Of course you will not observe evolution.   We live about 80 or so years.   The time it took for human beings to evolve from Great Apes to homo sapiens was about 15 million years.   80 years is 53 ten-thousandths of a percent of that time period.   So in your 80 years how much evolution do you actually expect to observe in human beings?

As an analogy (in more intuitive periods of time) we know that trees do in fact grow.   How much growth do you think you will observe if you stared at a tree for a few hours?   If you based everything on what you can see in those few hours you would conclude that trees do not grow.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.18  Shepboy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.12    2 years ago
It isn't.  It's ongoing.  The change from one species to another isn't one discrete event.  It's a series of small changes over time.

Small changes yes, but never changing from one species into another entire species.. The only thing observational is tiny changes with in a species to adapt to the environment. 

So when scientists get all goo goo eyed over the mutations in Ecoli, Peppered Moth, Fruit flies.. etc..  I yawn because they are nothing more than what they were ot begin with.. Ecoli, moths, and fruit flies..  they didnt turn into anything new..

Humans have always been humans and will always be just humans.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.19  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.15    2 years ago
In other words, you prefer dogma over actual scientific fact or evidence and display an ignorance about evolution in the process.

No gordy, I love science when its not being constrained by one view.. main stream views..

If anything you should be open to people to allow other thought.  It seems like you dont care for other views or having your views challenged, or critical thinking. Skirting the CoC [ph]

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.20  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    2 years ago
Consider this.   Modern scientists (millions of them across the world) are living NOW and actively conducting research and verification NOW.   

Yes examining evidence that was before any of them lived. They use their best guesses, but never know anything for sure.  So , in essence, science is also a religion because we are using faith , they are using faith to make claims on what they think using evidence.

You prefer static words written thousands of years ago by ancient men because they ostensibly witnessed something back in their time and reject what modern science is witnessing today with contemporary evidence and methods.

Hum, thats funny, I dont recall trying to use the Bible to make scientific facts.. So why are you making such a claim? I just stated I believe in the Bible exactly what the witnesses claimed to see. Until they can be proven wrong, it stands.

Further, are you of the opinion that the biblical authors actually witnessed the creation of the planet and all the species of life on it? 

I dont recall saying anything about those people in the Bible witnessing it... So yoru argument would be, they wouldnt know either.  They didnt witness it you would be right.

  Do you think they were literally keeping track of the ages (in modern years even) of the various characters in the Bible - that they actually witnessed Methuselah age to 969 years?

Yes, they knew something or else why would you write it?

Come on man, you really accept without question everything written in the Bible?

I will make this very clear.. I accept every single thing in the Bible from cover to cover. I do not pick and choose what I think or feel is right or wrong. As a Christian you either accept the Bible in its entirety or you dont at all.. there is no picking and choosing.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.21  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.17    2 years ago
The time it took for human beings to evolve from Great Apes to homo sapiens was about 15 million years.

We didnt come from apes.  We have always been human. No mass amount of transitional fossils, no nothing. I have seen all the fossils of early apes none of them is something we came from.  Want to pick a specific one you think is the nail in the coffin?  Pick one and prove how we came from it.. then I will gladly give counter rebuttal.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.19    2 years ago

That's hilarious coming from you. Mainstream view" in science is based on the available evidence. You can have other views, but without supporting evidence, those views are essentially meaningless. Sort of like the scientific equivalent of "nuh uh."

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.23  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.14    2 years ago
Scientists can take issue with anything. But no actual scientist has offered anything which discredits Daring or evolution in the slightest. So their issues lacks any merit.

It also makes fallacious objections to the Dissent from Darwinism list, signed by 900 PhD scientists and registering their disagreement with orthodox evolutionary theory.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/information_for/

What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution?
The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution:

  • Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity'” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2
  • Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4
  • Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7
  • Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10 Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.23    2 years ago

Let's take on the first point - mutations cause harm.

Untrue.

Sickle cell anemia is the result of a mutation.

In order to have sickle cell anemia, a child must inherit two mutated copies of the allele involved.  Those who inherit one normal allele and one mutated one may have sickle cell trait.

Sickle cell trait tends to protect the gene carrier from many of the signs and symptoms of malaria.  The mutation is therefore beneficial in those who inherit only one mutated allele.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.18    2 years ago
Small changes yes, but never changing from one species into another entire species..

That is exactly how evolution works, tiny bit by tiny bit.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.21    2 years ago
No mass amount of transitional fossils, no nothing.

That's because evolution takes millions of years. Of course you aren't going to find piles of one species turning into another. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.4    2 years ago
sure it does.. it shows that scientists have an issue with  Darwinian evolution.  Got a problem with it, write them and tell them they are wrong.

I think you are confusing "myth" with, "theory". 

.

myth
miTH/
noun
  1. 1.
    a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
    synonyms: folk talefolk story, legendtalestoryfablesagamythoslorefolkloremythology
    "ancient Greek myths"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
.

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.[citation needed] Depending on the context, the results might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings.

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[1]:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[2]:46

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.23    2 years ago

Once again... I suspect that you don't really understand what you are posting. You're just copy/pasting...

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.20    2 years ago
So , in essence, science is also a religion because we are using faith , they are using faith to make claims on what they think using evidence.

You just watered down the definition of faith to be meaningless.   In result, everything in life then is based on faith and each person's views are simply a collection of interacting (and conflicting) religions.  

I dont recall trying to use the Bible to make scientific facts.. So why are you making such a claim? 

Let me help you then.   You believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.   You are a Young Earth Creationist - a biblical literalist who supports the analysis of Bishop Ussher who literally interpreted the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth.    If science conflicts with the Bible you will go with the Bible - contradicting  worldwide, informed consensus that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.   

I dont recall saying anything about those people in the Bible witnessing it... So yoru argument would be, they wouldnt know either.  They didnt witness it you would be right.

You said you go with the actual witnesses.   Thus I asked if you thought the writers of Genesis witnessed the creation event.   

Yes, they knew something or else why would you write it?

By that logic they witnessed the creation event because they 'knew something'.    So, now above with the Genesis event, if they did not witness it why do you take their written words literally?

I will make this very clear.. I accept every single thing in the Bible from cover to cover. I do not pick and choose what I think or feel is right or wrong. As a Christian you either accept the Bible in its entirety or you dont at all.. there is no picking and choosing.

Now this is no surprise to me.   That viewpoint is what forces you and others like Ken Ham to distort inconvenient findings of science and inconvenient consequences of logic so as to fit the odd contours produced by a literal read of the Bible.

As a Christian you either accept the Bible in its entirety or you dont at all.. there is no picking and choosing.

You will find quite a few Christians who will insist you are wrong.


I can end by offering one good thing about biblical literalists.   If one is going to hold the Bible divine then it seems that one must take it literally.   Any clever interpretation of the Bible second guesses the divine source.   That is, if God had wanted the wording of a particular interpretation then He would have divined it so in the first place.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.21    2 years ago
I have seen all the fossils of early apes none of them is something we came from.

I was unaware that you were such an authority on the many scientific disciplines that comprise evolutionary biology.   Basically you are stating that science is wrong because you say so.    Further you are tacitly claiming that the mechanisms of the scientific method have categorically failed regarding the foundation of modern biology - bio-chemical evolution.

All these professional scientists worldwide for decades with volumes of corroborating cross-disciplinary evidence are all wrong because you 'do not see it'?

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.31  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    2 years ago

and the purported  5% to 7% of Shep's dissenting scientists that he chooses to believe,

( those who sign lists indicating their dissent from Darwinism )

roughly matches those climate and biology scientists that openly identify as 'creationists'.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.21    2 years ago

Humans didn't evolve directly from apes. But we share a common ancestor with them. And all fossils are "transitional" fossils. This is especially apparent in more recent fossils like hominid fossils. We can trace human evolution back millions of years through the fossil record.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.33  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.18    last year
Humans have always been humans and will always be just humans.

What do you base this on?   It certainly is not science.

My guess, of course, is that you base this on the Bible.  It is your belief.  Not evidence, just belief.   And, if I am correct in my analysis, this is another example of you using the Bible as your source of science.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.34  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.33    last year
And, if I am correct in my analysis, this is another example of you using the Bible as your source of science.

That almost begs the question if you are making science your god.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.35  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.34    last year

No

Science is applied critical thinking.  It is a process wherein human beings seek to discover testable and predictive explanations of what is observed through careful evidence.   It is formalized knowledge that is never deemed to be 100% correct and constantly under scrutiny (to drive improvement).

To consider science a 'god' is to not understand the very concept of science.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.36  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.35    last year

Perhaps you don't understand the reference to "god".

And possibly science doesn't really know what it thinks it knows.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.37  Split Personality  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.36    last year

One can assert that for some,

science is a religion because god is not a necessary component of religion.

Buddhism is a world class religion which does not have a god.

Butt, religion tells or attempts to show people how to live their lives.

Science does no such thing.

it is simply  a quest for knowledge to improve all lives.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.38  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1.36    last year

Instead of offering perhaps maybe it is time for you to explain yourself.    What point are you attempting to make?

And possibly science doesn't really know what it thinks it knows.

Not sure what anyone is supposed to do with such a platitude.    It offers no more information than, say, 'possibly all of reality is a grand illusion'.   Sure, lots of things are possible.   But what are you trying to express?

If you are attempting to offer that science does not have all the answers then you are stating one of the most obvious principles of science.   You would be hard pressed to find a scientist or aficionado of science who proclaims that science knows all or is even more than scratching the surface of what is knowable.

But importantly, science is grounded in empirical evidence.   Its findings (its conclusions, its theories) are testable.   One can trace the analysis back literally to the physical evidence if one was inclined.   That is, there is no mandate to take scientific findings on 'faith'.   Each individual will do whatever analysis they see fit and determine if they accept or reject a finding of science.   Based on facts and logic - not simply because someone said or wrote something and declared it truth.

Also, not a minor point, science demonstrably works.   The findings of science are the foundation of engineering.   You and I would not be engaging in discussion if science was a system of faith because we would not have the technology to do so.

Now, that said, do you have a point to make?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
6.1.39  livefreeordie  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.37    last year

Christianity differs from your "definition" in that it is centered around restoring an intimate personal relationship with God and His love.  That is in part why the "Church of Rome" is not truly Christian.  It focuses on religion and a man, the pope.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.40  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.35    last year
Science is applied critical thinking.  It is a process wherein human beings seek to discover testable and predictive explanations of what is observed through careful evidence. 

Testable? There is nothing testable about the life tree of evolution. It cant be replicated, its just best guessing based on assumptions.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.41  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.29    last year
Now this is no surprise to me.   That viewpoint is what forces you and others like Ken Ham to distort inconvenient findings of science and inconvenient consequences of logic so as to fit the odd contours produced by a literal read of the Bible.

Nope, Good science and Good theology work fine together.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.42  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    last year
Basically you are stating that science is wrong because you say so.

No, am saying they are wrong because they are just using best guesses. They dont know for sure either.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.43  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.32    last year
And all fossils are "transitional" fossils. This is especially apparent in more recent fossils like hominid fossils.

No gordy, are fossils are just ape fossils, human fossils are just human fossils.  Which one do you think we came from? I know all of them.. but lets hear your nail in the coffin fossil.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.44  Shepboy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.28    last year
Once again... I suspect that you don't really understand what you are posting. You're just copy/pasting...

Considering its a group orgy of people against just one person me, I only have time to post links.  If you want more concise well thought out informaiton I would suggest making a formal topic with one question and two people debating.  Until that happened I will just sit here fighting the best I can against the pack of wolves.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.45  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.44    last year
... against the pack of wolves.

No wolves... but passionate defenders of reason, in an epoch when reason is under assault.

You chose to express half-baked ideas on a topic that requires intellectual rigor. Not surprising that people Replied with vigor.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.46  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @6.1.39    last year
That is in part why the "Church of Rome" is not truly Christian. It focuses on religion and a man, the pope.

Wow.  The Pope?  Really?  Do you think 1.2 billion Catholics really worship the Pope instead of Jesus Christ?

That's quite a delusion you have there.

Wow.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.47  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.40    last year
Testable? There is nothing testable about the life tree of evolution. It cant be replicated, its just best guessing based on assumptions.

You are not aware that the process of evolution has been verified through formal application of the scientific method??   Here is a link from BioLogos (a Christian organization).   I offer this rather than content from a secular scientific organization (e.g. NCSE or HHMI) under the assumption that you might at least give fellow Christians a moment of your attention.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.48  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.42    last year

Your argument is simply to declare that science is guesswork.   

Who do you think is going to read such nonsense and think highly of the author?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.49  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.38    last year

Good reason not to mix a discussion of religion with that of science.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.50  cjcold  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.6    last year

Yep, spent a whole lot of grant money taking the Trumps to task. But not as much as they spent beating the case.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
6.1.51  Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur @6.1.7    last year

""Scientists" do not have an agenda;..."

I don't think you've worked with many scientists. They all have agendas. They are necessary to maintain or obtain funding.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
6.1.52  A. Macarthur  replied to  Cerenkov @6.1.51    last year

""Scientists" do not have an agenda;..."

I don't think you've worked with many scientists. They all have agendas. They are necessary to maintain or obtain funding.

If they are falsifying outcomes in order to do the bidding of their funding sources, they may be scientists, but they are not pursuing science.

A whore is a whore is a whore.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.53  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.14    last year

So I still enjoy touching myself. Is your mother still available?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.54  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  livefreeordie @6.1.39    last year
It focuses on religion and a man, the pope.

You do know that all other Christian sects evolved from the Catholic Church don't you?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.55  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.11    last year
Yup , I rather believe in the people who lived here and actually witnessed stuff instead people people today who just think and believe in stuff they never seen happen.

Soooo, which civilization of the past "witnessed" living dinosaurs? Did Moses cross the desert on a T-Rex?

 
 
 
Rex Block
6.1.56  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.43    last year

So who were the Neanderthals? They were very real and did exist, as did the early humans in Africa. The recovered bones show both ape like and human traits on those earlier species.

 
 
 
Freefaller
6.1.57  Freefaller  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.55    last year
Did Moses cross the desert on a T-Rex?

Obviously not, he was a very important person and got to ride around on the Pterodactyl.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.58  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.43    last year
No gordy, are fossils are just ape fossils, human fossils are just human fossils. Which one do you think we came from? I know all of them.. but lets hear your nail in the coffin fossil

Neanderthal, homo erectus (giggity), homo habilis, australopithecus, ect. all show the evolutionary progression of early hominids to modern humans. So your statement shows you either do not understand evolution at all, or do not comprehend the timescales generally involved in evolution.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.1.59  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.58    last year
homo erectus (giggity)

Gordy we have come up on the 300 comment mark, you know that I move on at this point. But I picked one of your fossils to post a final saying with. 

http://evolutiondismantled.com/erectus

Introduction

Homo erectus is perhaps the most important ‘transitional’ form in human evolution. It looked very much like modern man except for a number of supposedly more ape-like features. But if erectus can be shown to be fully human, the case for human evolution essentially collapses. There would be an unbridgeable morphological gap between the ape Australopithecines and human erectus. So is erectus human? Let’s take a look.

The Characteristics of Erectus

Evolutionists believe erectus to be sub-human based on certain features of the skull like the large brow ridges. But this is not evidence at all, because humans today have essentially all of these features.[1] The cranial (i.e. brain) capacity is within the human range;[2] there is good evidence that erectus used tools; had controlled use of fire; they buried their dead; they used red ochre for decoration; had seafaring skills;[3] and their posture was just like ours.[4]

Based on the above evidence, many prominent scientists have classified Homo erectus as Homo sapiens(modern man) because ‘no single definition has been found that distinguishes H. sapiens from H. erectus in all regions where the fossils are found’ and ‘there is no distinct beginning for H. sapiens as long as H. erectus is recognized.’[5] This is all very interesting, but there is much more.

Human Erectus Fossils in Australia

Certain fossils have been discovered in Australia that look strikingly like erectus (the Kow Swamp individuals from 10,000 years ago; Mossgiel individual dated 6,000 years ago; and Cossack skeletal remains dated from a few 100 to 6,500 years ago).[6]

Since these fossils are so ‘young’, evolutionists explain them in non-evolutionary terms. That is, the strongerectus-like features are not explained by evolution from apes, but by other non-evolutionary mechanisms such as the climate, nutritional problems, genetic factors, and others.[7]

So why should we need evolution to explain ‘normal erectus’ when we can explain it by other non-evolutionary factors? Evolutionists have just undone the whole idea of human evolution! Here’s the conundrum: it is unthinkable that these individuals weren’t human due to the ‘young’ date, but if they were human, then normal erectus must be human also.

Conclusion

Not only does the morphological evidence point to the fact that erectus is fully human, but evolutionists themselves explain erectus in non-evolutionary terms! Because the crucial chain-link of erectus is now broken, the current idea of human evolution is finished.

Possible Responses

“The Australian erectus-like fossils represent an isolated and remnant population.”
This is wrong. The fossils are found continent-wide, so they cannot simply be an isolated and remnant population. Indeed, scientists have said that ‘this morphology was not a regional variant but continental in distribution’.[8]

References

  1. Shreeve, J., The Neandertal Enigma, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, p. 100, 1995. Back to text
  2. Rightmire, G.P., “Brain size and encephalization in Early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo”,American J. Physical Anthropology 124:113, 2004. p. 110; Molnar, S., Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ, p. 57, 1975. Back to text
  3. Thwaites, T., “Ancient mariners: Early humans much smarter than we expected,” New Scientist 157(2125):6, 14 March 1998. Also, Morwood, “Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores,” Nature 392(6672):173–176, 12 March 1998. Back to text
  4. Spoor, F., “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369(6482):645–648, 23 June 1994. Back to text
  5. Wolpoff, M.H., Paleoanthropology, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, p. iv, 1999. pp. 396-397. Back to text
  6. “Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp,” Nature 238:308 (11 Aug. 1972). Back to text
  7. Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 2nd ed., p. 571; “Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp,” Nature 238:308 (11 Aug. 1972). Back to text
  8. L. Freedman and M. Lofgren, “The Cossack skull and a dihybrid origin of the Australian Aborigines,” Nature 282 (15 Nov. 1979): 299. Back to text

Guess I will see you in the next thread .. which should be any time now.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.60  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.1.59    last year
Gordy we have come up on the 300 comment mark, you know that I move on at this point.

That is your prerogative.

But I picked one of your fossils to post a final saying with.

Pick any fossil you want. You can go farther and farther back and each transition becomes less and less human-like. So it becomes obvious that at a certain point, there is no question that a fossil ancestor is clearly not human-yet. The same holds true for the myriad of other modern species. Earlier fossils are clearly different species, even if they share similarities with their modern counterparts.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @6    2 years ago

Make an argument... and support it with links.

All you have done here is show that you have conserved a list of links. My suspicion is that you found it on a site one day, and just copy/pasted it somewhere so that you can reproduce it on occasions like this.

You have in no way demonstrated that these links actually mean anything, or even that you yourself understand them.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.2.1  Shepboy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2    2 years ago

Make an argument... and support it with links.

All you have done here is show that you have conserved a list of links. My suspicion is that you found it on a site one day, and just copy/pasted it somewhere so that you can reproduce it on occasions like this.

You have in no way demonstrated that these links actually mean anything, or even that you yourself understand them.

Ah ok.. Goo to you evolution is all BS here are the links to show it.. I refer to you the links again above..  Bye bye.,.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.2.1    2 years ago

So, evolution is BS but a god snapping his fingers and magically creating everything as is, is not BS? Really? 

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.2.3  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.2    last year
So, evolution is BS but a god snapping his fingers and magically creating everything as is, is not BS? Really?

Yup thank you.. next person.. this is fun.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @6.2.3    last year

You're free to believe that irrational nonsense if you like. Too bad science contradicts your belief.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
6.3  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Shepboy @6    2 years ago

Here are the ten supposed problems from your first link above, the 'What Are The Top Ten Problems With Darwinian Evolution?' one.

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.

Gene duplications and mutations are totally viable (not to mention observable) mechanisms for producing high levels of complexity and specified information, completely new information in fact.

Claims of irreducible complexity are repeatedly shot down (shown to not be irreducible). Probably most famous example was by Ken Miller (a self-identifying Christian himself) during the Dover trial.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages', so I can't address it. Perhaps you could elaborate?

2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.

This claim is so frustratingly wrong. EVERYTHING about the fossil record supports descent with modification (Darwinian Evolution). You will not find fossils of creatures in deposits that are older than the creatures themselves. You will not find mammal fossils in deposits that are older than mammals; or reptile fossils in deposits older than reptiles; or fish fossils in deposits older than fish; and so on and so forth. On the other hand, you WILL find modified descendant organisms in newer deposits, above (never below) ancestral organisms in older deposits, exactly as evolution predicts (descent with modification).

Also, every fossil is a transitional form, just like how (technically speaking) every living thing today is a transitional form. No organism is an exact 100% genetic copy of its parents, or of its eventual offspring.

3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”

I can't help but wonder if this claim originated before genome sequencing became a regular thing. Molecular biology most certainly CAN show a branching tree of descent through DNA analysis. It's simple heredity. Some very important genes that originated hundreds of millions of years ago can still be seen today in related, descending species across various branches (clades), because they were inherited by each new generation from the last, and haven't been able to change much without causing the kind of harm that would prevent the organism from reproducing. I recently posted a video that touches on this very thing. One example given in the video was hemoglobin, and the very important (and virtually unchanged over eons) genes that code for it.

4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient

Natural selection doesn't spread traits. Traits can spread through a population without any selective pressure at all. That's what genetic drift is. Selective forces do matter, of course, but they aren't responsible for actually spreading traits.

5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.

Where did the idea that convergence is supposed to be highly unlikely even come from? I think Darwin even touched on it in Origin of Species. What is the basis of this claim? It most certainly is not a problem for evolution.

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

This is more about abiogenesis than evolution, but so what if we don't know? How is not yet knowing how self-replication began supposed to be a problem for evolution, all of which occurs after the fact? We may never know. It doesn't invalidate evolution.

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

I'm not sure about what's being referred to here, so I'll have to skip this one.

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

All of a sudden it's 'neo'-Darwinian? Anyway... Of course evolution explains the distribution of many species, not to mention the existence of many diverse species to begin with. It's the only thing that does (without invoking magic, that is). How is that even a claim?

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA.

I'm not sure what 'problem' he's talking about here. Atavisms do exist. Whales and dolphins are still mammals and sometimes grow parts of hind limbs because of genes they have inherited from their four-legged walking-on-land ancestors; even humans are sometimes born with movable tails, again because of genes we inherited from our tail-having ancestors.

Also, damaged and unused DNA exists. We still have the gene for synthesizing vitamin C like most other animals can, but the sequence has been mutated into a non-functional state, thus we have to get our vitamin C from our food. Incidentally, we got that gene from the very same place our present-day evolutionary cousins did (like dogs for example): heredity from a common ancestral population far in the past.

10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Those are emergent characteristics of our intelligence itself. The same intelligence that not only allows us to shape our environment to suit us better (instead of the other way around), but also makes us productive enough to have the time to gather into groups thinking, discussing, pondering, singing, etc.; around camp fires in the distant past, and in universities, concert halls, or even on discussion websites like this one in the present. :)

How is that supposed to be a problem for evolution? Our EVOLVED brain is what makes those things possible.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
6.3.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @6.3    last year
How is that supposed to be a problem for evolution? Our EVOLVED brain is what makes those things possible.

And yet, the Creationist brain continues to devolve by virtue of its conflict with science.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.3.2  Shepboy  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @6.3    last year

WOOO HOOOO Truly an epic gang bang.. yet another jumping into the frey.. what am I up against now.. 15 of you guys to just me?

I think you all are violating the COC.. just putting that out there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.3.2    last year

Shepboy, you are in this article by choice.   You are making very unusual claims.   Of course you will be challenged.   And of course you will be in a minority.   Your positions are very unique and (easily) arguably unfounded.

My suggestion is that you Cease tracking this article and go to one where you have the time and inclination to offer intellectual commentary.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.3.4  magnoliaave  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.3    last year

How disgustingly condescending.

He may be in the minority on this particular discussion, but certainly, not in the minority in his thinking.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.3.5  Split Personality  replied to  magnoliaave @6.3.4    last year

You, yourself have left many conversations for the same reasons.......

why is it condescending advice for shepboy.

I dare say  you've said this once or twice........

"Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  magnoliaave @6.3.4    last year

Exactly what of my post is condescending?   

He may be in the minority on this particular discussion, but certainly, not in the minority in his thinking.

The YEC belief system is predicated on belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.   Young Earth Creationism is demonstrably a small minority.

With that in mind, what specifically is the problem with my recommendation?   

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.3.7  magnoliaave  replied to  Split Personality @6.3.5    last year

That's not one of my saying.....sorry.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.3.8  magnoliaave  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.6    last year

You wrote him off like sending a child to bed.

I don't have anything to say to any of you, but I appreciate Shepboy's attitude and beliefs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  magnoliaave @6.3.8    last year
You wrote him off like sending a child to bed.

Nonsense.   Shepboy has been complaining about being out numbered and obviously he most definitely is.  Given the circumstances would you recommend that he stay in this article when he is not comfortable and is no longer even trying to seriously debate?   

Look at this response by Shepboy to dig who put forth a serious, thoughtful rebuttal:

Shepboy:   WOOO HOOOO Truly an epic gang bang.. yet another jumping into the frey.. what am I up against now.. 15 of you guys to just me?  I think you all are violating the COC.. just putting that out there.

Is this thoughtful engagement?   Why stay in an article if this is how you feel and how you react to someone giving a thoughtful response?

See?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.3.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  magnoliaave @6.3.8    last year
You wrote him off like sending a child to bed.

How many times have you told me to "get a life" or "give it up" here?

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.3.11  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.9    last year

well sure TIG  it is easy to leave..  And  I would gladly do it, so I expect for you to have my back when I do leave to the first person who says some kind of taunting jester

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @6.3.11    last year

If someone is attacking you personally then that is wrong regardless of your presence.   But challenging / rebutting your claims is always fair game.   I am not going to defend YEC notions so I cannot accommodate you there.

My observation is that you are not even trying to engage the challenges.  Dig’s response was courteous and thoughtful yet you dismissed it as if he was trolling.

So if you do not want to engage your many debate opponents (understandably) and you are simply posting platitudes and complaints then why stay and egg this on?

I would prefer you stay, but if you are not going to even try to deliver a thoughtful response that just makes you look bad and degrades the discourse in general.

 
 
 
Shepboy
6.3.13  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.12    last year

I didnt ask for your defense on what I was saying. I said if people start with their taunting BS like from NV when a person leaves a conversation..

Which I am doing now anyway because this thread will be at 300 tonight anyway, which means time to move on anyway.

Later.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
7  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

The various religionist agendas are ultimately self-serving, often cover for insidious motives, political objectives, racist and ethnocentric motives … but rarely …

… Godly motives.

Those who are sincere in their religious beliefs, IMHO, tend to manifest their sincerity by way of living "The Golden Rule"!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
8  A. Macarthur    2 years ago

A CHALLENGE FOR ALL EVOLUTION DENIERS (a.k.a. "CREATIONISTS")

• Voluntarily expose yourself to a pathogenic (disease-causing organism) until clearly infected

• Receive an anti-biotic 

In the event the antibiotic ceases to be effective, CONTINUE WITH IT NEVERTHELESS …

BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE!

And pray for a cure.

Keep the faith.

 
 
 
Kathleen
9  Kathleen    2 years ago

I really don't want to confuse people here, but I like to look at all point of views. That means both sides of this debate.

You see, I will not lock myself into either side all the way, that is because I really can't say if there is life after death. It's really the unknown question that man cannot answer. 

If you think you know the answer and you are 100% correct, I will not back you one bit. That is because we all simply can't be sure. It's just your personal opinion based on what you think. 

I do think that the planet is billions of years old, not thousands. I also think that there are many remains from millions of years ago.

I cannot be sure why and how the beginning of the universe started ( before the Big Bang). 

Also if there is truly a higher power that is looking over all of this.

So, I will remain on the fence until I see something compelling.

I have not seen anything that would convince me either way about life after death.

I only have a few times, that I wondered.

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1  Kathleen  replied to  Kathleen @9    2 years ago

P.S.

I also find this debate at a dead end.

1. You have people of Faith that will always believe in it no matter what anyone says.

2. You have people that do not believe in it and never will.

If there are people that disagree with me saying there is no way of knowing for sure, I respect that.

Unless there is some compelling evidence of life after death, you all might as well respect each other's views and move on.

Happy New Year everyone, have a fun and safe holiday! : )

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.1  Shepboy  replied to  Kathleen @9.1    2 years ago
I also find this debate at a dead end.

exactly , they are always dead ends because people are not going to sway from their belief. People also try to control evidence by saying what they post is true and valid, while any opposing view is not accepted because it all is automatically invalid. 

In the end, this isnt really about a debate,  its about people venting.

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.1.2  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.1    2 years ago

In the end, this isnt really about a debate,  its about people venting

. Which is exactly what you are doing. How do you explain these chalk formations on the Kansas prairies? Are you aware that the Western Interior Seaway split the country for millions of years, and there are chalk and limestone deposits all over the Colorado Mountains because these deposits form underwater. Or ripple marks and dinosaur tracks occur on steeply inclined Dakota Sandstone at Dinosaur Ridge near Morrison, Colorado. Or a trace fossil of a palm frond, impressions of raindrops,  and Triceratops tracks on the vertical Laramie Formation on Triceratops Trail just a few miles away. Take a look at this site, it includes both locations....   http://www.dinoridge.org/

05monument06.JPG

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.3  Shepboy  replied to  Rex Block @9.1.2    2 years ago

Rex, another reason why these debates never go any where..  its not a controlled debate. Its obvious I am the only person in this thread who holds onto the belief I do, and I am being hit by like 15 people on here with the same stuff your saying.. Hey hey how about this.. look at this.. explain this.. 

Want a debate , someone needs to make a topic, and make it a formal debate, talking about just one thing, not hopping and skipping all over the place ..

In the mean time you want an explanation for your chalk beds?

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/chalk-it-global-flood/

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.3    2 years ago
In the mean time you want an explanation for your chalk beds?

He has an explanation.

You offer a myth.

I'd like an explanation for where all that water is supposed to have come from.

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.1.5  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.3    2 years ago

You're the one hopping, skipping, and jumping from one place to another, trying to refute and and rebut established science in all kinds of its disciplines. You refuse to consider established scientific fact as being credible, and disparage anyone who points this out to you. .There is no evidence of a global flood, and this particular formation would not result from a flood. Why would sedimentary rock layers become tilted like they are at Red Rocks are in Colorado. They are the erosional remains of the Ancestral Rockies, and were tilted upwards when the current Rockies arose around 80-55 million years ago. The whole western third our country was shaped by plate tectonics, which is another established fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.3    2 years ago

There's the difference, you prefer belief. The rest of us prefer facts and evidence. Belief does not equal fact. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.3    2 years ago
Its obvious I am the only person in this thread who holds onto the belief I do,

Yours is a rather unique (better word choices omitted) belief system.   Of course you will see challenge from not only skeptics but religious folks.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.3    2 years ago
In the mean time you want an explanation for your chalk beds?

Let me pull an interesting quote from your article by Ken Ham.

When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.6

He starts off claiming that the assumption of consistency is profoundly wrong.  Okay, that might be true.   But instead of explaining why this natural assumption is not valid in this case he simply declares the very specific conditions that occurred during the flood.

Ken Ham is the King of historical vs. observational science.  He is the man who coined the phrase 'but we were not there, so ..." yet here he is proclaiming with unabashed certainty the organic chemical conditions of the flood.

Apparently Ken Ham was there.   'Historical' science is fine when Ken Ham uses it.

(This should bother you.)

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.9  Kathleen  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.1    last year

Venting is right...

We can't possibly prove anytjing for sure. 

Although, I have had a few signs from my mom and sister that were very compelling.

I know it was them.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.10  Shepboy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.4    last year
I'd like an explanation for where all that water is supposed to have come from.

http://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/

Water-rich gem points to vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface, study suggests

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140312150229.htm

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.11  Shepboy  replied to  Rex Block @9.1.5    last year
You're the one hopping, skipping, and jumping from one place to another, trying to refute and and rebut established science in all kinds of its disciplines.

How in the hell am I skipping around ? Do you even know what it is like to have 15 people asking tons of different questions in different parts of this thread?  I am on the defense where being bombarded. The only thing I have been doing is just responding to the overwhelming posts and vast topics people that are being thrown at me.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.12  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.6    last year
There's the difference, you prefer belief. The rest of us prefer facts and evidence. Belief does not equal fact.

And yet you have faith in scientists who have faith in things they cant prove from millions of years ago.. they just have best guesses. 

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.1.13  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.8    last year

Sorry TIG no time to read, I am busy batting off 15 people..  I am just typing stuff to get the thread count to 300 so I can leave :P

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.13    last year

Your choice.

 
 
 
Skrekk
9.1.15  Skrekk  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.4    last year
I'd like an explanation for where all that water is supposed to have come from.

A sky fairy poofed it into existence.   Duh.

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.1.16  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.10    last year

Yeah, they're called aquifers, and they lie not far from the surface. Further down, just a few miles, it becomes sold rock that gets hotter the further down toward Earth's center you go. Certainly not enough water for a world wide flood.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @9.1.12    last year

Nope, scientists have actual, empirical evidence. Not belief.  There's a difference.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.17    last year

Speaking of questions, you still haven't answered one of my questions.

Where is your actual "empirical" evidence which proves there is no God/supreme being?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.18    last year

Has Gordy stated that the nonexistence of god is a fact?

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.18    last year
Where is your actual "empirical" evidence which proves there is no God/supreme being

A logical fallacy: one cannot prove the non-existence of something. But I find it funny there are those that believe or accept god as fact when there is no evidence or proof of one in the least. It's no different than believing fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes are real because there is no evidence proving they do not exist. But I doubt there are many who actually believe in fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. So what makes a god any different?

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.20    last year
A logical fallacy: one cannot prove the non-existence of something

Perhaps in Philosophy but you weren't talking Philosophy were you?   You were talking Science and scientific evidence.   Any good scientist does not automatically exclude the possibility of something without proof.

Honestly, as much as you try to project scientific intelligence in here i would think you would know that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.21    last year
Perhaps in Philosophy but you weren't talking Philosophy were you? You were talking Science and scientific evidence.

The same applies to scientific evidence too. Any affirmative claim which lacks evidence has no validity.

Any good scientist does not automatically exclude the possibility of something without proof.

Any good scientist doesn't automatically accept something without proof either. If you want to discuss "possibility," then you're dealing with probabilities.

Honestly, as much as you try to project scientific intelligence in here i would think you would know that

I clearly know more than you in that regard!

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.22    last year

I clearly know more than you in that regard!

Lol, yeah keep telling yourself that.   Perhaps someday that might become true but not today and not in the near future.

By the way other minds MUCH sharper than yours disagree with you as well.   You know, minds with names like, Einstein, Descartes and Newton.  Skirting the CoC [ph]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.21    last year
Any good scientist does not automatically exclude the possibility of something without proof.

I don't believe he has.  As far as I know, Gordy allows for the possibility that god(s) exist, but does not believe they do, based on the lack of evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.24    last year

That is my understanding of Gordy's position as well.

The scientific method does not exclude possibilities without the appropriate evidence - no matter how counterintuitive.   This is evidenced by our amazing progress in particle physics.

Now, let me preach to the choir (so to speak):

One can become highly confident that no god exists based on the available evidence AND the lack of evidence.   One cannot declare no god exists with certainty because none of us are omniscient.   However, the quite notable lack of evidence in support of the grandest possible claim - the existence of THE supreme entity who created all we know - does tend to take away from the veracity of the notion of God.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.23    last year
By the way other minds MUCH sharper than yours disagree with you as well. You know, minds with names like, Einstein, Descartes and Newton. Comment removed for context [ph]

The difference is, they merely believed in a god (with the exception of Einstein). They could not prove it. And belief does not equal fact. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.25    last year
As far as I know, Gordy allows for the possibility that god(s) exist, but does not believe they do, based on the lack of evidence.

That is correct. I have often said I am open to the possibility of a god, and will revise my position when evidence of one becomes available. I simply do not accept claims for a god without evidence. As it stands, no such evidence is forthcoming. And belief or faith does not count as evidence either.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.25    last year
That is my understanding of Gordy's position as well.

You know me too well TiG. Wink

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.26    last year
The difference is, they merely believed in a god (with the exception of Einstein).

And you continue your philosophical circle jerk of words.   We are about done here as this has gone about as far as it can go in a semi productive manner.   That said, belief by it's very definition, is a persons  "truth" that something exists and that is enough proof for many.   Including the great minds mentioned earlier.

And belief does not equal fact.

And conversely fact does not equal faith and  ..... the wheel goes around and around, around and around ...

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.29    last year
That said, belief by it's very definition, is a persons  "truth" that something exists and that is enough proof for many.

When people speak of proof or evidence I think it is understood that this is objective proof or evidence.  Private proof or evidence is rarely questioned.   That is, most everyone seems to accept the fact that people hold private beliefs and based on factors that are proof or evidence to them but probably not to others.

I am confident that Gordy is talking about evidence as in scientific or formal evidence.   Not personal evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.29    last year
And you continue your philosophical circle jerk of words.

I merely stated fact. Not my problem if you miscomprehend the meaning.

We are about done here as this has gone about as far as it can go in a semi productive manner.

I accept your surrender.

That said, belief by it's very definition, is a persons "truth" that something exists and that is enough proof for many.

As I said, belief does not equal fact. It's quite subjective and does not qualify as objective, empirical evidence/proof. Actual "truth" requires actual fact be a valid "truth."

Including the great minds mentioned earlier.

And that was still their beliefs. You seem to think their intellect or prestige has some kind of bearing on that.

And conversely fact does not equal faith and ..... 

I never said it did. Faith is the opposite of fact. They are not equivalents. Faith what people use when there is an absence of facts. Or when they simply need some kind of mental comfort mechanism.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.31    last year
Not my problem

I understand your problem quite well.   Been around folks like that my whole life.   They do tend to like their delusions of grandeur so ...... enjoy!

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.32    last year

You must be projecting. You certainly haven't refuted anything I said. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.33    last year

How many times has someone tossed out an unsupported claim as they exit?   

I have yet to see you make a claim and then run away from a rebuttal.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
9.1.35  Phoenyx13  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.32    last year
They do tend to like their delusions of grandeur so ...... enjoy!

Gordy isn't religious (that i'm aware of) so i don't think this would apply (side note: not trying to be rude or anything, but looking at it from a fact vs non-fact point of view - those with actual "delusions of grandeur" have no facts to back up their delusions, they just have "faith" in those delusions, correct ?), it looks like Gordy is just looking for facts and evidence - the same things we do for solving crimes - or do you think we just have "faith" that someone committed a crime and prosecute them for it ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.34    last year
How many times has someone tossed out an unsupported claim as they exit? 

Too many. Not to mention the departing ad hom attack. It's even funnier when they don't even try to address any points made.

I have yet to see you make a claim and then run away from a rebuttal.

Not my style. Wink

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @9.1.35    last year
Gordy isn't religious (that i'm aware of)

I am not. Just so there is no question.

it looks like Gordy is just looking for facts and evidence

Always. Wink

- the same things we do for solving crimes - or do you think we just have "faith" that someone committed a crime and prosecute them for it ?

Does "belief" that someone did or did not commit a crime count as actual evidence? Surely if a police investigator or lawyer involved were highly intelligent, then that means their beliefs regarding a crime is good enough to count as actual evidence or "truth," right? Laugh

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @9    2 years ago
I really don't want to confuse people here, but I like to look at all point of views. That means both sides of this debate.

You see, I will not lock myself into either side all the way, that is because I really can't say if there is life after death. It's really the unknown question that man cannot answer.

IMHO, there aren't two "sides". Science and faith do not contradict one another. Faith concerns the spiritual world. Science concerns the physical world. Science will not tell us whether God exists, and faith will not tell us the age of the universe.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.1  Shepboy  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2    2 years ago
faith will not tell us the age of the universe.

science can not either.  The age is always being changed over the years.  No one was there to witness how, why, when.. Its all just best guessing. Of course a scientist can say oh we believe its this old because of this or that.. yet there is no way to know for sure its age.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.1    2 years ago

One can easily measure the movements of the tectonic plates 

and determine how long it took ancient sea bed fossils and salt deposits 

to rise to the tops of the Alps and Himalayans.

Yes science gives the "vague" answer of 180 million years in one case

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/deep-sea-fossils-evolution_n_5371906.html

and 450 million years in another case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4376700/World-War-trenches-Alps-reveal-450m-year-old-fossils.html

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
9.2.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.1    2 years ago

Have ever heard of Carbon 14, radioactive half life, etc.?

Your arguments, or, more accurately, your denials, tend to consist of platitudes.

I find it interesting that you reject science because so much is based on time long past and consequently, in your view, no scientist living currently could have empirical knowledge. Yet, you put stock in faith which by definition implies a degree of doubt, without a shred of empirical basis!

I respectfully ask that you square that for me.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.1    2 years ago
science can not either.

Oh, dear... We have a semantic problem... We are not using terms in the same way, which means we cannot understand each other.

English is a sloppy language, unless we are very careful. English uses the words "I believe that..." in two very different ways:
  - I have faith that...
  - I have seen enough evidence to convince me that...

Quite often people do not notice the essential difference: evidence.

Even more often, people do not realize that their memories hold two radically different kinds of "knowledge": faith-based or evidence-based.

I "know" that God exists, but I certainly cannot produce any evidence to prove the fact. And the absence of proof is not a problem for me because my knowledge of God does not require evidence. It is faith-based.

I "know" that atoms exist, but I certainly cannot produce any evidence to prove the fact. That absence would be a problem, but I am sure that other people can produce the evidence.

Following along series of experiments at CERN, we now "know" that the Higgs boson exists. No one has ever seen the Higgs. But the physicists at CERN have "seen" sprays of decay particles, and their mathematical models "prove" that in order to obtain those sprays, Higgs must exist.

Since our scientific knowledge is based on evidence, it is obvious that other evidence may come along to modify our knowledge. We "know" that the universe is something between 13 and 14 billion years. And we "know" that the number is approximate. Google says 13.82..... but I'll bet that the number will be further refined... and remember that one-one-hundredth of a billion (the missing precision to the right of the decimal point) is ten million years, or longer than humanity has existed...

Of course the age Google gives us for the universe is not perfect!

Everything we know about the world around us is approximate. How old are you? By the time you count out the years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds... you'll be a few seconds older and your answer will change. Oh, and you probably don't know the exact instant of your birth, anyway. How big is your house... in ten-thousandths of an inch? How much do you weigh... at home and on the equator?

Almost everything we know is "approximate, and subject to refinement". That doesn't mean the same as "wrong".

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.5  Kathleen  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2    2 years ago

Then there is.

Science verses Faith.

The two have clashed for century's.

You are a believer in faith or not.

That is two sides.... Faith/ Non believer.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @9.2.5    2 years ago

Science verses Faith.

The two have clashed for century's.

True!

... but foolishness all the same. That "clash" proves only that a lot of people don't really understand what they're talking about.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.2.7  livefreeordie  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2.4    2 years ago

Wrong.  I know God exists because the evidence is substantial enough to make a reasoned conclusion on His existence.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.7    2 years ago
I know God exists because the evidence is substantial enough to make a reasoned conclusion on His existence.

Your definition of "evidence" is... unconventional.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.7    2 years ago

Then I assume you'll have no trouble providing that evidence.

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.2.10  Rex Block  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.7    2 years ago

What is that evidence?

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.7    2 years ago

What "evidence" would that be? Merely convincing yourself of something is not evidence.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.12  Shepboy  replied to  Split Personality @9.2.2    2 years ago

One can easily measure the movements of the tectonic plates 

and determine how long it took ancient sea bed fossils and salt deposits 

to rise to the tops of the Alps and Himalayans.

Yes science gives the "vague" answer of 180 million years in one case

This rebuttal is an easy one..

Your assuming that the movement of the tectonic plates have been at a constant rate.  When your talking about hundreds of thousands of years, millions, billions.. there is no amount of science we can use to measure the accuracy of that much time. 

There has been a global flood, there is plenty of evidence for it. The earth did go through a catastrophic event. The Bible also describes fountains of the deep , and here science just discovered that such fountains of the deep actually exist.. Imagine that, that Bible is right.. yet again..

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.13  Shepboy  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.3    2 years ago
Have ever heard of Carbon 14, radioactive half life, etc.?

I sure have , I have read many papers on it, and research about it.. carbon dating is only good for a very small period of time..

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/dating-methods/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios What happens when magma solidifies and melts and its implications for radiometric dating

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating

http://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/

More on radioactive dating problems

A further response to Reasonable Faith Adelaide

https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-problems

I can keep going on, but there is plenty of science here to read about.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.14  Shepboy  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2.4    2 years ago
We "know" that the universe is something between 13 and 14 billion years. And we "know" that the number is approximate. Google says 13.82..... but I'll bet that the number will be further refined... and remember that one-one-hundredth of a billion (the missing precision to the right of the decimal point) is ten million years, or longer than humanity has existed...

Oh good grief Bob.. sure what ever you say.. its 13 billion..  next year it may grow to 15 billion..  or it may drop lower..

Its pure human arrogance to claim how old the universe is. There is no way to know. No one has observed it to prove it. Until then.. No one knows, they can guess.. but that doesnt mean they are right..  So I will stand by, no one knows the age.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.14    2 years ago
Its pure human arrogance to claim how old the universe is.

Do you deny all "knowledge" that you have not personally witnessed? Do you "believe in" atoms?

How do you decide where to draw the limit of "what is knowable"?

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.16  MrFrost  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.14    2 years ago
Oh good grief Bob.. sure what ever you say.. its 13 billion..  next year it may grow to 15 billion..  or it may drop lower..

Not really. We can measure the speed of light therefore we can measure how far away objects are. With this knowledge, we can get a rough estimate of how old the universe is. For example, we know the sun is ~93 million miles away, or, about 8 light minutes. Mars is 20 minutes from Earth, etc. We can do the same thing with objects that are very far away. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
9.2.17  A. Macarthur  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.13    2 years ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume I'm the only one in this thread with a degree and background in (among other things) BIOLOGY.

The sources you cite are not science-based, and while you certainly are entitled to believe that which suits your personal preferences and ideology, I'll go out on another limb and speculate that from time-to-time, when you or a family member experience illness, you seek the scientific expertise of medical science rather than a member of the clergy.

Just a guess.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.18  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.7    2 years ago
Wrong.  I know God exists because the evidence is substantial enough to make a reasoned conclusion on His existence.

Evidence? Do tell. And you know God is a he how.....exactly? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.19  MrFrost  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.17    2 years ago

You would be mistaken. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.20  MrFrost  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.1    2 years ago
science can not either.

Science will get us a lot closer than a prayer or listening to a voice in your head, OR, a book written by humans 400 years after Christ died. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
9.2.21  A. Macarthur  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.19    2 years ago

OK … I'm listening …

Mistaken how?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.21    2 years ago

I think about the background of those involved in the discussion.  My undergrad degree was in biology, chem minor.  I'm a dentist, so there was a lot of biology in my professional degree program, too.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.2.23  Split Personality  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.13    2 years ago

Some of your sources repeat the assumption that people and other scientists believe the earth is billions of years old based on flawed carbon dating 'assumptions ( and for some reason they are fascinated with magma......

Real scientists know that real carbon dating only works on organic material and is only reliable to about 20,000 years ago. because beyond that point

there is rarely enough C-14 to measure.

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.24  MrFrost  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.21    2 years ago

I used to teach biology. 

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.2.25  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.14    last year
No one knows, they can guess.. but that doesnt mean they are right..

So you're just guessing that the Bible is true and that creation occurred just a few thousand years ago, even though you were not there to observe or confirm it. Why should I believe you instead of educated and intelligent scientists??

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.26  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.12    last year
Your assuming that the movement of the tectonic plates have been at a constant rate.  When your talking about hundreds of thousands of years, millions, billions.. there is no amount of science we can use to measure the accuracy of that much time.

Straight out of Ken Ham's mouth.

Shepboy, do you recognize that one would first assume that the movement of the major tectonic plates of the lithosphere was constant unless there was evidence that suggests otherwise?   Now if there was evidence to the contrary in this particular situation, geologists would be factoring that in.  You recognize that, right?  (And, by the way, in a much smaller scale, they are indeed factoring in differences - but nowhere near the differences required by Ham.)

Ken Ham, in his quest to distort science to fit his literal interpretation of the Bible, presumes an accelerated movement.   And in doing so he flat out contradicts his nonsensical position that science cannot operate on the past without 'eye-witnesses'.   He just declares that the tectonic plates moved faster (was he there?) in the past.   Worse, his declaration is based on absolutely nothing.   Where is the supporting evidence?

In physics, when an object is in motion it will continue in motion at the same velocity (i.e. no change in acceleration or direction) unless forces act upon it.   If you speak with scientists dealing with classical physics (as in this case) they will not assume special forces - they will incorporate special forces when the evidence shows a need to do so.   That is one stark difference between science and religion.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.2.27  livefreeordie  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2.8    last year

wrong. It's based upon the laws of evidence as developed by Simon Greenleaf who wrote the landmark and definitive rules of evidence used by our Government for over 200 years.

i defend Christianity and the Bible based upon juridical evidence.

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/greenleaf.htm

Dr John W Montgomery "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity 

http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/articles/bissart1.htm

Evidence For Faith: Deciding the God Question, by John Warwick Montgomery. 366 pages. The 20 papers presented at the "Cornell Symposium on Evidential Apologetics". Included are papers on the evidential approach to Christianity, cosmology, biology, biblical criticism, the historical value of the biblical documents, and the problem of evil.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.28  Shepboy  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.26    last year
Shepboy, do you recognize that one would first assume that the movement of the major tectonic plates of the lithosphere was constant unless there was evidence that suggests otherwise?   Now if there was evidence to the contrary in this particular situation, geologists would be factoring that in.  You recognize that, right?  (And, by the way, in a much smaller scale, they are indeed factoring in differences - but nowhere near the differences required by Ham.)

How would you know they have been a constant rate.. where you there? has any scientist been there to witness and use observational empirical science?  Hum... food for thought

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.2.29  livefreeordie  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2.9    last year

see above you for in depth resources. But here is a short explanation

1. The first evidence is creation itself.  We know that reknowned scientists have concluded that it is statistically unlikely to have an earth that is so perfectly ordered to allow life as we know it.

A new study suggests that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth. It’s a revelation that’s both beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden arrived at this staggering figure — a 7 followed by 20 zeros  — with the aid of a computer model that simulated the universe’s evolution following the Big Bang. Zackrisson’s model combined information about known exoplanets with our understanding of the early universe and the laws of physics to recreate the past 13.8 billion years.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/02/22/earth-is-a-1-in-700-quintillion-kind-of-place/#.WkqjE99KuqY

2.  The second evidence is Jesus.  the Bible records that the Word of God who always existed as God took on human form in the person of Jesus to not only affirm the truth of God, but to provide the means of restoring mankind to an intimate relationship with God.

As noted in my other post, the legal evidence for Jesus, His death, and Resurrection. and the testimony of the witnesses are sufficient to make a reasoned conclusion that God is real and the hope of Jesus is legitimate.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.30  Shepboy  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.17    last year
The sources you cite are not science-based,

Ya blah blah blah.. yet another person who wishes to use only your views and science but censor any other type of evidence or thought..

Good job A Mac.. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.31  Shepboy  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.27    last year

This looks interesting. I will have to squeeze in some time to read.. Ty for you posting it.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.32  Shepboy  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.16    last year
Not really. We can measure the speed of light therefore we can measure how far away objects are.

That again is based on an assumption. How do you know that God could not have had the light already present?

You look at things inside of a box, I look at other explanations.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.33  Shepboy  replied to  Rex Block @9.2.25    last year
So you're just guessing that the Bible is true and that creation occurred just a few thousand years ago, even though you were not there to observe or confirm it. Why should I believe you instead of educated and intelligent scientists??

You believe in Alexander the Great? PLato>? Scorates? All of those famous people? If you do then you have to believe in Jesus of the Bible because there is a ton of more manuscripts, and writers and scrolls closer to the actual events than any of those I just listed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.28    last year
How would you know they have been a constant rate.. where you there?

Good grief you are an intelligent individual, why stoop to parroting Ken Ham?   Think for yourself.

I addressed this in the very quote you provided:

TiG:   Shepboy, do you recognize that one would first assume that the movement of the major tectonic plates of the lithosphere was constant unless there was evidence that suggests otherwise?   Now if there was evidence to the contrary in this particular situation, geologists would be factoring that in.  You recognize that, right?  (And, by the way, in a much smaller scale, they are indeed factoring in differences - but nowhere near the differences required by Ham.)

... and followed it up again (just to be certain) in my closing paragraph ...

TiG:  In physics, when an object is in motion it will continue in motion at the same velocity (i.e. no change in acceleration or direction) unless forces act upon it.   If you speak with scientists dealing with classical physics (as in this case) they will not assume special forces - they will incorporate special forces when the evidence shows a need to do so.   That is one stark difference between science and religion.

What I stated is that constant rates are the default based upon our understanding of physics in general.   If there is a reason to factor in acceleration (and/or change of direction) based on evidence then that is done.   

What Ken Ham (and apparently you) are doing is simply declaring that forces of an unknown origin acted upon historical tectonic plates.   You are simply inserting forces based on faith.   That, Shepboy, is not science;  that is religion.


By the way, I hope you realize that I spent this entire post illustrating how I had anticipated your question, answered it before it was asked and now have to answer it again after it was asked nonetheless.   Makes me think you are either not reading what I am writing or you are just tossing out cliche responses and hoping something will stick.   Either way, not a good way to operate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.29    last year
A new study suggests that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth. It’s a revelation that’s both beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

Is that so?  We're aware of the conditions on all of those exoplanets?

the Bible records that the Word of God who always existed as God took on human form in the person of Jesus to not only affirm the truth of God

A fine example of circular logic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.36  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.29    last year
The first evidence is creation itself.

I think you mean 'existence', not 'creation'.   There is no evidence that a sentient entity created Earth.   It is possible, but there is no evidence supporting that hypothesis.   

We know that reknowned scientists have concluded that it is statistically unlikely to have an earth that is so perfectly ordered to allow life as we know it.

True.   Our existence (and indeed the existence of Earth) is unlikely given the number of possible universes that could have been.   But these universes are all unlikely.   I will offer the lottery as an example.   Let's say the odds of winning a particular lottery is 1 million to 1.   Sell one million tickets and draw a single ticket from those sold.   With me?   So if you and I both bought a single ticket we would have the same odds of winning: 1 out of a million.   Now let's say that you won.   Would you say that the lottery was designed for you to win?   Or would you recognize that someone was going to win and you just happened to be (in spite of the odds against you) the fortunate winner?

If conditions were different at the onset of the universe, carbon could easily have not been such a dominant element.   Indeed a silicon-based creature might be proclaiming to another of his peers that the odds of life (as they know it) are so rare that this means a god designed their universe just for them.

The second evidence is Jesus.

To use Jesus as evidence you first need to evidence the existence of Jesus as an hypostasis.   Not just an individual named Jesus likely existed and gathered a following, but that God was on this planet in human form.

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.37  Kathleen  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.2.17    last year

Most people use both.

 
 
 
Rex Block
9.2.38  Rex Block  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2.35    last year

All a planet needs for life to form a long period fairly stable star, liquid water on the surface, and be in what's called the Goldilocks zone. Not too hot, not too cold. It stands to reason billions of them exist in the Universe.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Rex Block @9.2.38    last year

Exactly.

Given the numbers, I'd say it's statistically more likely that there IS life on other planets than that there isn't. 

To just say that Earth is the ONLY planet in the Goldilocks zone is dishonest.

 
 
 
Skrekk
9.2.40  Skrekk  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.32    last year
That again is based on an assumption. How do you know that God could not have had the light already present?

I'm assuming you were poofed into existence 2 seconds ago.    What you think are memories of "experiences" were merely implanted by a sky fairy.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.41  Shepboy  replied to  Skrekk @9.2.40    last year
What you think are memories of "experiences" were merely implanted by a sky fairy.

No one here is talking about sky fairies. if you want to debate that I suggest you go make another thread.

 
 
 
Shepboy
9.2.42  Shepboy  replied to  Rex Block @9.2.25    last year
Why should I believe you instead of educated and intelligent scientists??

Im not asking you too.  I am just stating that intelligent scientists are wrong quite often about things.  They base many sciences on assumptions. Some are hard sciences, but some require a presumption which adds bias to science.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.42    last year
some require a presumption which adds bias to science.

And believing every word of the Bible is true and without error doesn't "require a presumption"?

 
 
 
Freefaller
9.2.44  Freefaller  replied to  livefreeordie @9.2.29    last year
We know that reknowned scientists have concluded that it is statistically unlikely to have an earth that is so perfectly ordered to allow life as we know it.

I've asked this of you twice before but you did not respond either time.  So once more.  According to "renowned scientists" what is the statistical likelihood of an all powerful, all knowing, all everything god who has always existed choosing to form us out of nothing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.45  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.42    last year
They base many sciences on assumptions.

During the hypothesis stage scientists are indeed making assumptions.   But they do not stop there and go directly to conclusion (or, worse, fact).   Using the scientific method an hypothesis is rigorously tested trying to prove it wrong.   The motivation for this is obvious - if a scientist does not 'debug' his/her work it is guaranteed that another ambitious scientist will write a paper exposing the flaw (and making a better name for the author).   Exposing scientific flaws is almost as good as coming up with a new discovery.   

Once an hypothesis has achieved sufficient confidence it may lead into a theory - a formal explanation of observed phenomena which provides a method for falsification and has the property of predictability.   And, as a theory, scientists will be challenging it - the more well known the theory the more esteem to the scientist who finds the flaw.

Yes there are scientists who are motivated to be dishonest.   And yes there are scientists who fail impartiality and produce half-baked theories.   They are human beings and funding dynamics are persuasive.   But science in general clearly is a self-correcting process that demonstrably yields quality answers.   Note that when a scientific finding / theory is exposed as wrong it is science that has done the exposing.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
9.2.46  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Shepboy @9.2.42    last year
I am just stating that intelligent scientists are wrong quite often about things.  They base many sciences on assumptions. Some are hard sciences, but some require a presumption which adds bias to science.

Richard Feynman explains the scientific method as simply as anyone can.

Give it a watch. It's only a couple minutes long.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.2.47  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @9.2.46    last year

Yup

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10  mocowgirl    2 years ago

I love Neil deGrasse Tyson's intellect.  I wish that I had his patience.

This is one of my favorite videos ....

and this is one of his more recent (short answer on the existence of a god)

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1  Kathleen  replied to  mocowgirl @10    2 years ago

I watch that Sunday mornings, I love the nature scenes at the end.

A really nice news source.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    2 years ago

There's a lot of emotion and dogma tied up in all sides of this issue. Real discussion of the topic needs to involve open minds and not be about "defeating" or silencing the other side. I'm a religious person, but I don't feel like I have a dog in the fight. Investigation into how organisms develop will only reveal another marvelous aspect of God's creation. You can be an atheist and share that view absent the God part. I feel like both sides are guilty - in varying degrees - of confirmation bias.

That will probably make several people angry. Oh well!

 
 
 
Shepboy
12  Shepboy    2 years ago

OK I can see this topic is already running into a huge issue for me.  There are many many people all coming at me with tons of different points and questions..  Its already getting overwhelming trying to keep up with who is talking about what..

I am one person trying to talk to 10 or more people, and its not about just one specific topic.. We are all over the place talking about all kinds of stuff.

So what should we do ? Should I make a new topic some where and we start talking about one specific thing? Or do you all like beating on the punching bag?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
12.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @12    2 years ago

I'm seeing a pattern to your participation in these discussions.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.2  MrFrost  replied to  Shepboy @12    2 years ago
Or do you all like beating on the punching bag?

I certainly am not trying to attack you in any way at all. If I come across that way, I do apologize. 

 
 
 
Shepboy
12.2.1  Shepboy  replied to  MrFrost @12.2    last year
I certainly am not trying to attack you in any way at all. If I come across that way, I do apologize.

I know your not Frost. and please dont take it that way when I say punching bag.. its just a metaphor I am using because it is just me here against about 15 of you guys, who are hitting me with all different topics, questions points of view.. its overwhelming for any person and honeslty I cant really take time to give good repsonses because of how in over my head that I am.

I would gladly go one on one with someone in a more formal debate.. but it wont be in this thread, its already exploded.. not to mention, at this rate we will be at 300 comments soon which is my cut off for any topic.

 
 
 
Rex Block
12.3  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @12    2 years ago
So what should we do ? Should I make a new topic some where and we start talking about one specific thing? Or do you all like beating on the punching bag?

You could just not participate in thread where your mythological theory of creationism and a young Earth flies in the face of facts, logic, and reason. You can't prove you points and try to debunk known and accepted scientific facts. You could just admit you're wrong on this issue. And by the way, radiometric dating is accurate and all fossils found so far have been transitional. There are no relevant gaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 
 
 
Shepboy
12.3.1  Shepboy  replied to  Rex Block @12.3    last year
You could just admit you're wrong on this issue.

No, I will not give you the sanctification. See I know that your are wrong , just as much as you think I am wrong.

And by the way, radiometric dating is accurate and all fossils found so far have been transitional.

No, not really .. even science shows that radiometric dating has its issues.  Fossils dont speak for themself, they only are spoken for by people who believe what they want to believe. All of it is based on assumptions, nothing factual. just guessing.

 
 
 
Rex Block
12.3.2  Rex Block  replied to  Shepboy @12.3.1    last year
All of it is based on assumptions, nothing factual. just guessing.

Just like your beliefs. And no, it is not "guessing". If the observations are confirmed by experiment repeatedly, and fit the theory, then the observations were true, The laws of math and science are not guesses, they are facts.

 
 
 
MrFrost
13  MrFrost    2 years ago

Shepboy is entitled to his opinion and belief system. Lets play nice. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.1  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @13    2 years ago

He's entiyled to his opinions or beliefs. He's not entitled to his own facts.

 
 
 
Shepboy
13.1.1  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1    last year
He's entiyled to his opinions or beliefs. He's not entitled to his own facts.

I am entitled to provide my evidence with out people like you tell me what I can use or cant use. You will NOT control the terms of a debate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @13.1.1    last year

Nobody's telling you what evidence you can use.  You are free to post all the biased information you want.  We are free to dismiss it as biased.

 
 
 
Shepboy
13.1.3  Shepboy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.2    last year
Nobody's telling you what evidence you can use.  You are free to post all the biased information you want.  We are free to dismiss it as biased..

Well see there you go. You start of with a bias and presumption of my evidence. Therefore if you automatically exclude it, then you are controlling the terms of the debate. It is no longer an even debate.  So when i post things you will address it, not me.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Shepboy @13.1.3    last year

When we examine your "evidence", we find it to be riddled with falsehoods, much like your comments.  I don't think you're intentionally lying, but you've accepted incorrect information as true, and pass it on.

If you're wrong, you're wrong, and we're going to say so.

If your sources are biased and contain falsehoods due to that bias, they're biased and contain falsehoods due to that bias, and we're going to say so.

 
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Split Personality @13.1.5    last year

laughing dude

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @13.1.1    last year

I didn't say what you can or cannot use. I simply said what you use is usually from biased sources, which only reflects your own bias and damages your credibility. If you want to continue to use biased sources and embarrass yourself in the process, be my guest. But don't pretend to think you have any semblance of a rational or logical argument.

 
 
 
Rex Block
14  Rex Block    2 years ago
So what should we do ? Should I make a new topic some where and we start talking about one specific thing? Or do you all like beating on the punching bag?

You could just not participate in thread where your mythological theory of creationism and a young Earth flies in the face of facts, logic, and reason. You can't prove you points and try to debunk known and accepted scientific facts. You could just admit you're wrong on this issue. And by the way, radiometric dating is accurate and all fossils found so far have been transitional. There are no relevant gaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 
 
 
Kathleen
15  Kathleen    last year

I think everyone should stop ganging up on Shepboy. He has a strong faith and he should be able to express it. For him he has evidence enough, there is nothing wrong with that.

This reminds me of NV when I was ganged up by 9 or 10 people.

Its fun to debate, but not when lots of people pound on you.

I don't think any of you would like it either.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @15    last year

He's perfectly free to express his faith or his opinions. But doing so, especially on a public discussion forum, invites a response. If he doesn't like it, then he is also free to not post or exit the discussion altogether. It's that simple. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1    last year

It is... But sometimes you have to step back and look at the big picture and say, okay that's enough. jmo, no facts.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
15.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @15.1.1    last year

There’s a religious group here, and nobody ever uses it.  They want to proselytize where they are least wanted instead.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @15.1.2    last year

Don't we all....

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @15.1.1    last year

Why step back? Everyone has the opportunity to post and/or reply. If they don't like, they can either not respond or just leave. And some of us prefer facts over opinion.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.4    last year

I think it's a combination of both.  I am not telling you that you can't reply, I was just saying that sometimes it would be best to let go and move on.

Everyone is set on what they think about this subject, so you are just wasting your time, unless you think someone will change over to your way of thinking.

It's the I am right and you are wrong always about religion, and the funny thing is no one can be 100% sure. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
15.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.4    last year

Really?    So you consider "there is no God" to be a fact?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
15.1.7  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Kathleen @15.1.5    last year

Remember what Jesus said,

23Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’ ”
24“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.

When someone seeks to preach when it isn't wanted they will be treated in this manner.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
15.1.8  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @15.1.6    last year

I consider there are multiple gods and, goddess's, it depends on what you seek as to which one you will follow.

 
 
 
Sparty On
15.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @15.1.8    last year

Well, dilly dilly for you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @15.1.6    last year

Prove there is a god!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
15.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.10    last year

I think therefore I am ... a God.

 
 
 
Sparty On
15.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.10    last year

Answer my question.

 
 
 
Sparty On
15.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Freedom Warrior @15.1.11    last year

Thus defines .... Generation N ........(Narcissist)

 
 
 
Shepboy
15.1.14  Shepboy  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1    last year
He's perfectly free to express his faith or his opinions. But doing so, especially on a public discussion forum, invites a response.

It does but also it violates the COC with so many people gang banging on one person.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
15.1.15  livefreeordie  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @15.1.7    last year

The sin nature of man is that they seldom want to hear that they need to repent and turn from their separation from God.  

Jesus NEVER said go to only those who want to hear you.  Not proclaiming the gospel including the need to repent is NOT optional for Christians.  Instead He said the following

“Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it.13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!  Matthew 10:11-15

Whoever makes Me known in front of men, I will make him known to My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever does not make Me known in front of men and acts as if he does not know Me, I will not make him known to My Father in heaven Matthew 10:31-33

And the message of Jesus after He rose was to proclaim for people to repent

46 And he said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day. 47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’ 48 You are witnesses of all these things.” Luke 24:46-48

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  Matthew 4:17

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”  Matthew 9:13

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,  Acts 17:29,30

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.16  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @15.1.14    last year

If I wrote an article arguing that the Earth is flat, I guarantee that most people will challenge my claims.   The more I protest, the more they will challenge.   The more ridiculous or weak my rebuttals, the more I would expect people to comment - if not simply because they need to express the SMH reaction they have to the responses they read.  The more I complain about mistreatment simply because many people disagree with me the more people will recognize that my arguments are poor.

I do not think there is an answer, Shepboy, for someone holding an extraordinary minority view that flies in the face of well established science on a social forum like NT.   As long as people do not attack you personally but rather focus on rebutting your claims and/or sources the only sensible solution (as I see it) is to simply stop providing fodder.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
15.1.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Sparty On @15.1.13    last year

Better check your dictionary again.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
15.1.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.16    last year

The more accurate view would be if you wrote such an article nobody would give a shit.  Because it doesn't matter.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
15.1.19  mocowgirl  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @15.1.8    last year
it depends on what you seek as to which one you will follow

I agree.

I used to be a fan of Athena until someone told me that she was a myth.  However, I see no reason to believe that Athena isn't real and she is my kind of goddess.

The thing that Athena ever did was to turn a weaver into a spider, but that is to be expected of a god/goddess when a mere mortal insults them.

https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/goddesses/athena/

Athena

Greek Goddess of Wisdom and War

Athena, also referred to as Athene, is a very important goddess of many things. She is goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, strategic warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill.

She is known most specifically for her strategic skill in warfare and is often portrayed as companion of heroes and is the patron goddess of heroic endeavour.

  • She turned the weaver ARACHNE into a spider after the mortal woman insulted Athena and the Olympian gods.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
15.1.20  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @15.1.19    last year
The thing that Athena

Should be the worst thing that Athena

 
 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @15.1.14    last year

Then don't post your usual BS! Doing so will invite a response. 

 
 
 
Rex Block
15.2  Rex Block  replied to  Kathleen @15    last year

I guess we better not tell Shepboy that some small feathered dinosaurs survived the Extinction Event and evolved into what we call birds. Or that we evolved from small shrew like mammals that proliferated after the big dino's were gone.

A closed mind by religionists is something I can closely relate to. I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Tent meetings preaching hellfire and damnation, pot lucks in the church basement, and the whole nine yards. Forced attendance at church and Sunday school for years. The brain washing did not permanently take, but it took years before I could shake the feelings of guilt for being a non believer. Looking back I consider this type of treatment as a form of child abuse. But I am very familiar with the smug and condescending mentality of these born again brain dead types.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Rex Block @15.2    last year

I understand, yes, there are those types I don't care for either, but I had a flash back of NV on this thread. 

You can be smug on either side too, for I have seen it on here.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
15.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Rex Block @15.2    last year
I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Tent meetings preaching hellfire and damnation, pot lucks in the church basement, and the whole nine yards. Forced attendance at church and Sunday school for years. The brain washing did not permanently take, but it took years before I could shake the feelings of guilt for being a non believer.

Same here.  I don't consider it child abuse, as my mother thought she was doing the right thing, and my parents never limited my exposure to science.  We don't talk about it much, but I suspect my Dad is agnostic.  He only goes to church when Mom guilts him into it.

I began to have contempt for that close-mindedness the morning our Sunday school teacher told us that everything we'd ever need to know was in the Bible.  I couldn't contain the eyeroll.  I'm very sure that the doctors treating his heart condition, and those treating his wife's breast cancer, studied from sources other than the Bible.  He also told us that education takes us further from God.  That made it pretty clear to me that the church only considered its grip on members safe if they were kept ignorant.  Red flag.

 
 
 
Rex Block
15.2.3  Rex Block  replied to  sandy-2021492 @15.2.2    last year

Concerning the Bible, why did the early Church fathers decide to leave several books out of it? Weren't they scriptural enough? Is it truly inerrant?

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2245644-banned-books-of-the-bible

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Rex Block @15.2.3    last year
Is it truly inerrant?

It is errant on the surface.   The Bible describes an omniscient God who is surprised and disappointed by the actions of His creations.

Omniscience leaves no room for surprise or disappointment.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
15.2.5  magnoliaave  replied to  Rex Block @15.2    last year

Your parents could have done a lot worse things than taking you to Church.

I was sent to the Baptist Church as a youth.  My grandmother was a foot washing land reform Baptist.  Doom and gloom! 

At 17, I found my own way.  I attend a Presbyterian Church.  God is my main man!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
15.2.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  sandy-2021492 @15.2.2    last year
I began to have contempt for that close-mindedness the morning our Sunday school teacher told us that everything we'd ever need to know was in the Bible.

I was always told by my parents that an education was the best answer to ignorance, however, you needed the Bible for moral guidance, I found that to be ironic since the Bible said it was alright to kill for ones beliefs. I remember sitting in history class learning about the inquisition and, the reformation of the church and, all of the atrocity's that were committed during that time, the witch trials of Salem when many innocents were killed because of jealousy or, greed, all in the name of religion.

My Mother, who had custody of my sister and, I, had told us at a young age, when we were old enough to decide for ourselves, we could pick our religion. When I came of age I chose Wicca, my sister chose Christianity, she carried the same beliefs I did and, I never understood her choice but, it was her choice, not mine to make. I guess what I'm trying to say is, my Mother wasn't too happy with me, for a while but, she saw that I didn't kill little children and, I didn't cause crops to die, in fact, I have a green thumb and, little children love to be around me, LOL, I love to be around them because of their honesty. It doesn't matter what you chose to be an, atheist or, a theist, just chose something and, be happy with that choice but, don't try to push your beliefs off on others.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
15.2.7  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Rex Block @15.2    last year
A closed mind by religionists is something I can closely relate to. I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Tent meetings preaching hellfire and damnation, pot lucks in the church basement, and the whole nine yards. Forced attendance at church and Sunday school for years. The brain washing did not permanently take, but it took years before I could shake the feelings of guilt for being a non believer.

Very interesting!  My parents made me attend an Assembly of God church.  I don't do much church these days.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @15.2.7    last year

My dad made us go to church, my mom would say " Let's not and say we did". I think she liked going out for breakfast afterwards. My dad also liked science, but I guess he thought he was doing the right thing. My parents didn't really push it, after church that was it the whole week. My sister stayed Christian and I became agnostic. 

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
15.2.9  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Kathleen @15.2.8    last year
My sister stayed Christian and I became agnostic.

I've remained Christian, I don't ever go to church though.

I do find it interesting that all religions believe in a God, but everyone has a different idea about how it all went down..  Their Jesus is better that your Jesus, all that nonsense...

I personally like reincarnation, and due to some memories, I'm holding out hope that that's the way it is.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
15.2.10  mocowgirl  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @15.2.9    last year
I do find it interesting that all religions believe in a God,

Not all religions believe in a god and some believe in many gods.  I like the idea of reincarnation to the point that I am ready to become one with the ebb and flow of all existence and not return to Earth as an individual.

Handy chart at link below to explain how many choices that are currently competing for believers.  Of course, this does not include the hundreds of tribal beliefs systems that are still being practiced today.

http://www.religionfacts.com/big-religion-chart
 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @15.2.9    last year
I do find it interesting that all religions believe in a God

But it makes sense, right?  That is usually what makes a religion.  There are, nevertheless, exceptions (e.g. Buddhism).

There is no surprise that all sports involve competition.  There is no surprise that a god or gods are involved in almost all religions.

 
 
 
Kathleen
15.2.12  Kathleen  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @15.2.9    last year

I don't mind it either, I just hope I would be born in a good situation. Although, I like who I am plus I woukd want to see my loved ones again.

 
 
 
charger 383
15.2.13  charger 383  replied to  mocowgirl @15.2.10    last year

good chart, thanks

 
 
 
Shepboy
15.3  Shepboy  replied to  Kathleen @15    last year

Not to mention its a violation of the COC.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
16  magnoliaave    last year

My belief is that science and God go hand in hand.  He gives us the ability of free thought and challenges us to find the answers.  He is really doing a great job!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
16.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  magnoliaave @16    last year
My belief is that science and God go hand in hand.

His religion and, his Bible do not go hand in hand with science. Science says the world is older than 10,000 years, Yahweh's Bible and, religion says it isn't older than 10,000 years.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
16.1.1  magnoliaave  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @16.1    last year

Like I said.  God is really doing a great job!  WTG!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
16.1.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  magnoliaave @16.1.1    last year

Mags, I have no problem with Yahweh or, Jesus, what I do have a problem with is the religion that has sprouted out of what Jesus started two thousand years ago and, were it has gone in that time. There are some trees that bear nothing but rotten fruit and, the current Christian religion is one that bears more than its share of rotten fruit.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
16.1.3  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @16.1.2    last year
the current Christian religion is one that bears more than its share of rotten fruit.

Why do you say that?  let me guess, you can google it and find a hundred or so bad so called "Christians"?  Never mind the hundreds of millions of really nice Christians, right?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
16.1.4  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @16.1.3    last year
let me guess, you can google it and find a hundred or so bad so called "Christians"?

Obviously you haven't been keeping up on my posts in this thread or, in the other religious threads on here. I was raised in the church and, like you I left it behind, I chose another path, however, I know many Christians that are good and, faithful servants of Jesus, I also know many that claim to be good and, faithful servants but, they don't follow Jesus, they follow men who teach hate and, division, they wouldn't know the love of Jesus if it jumped up and, bit them on the ass, those seem to be the ones in charge these days.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
16.1.5  magnoliaave  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @16.1.4    last year

Yes, just like there are good people and bad people in all walks in life.  Why don't you tell us about the good atheists vs the bad atheists?  Are there any good atheists?  Haven't met one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  magnoliaave @16.1.5    last year
Are there any good atheists?  Haven't met one.

Are you of the opinion that skeptics (aka agnostic atheists) hold that all (or even most) theists are bad people?   

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
16.1.7  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  magnoliaave @16.1.5    last year
Are there any good atheists?  Haven't met one.

You've probably met many and didn't know it.

You're very likely an atheist yourself when it comes to every other god concept ever imagined by humans, except one. You don't believe in Zeus and Apollo, or Loki and Thor, or any of the hundreds (thousands?) of others from different times and places around the world do you? 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
17  A. Macarthur    last year

One of many ironies/hypocrisies of science-denier religionists, is manifested in their edifices, often opulent and ostentatiously pretentious and "in-your-face"!

Consider the science, mathematics and engineering required to build such showcases … only to become houses in which disdain for their very existence is drummed into the indoctrinated! 

REALITY is an insecure place; and while religiosity and its dogmas may delude the faithful, assault on the truth makes reality an even more insecure place.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18  Sparty On    last year
Consider the science, mathematics and engineering required to build such showcases … only to become houses in which disdain for their very existence is drummed into the indoctrinated!

Tell that to the Jesuits who own and operate some of the finest educational institutions in the World.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18    last year

I believe Mac was referring only to those theists who deny science.  Jesuits don't tend to do so.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1    last year

Which is to say, the entire Catholic Church.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.1    last year

So far as I know, no, the Catholic church no longer denies science.  They certainly have in the past, but I believe Catholic schools now include evolution as part of their curriculum, and do not adhere to YEC.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.2    last year

Yes and you've just described roughly half the Christian's in the world.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.3    last year

So?

They don't speak for all Christians, and there are some Christians who deny science.  You can see it right on this discussion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.2    last year

Indeed.   The Catholic church has accepted as valid the science of evolution since the 1950s.

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.5    last year

It only took them a hundred years or so to come around. Similar to the whole Galileo fiasco.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.4    last year

So?    Do all Muslims agree on everything?    How about Atheists?    It's obvious to the most casual of observers that they don't and never will.   It has more to do with human nature than anything else.    That said when over half of one group has a general concensus on something that IS a general concensus.

My whole point was this discussion has much to do with nothing but a general hatred for Christians and their faith.    No one group of anything is going to agree on everything.   Christians are no different.

I find the general cynicism in here towards Christianity to be very sophomoric and obtuse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.1.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.6    last year

It’s a very big ship, slow to turn.   But it turned and thus we can look at the smaller ships and ask what’s taking so long?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.7    last year
Do all Muslims agree on everything?

Is anyone complaining about all Christians?

No.

So what's the problem?  You say there are Christians who don't deny science, we AGREE, and you still want to argue?

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.9    last year
Is anyone complaining about all Christians?

Okay, got it.   Your point is that "some" Christians deny evolution and such.

Brilliant!   I never would have guessed that ...... /S

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.10    last year
Brilliant!   I never would have guessed that ...... /S

Then why do you keep emphasizing that Christianity is not monolithic on this point?  That has already been acknowledged, and, in fact, nobody ever claimed that it was.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.11    last year

Probably because that is not what I said.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.12    last year
No one group of anything is going to agree on everything.   Christians are no different.

Those are your words.  When I say Christianity is not monolithic, we are saying the same thing.

This article has nothing do do with hatred of all Christians.  TiG expressed his anger at one small group of Christians who are engaging in an attempt to discredit science.

We have repeatedly agreed that not all Christians do this, and we don't have a problem with the ones who don't.  If you do not understand that, it is not because of what we've said, but because of what you're determined to believe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.13    last year
... one small group of Christians who are engaging in an attempt to discredit science.

The blue part is the key.

This article is not about their religious view but rather their deliberate attempts to discredit science to keep those under their influence in check.    Ken Ham's group is a religious-based organization (YEC) but they could have been any religion.   The specific beliefs do not matter.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.13    last year
This article has nothing do do with hatred of all Christians.

My comments are pretty clear and concise if one isn't trying to mold them into something they were not intended to be.   That said i see i did use the word hatred once which might have been a little strong.   My first choice of "cynical" was probably more accurate to what i was trying to convey.

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.8    last year

Maybe the smaller ships are lost and keep going in circles, unable to catch up?

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.8    last year

Maybe the smaller ships are lost and keep going in circles, unable to catch up?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.15    last year

Whichever term you use, you accuse us of harboring such feelings toward Christians in general, and that is not so.

 
 
 
Sparty On
18.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @18.1.18    last year

Regardless of your attempts to obfuscate what I just said, the fact that Christianity gets singled out regularly here on NT in a negative manner only reinforces my point.

Any allusions that it doesn't is simply ignorant to that clear and present fact.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
18.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.19    last year

When Islam or Judaism start demanding taxpayer subsidies for "amusement parks" that deny science, we'll criticize them.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.1.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @18.1.19    last year
Christianity gets singled out regularly here on NT

Christianity is the largest category of religion on the planet.   In the USA - the largest Christian population in the world - 75% of the population identify as Christian.   Christianity's impact on the culture, laws and practices of this nation overwhelms that of any other category or religion.

Why would anyone find it odd that Christianity is talked about more than other religions (or categories) on a USA-based site?   

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
18.1.22  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @18.1.21    last year
Why would anyone find it odd that Christianity is talked about more than other religions (or categories) on a USA-based site?

I would imagine its due to a Persecution Complex - seems to be very common among a lot of people.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
19  A. Macarthur    last year

Why must there be an EITHER/OR "conclusion" … I believe it's relatively safe to say that "no one could possibly know with certainty, where the COSMOS/UNIVERSE, etc. BEGAN, or, if it actually "BEGAN" at all; that is, as human beings, upon what reference or empirical fact are we able to conceive of an entity that ALWAYS EXISTED, THAT HAD NO BEGINNING, THAT WAS NOT "CREATED," rather, that simply WAS AND IS AND WILL EXIST IN PERPETUITY!

Having prefaced what I am about to say/ask … IS IT NOT LOGICAL/REASONABLE TO CONCEDE THAT "CREATION" (if there was one) GAVE THE PRODUCT … ALL THE MATTER AND ENERGY AND SPACE THAT EXISTS, WHEREAS, POST-PRODUCT, "EVOLUTION" IF YOU WILL, IS A "PROCESS" … the ON-GOING, NEVER-ENDING REARRANGEMENT/MODIFICATION/TRANSITION/ADAPTATION/RECONFIGURATION, etc., of the elements of the PRODUCT ( generated via "Creation")?

IMO, a true scientist is easily able to accept my premise while searching objectively and honestly for the logistics and demonstrable truths of a universe whose origin is likely to be an eternal unsolved mystery; but, again, IMO, a religionist by virtue of his being one, creates (ironically), a faith-based milieu, not in search of truth, RATHER, IN TRYING TO SATISFY A NEED FOR OF A FEELING OF SECURITY IN AN INSECURE WORLD!

Science does not say "Believe me, trust me, have faith in what I tell you, don't question," -- SCIENCE SAYS, "Here is what I have found to be true based upon DEFINING A PROBLEM, HYPOTHESIZING AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE ITS SOLUTION, AND, EXPERIMENTATION LEADING TO A CONCLUSION."

But SCIENCE does not rest on its conclusions … it tests and retests them, allowing for correction or even eventual rejection!

Not so with religionist dogma.

My two cents.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
20  The Magic Eight Ball    last year
  • god is an alien genetic scientist. (life can be created/altered) = creation
  • god is the natural energy found in all things  (life chooses to exist on its own as well) = evolution

take your pick. both are correct :)

 
 
 
cjcold
20.1  cjcold  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @20    last year

And not sure why it matters either way.

 
 
 
cjcold
20.2  cjcold  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @20    last year

And not sure why it matters either way.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
21  Dignitatem Societatis    last year

If anyone is interested, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" has been mentioned in this discussion. It's quite simply an exercise in deceit by the Discovery Institute. They've managed to get a very tiny percentage of scientists, many from disciplines outside of biology, to sign a rather non-specific statement about "Darwinian Evolution", so they could hold it up as some kind of Earth-shattering evidence against evolution in their sickening attempt to undermine real science and promote Intelligent Design.

Here's some non-Discovery-Institute info about it:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - RationalWiki

And a response petition from National Center for Science Education to show how ridiculous the Discovery Institute's list is:

Project Steve - Wikipedia

Project Steve - RationalWiki

Just FYI...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dismayed Patriot
Willjay9
JohnRussell
devangelical
JumpDrive
Karri
Tacos!
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Texan1211


348 visitors