How do you explain that blind animals that live underground/deep underwater and have no need for eyesight, often times still have eye sockets?
How do you rationalize a Creator's decision to make sea creatures that can drown?
What purpose would a Creator have in putting appendixes and tailbones in humans?
Evolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it. Does Creationism have a logical answer that can beat Darwinism in the context of Occam's Razor?
Why is this in science, when your argument is about a creator?
Occams Razor is philosophical. It is not scientific.
Creationists might say vestigial adaptations are not adaptations at all, everything is the way god made it. The most simple reasoning for how plants and animals are the way they are is through intelligent design. Spontaneous creation. So, if you apply Occam's Razor, God wins.
And how do you explain away a heart, that if changed only slightly, will kill, not adapt?
QuoteEvolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it.
Not according to Dr. Liu, Harvard's "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative".
So far, they don't have a clue how life could exist without God creating it, but they're working on it.
David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
They started that project over six years ago to find "a very simple series of logical events."
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back ...
Still waiting ...
??? ...
So far, they don't even have a "could have"!
Quote from: IBeMe on May 03, 2013, 06:52:22 AM
Not according to Dr. Liu, Harvard's "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative".
So far, they don't have a clue how life could exist without God creating it, but they're working on it.
David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
They started that project over six years ago to find "a very simple series of logical events."
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back ...
Still waiting ...
??? ...
So far, they don't even have a "could have"!
:laugh:
Sounds exactly like the UN IPCC global warming initiative, all theory without proof.
Quote from: Solar on May 01, 2013, 06:58:08 PM
Why is this in science, when your argument is about a creator?
So you admit that creationism is not science?
That's a rather large blunder, even for you.
QuoteOccams Razor is philosophical. It is not scientific.
... :blink:
I'm just going to ignore this.
QuoteThe most simple reasoning for how plants and animals are the way they are is through intelligent design.
Wrong on at least two (very obvious) accounts.
1. Creationism postulates the existence of God, a being more complex than the entire universe by infinite orders of magnitude, and gives no explanation or evidence for his existence. This outstrips evolution by natural selection in complexity.
2. Occam's Razor refers to the most simplistic theory that
successfully explains the empirical data. Creationists have no explanation for vestigial organs or dinosaur fossils. Their theory, even if it were simpler, does not fit with observable evidence.
Quote from: JustKari on May 02, 2013, 09:21:22 AM
And how do you explain away a heart, that if changed only slightly, will kill, not adapt?
It's very simple; evolution is a very imperfect process that is bound by the laws of physics and can only make adaptations that arise from realistic mutations. You might as well ask why evolution does not make us sprout wings and fly.
But on that note, I can easily ask the same question for God, who has no such limitations; why does he make our bodies so fragile, to the point where babies can die before ever experiencing God or getting a chance to live?
Again, in the words of a real evolutionary scientist, working on the leading "Origins of Life" project;
David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
There's currently no working theory of how life could exist without God.
They're looking, but so far, no cigar.
Quote from: IBeMe on May 04, 2013, 09:25:08 AM
There's currently no working theory of how life could exist without God.
...yes, there is. It's been around for more than 150 years. >99% of geneticists and biologists with doctorates consistently indicate in polls support for evolution by natural selection. You obviously don't understand the quote you cite.
QuoteYou obviously don't understand the quote you cite.
David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
Oh, I undedstand it real well, it means they don't currently have an explanation of how life could exist without God creating it.
It's real simple.
It means they're looking for "could have" and expect to find "could have"; but currently they don't have a "could have".
Over six years later, still looking for "could have".
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 08:41:13 AM
So you admit that creationism is not science?
That's a rather large blunder, even for you.
No, you want it to be scientific, but every time you open your yap, it's to slam Religion.
Grow up Punk!
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 08:41:13 AM
So you admit that creationism is not science?
That's a rather large blunder, even for you.
... :blink:
I'm just going to ignore this.
Wrong on at least two (very obvious) accounts.
1. Creationism postulates the existence of God, a being more complex than the entire universe by infinite orders of magnitude, and gives no explanation or evidence for his existence. This outstrips evolution by natural selection in complexity.
2. Occam's Razor refers to the most simplistic theory that successfully explains the empirical data. Creationists have no explanation for vestigial organs or dinosaur fossils. Their theory, even if it were simpler, does not fit with observable evidence.
It's very simple; evolution is a very imperfect process that is bound by the laws of physics and can only make adaptations that arise from realistic mutations. You might as well ask why evolution does not make us sprout wings and fly.
But on that note, I can easily ask the same question for God, who has no such limitations; why does he make our bodies so fragile, to the point where babies can die before ever experiencing God or getting a chance to live?
Carbon dating is far from accurate, scientists have buried cans of soda pop, dug them up a year later, carbon dated them at thousands of years old.
Second, creationism does not discount dinosaurs, some Christians do not believe in dinosaurs, but the Bible does describe dinosaur type animals.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 01, 2013, 05:47:46 PM
How do you explain that blind animals that live underground/deep underwater and have no need for eyesight, often times still have eye sockets?
How do you rationalize a Creator's decision to make sea creatures that can drown?
What purpose would a Creator have in putting appendixes and tailbones in humans?
Evolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it. Does Creationism have a logical answer that can beat Darwinism in the context of Occam's Razor?
Can you clarify what you mean by "creationist"?
Quote from: Solar on May 04, 2013, 11:37:50 AM
No, you want it to be scientific, but every time you open your yap, it's to slam Religion.
Interesting accusation. Now feel free to cite where in the opening post I slam religion.
Quote from: IBeMe on May 04, 2013, 10:58:13 AM
David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
Oh, so you're appealing to the God of the Gaps mentality.
You won't accept Evolution until it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, yet you accept Creationism so long as it hasn't been
disproven beyond any shadow of a doubt. In other words, you conveniently have diametrically opposed standards of evidence for two competing theories, and given your preferred one every possible benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:22:51 AM
Interesting accusation. Now feel free to cite where in the opening post I slam religion.
Do you really think we're that stupid?
Your every post is a hatred of Religion.
Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 10:15:06 AM
Do you really think we're that stupid?
Your every post is a hatred of Religion.
Ah, so you've realized that you
can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. :lol:
Quote from: JustKari on May 04, 2013, 02:29:36 PM
Carbon dating is far from accurate, scientists have buried cans of soda pop, dug them up a year later, carbon dated them at thousands of years old.
Source please, and evidence that this is something other than an isolated incident as a result of poor methodology.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:35:34 PM
Ah, so you've realized that you can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. :lol:
I warned you about trolling and your OP is just that, a shot at Religion.
I have a feeling you are under the illusion you are smarter than most people, well I have news for you, you're not, you come off as an ass, you prove with every post you are the product of parents that told you, "you are special".
Well, you're not, you aren't even average, nothing but your run of the mill lib troll.
So either engage in real debate, not your "ask a question, to answer a question", but actual debate, toe to toe disputation, make your case without straw men, make your case for socialism/communism, but cut out the nonsense you try and pass off as debate, your time is running out.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:35:34 PM
Ah, so you've realized that you can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. :lol:
Source please, and evidence that this is something other than an isolated incident as a result of poor methodology.
This is not the exact article I read (I read it in college which was 15 years ago now) but it shows roughly the same issues and comes to the same conclusion as the article I read.
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html)
Quote from: Eyesabide on May 05, 2013, 12:33:03 PM
Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?
Well, see that's not so difficult. But
Darwinism specifies
unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.
Quote from: MFA on May 06, 2013, 03:17:42 PM
Darwinism specifies unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.
Great point MFA! Thank you for that perspective.
Quote from: MFA on May 06, 2013, 03:17:42 PM
Well, see that's not so difficult. But Darwinism specifies unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.
Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.
The OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided:
if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist. Why do humans have appendixes? Why can whales drown? Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.
Quote from: Eyesabide on May 05, 2013, 12:33:03 PM
Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?
Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes. I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 01:11:28 PM
Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.
The OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided: if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist. Why do humans have appendixes? Why can whales drown? Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.
Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes. I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence.
Since science has yet to even figure out what the appendix does, I would hold judgement on it's "proof" that there is no God. Perhaps it is very important in fetal development, but has served it's purpose once the baby is born? You don't know and neither does science.
Quote from: JustKari on May 10, 2013, 01:30:52 PM
You don't know and neither does science.
You're using the "god of the gaps" double standard here: demanding that science prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt and discrediting it whenever it fails, but giving religion the benefit of the doubt so long as every unsupported claim isn't
disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You would say "prove Evolution is true", and "prove Creationism is false", and not notice the blatant bias in this.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 01:54:47 PM
You're using the "god of the gaps" double standard here: demanding that science prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt and discrediting it whenever it fails, but giving religion the benefit of the doubt so long as every unsupported claim isn't disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You would say "prove Evolution is true", and "prove Creationism is false", and not notice the blatant bias in this.
And you claim to not be biased? You want debate, prove your point.
Quote from: JustKari on May 10, 2013, 02:04:14 PM
And you claim to not be biased?
I don't have widely different standards of evidence for evolution and creationism.
The former's supporters have spent millions of dollars doing intense genetics analysis, fossil digging, research, etc.
The latter's supporters have spread the word with an openly emotional argument: faith. Attempts at "Christian science" only constitute a very small portion of Christian missionary work; the rest is preaching. No attempt at empirical evidence.
But I find it interesting that you do not actually bother to deny my assertion.
I sometimes forget that I am mod here, I tried to quote SFF and deleted his post, I went back and put it back as it was. I apologize for the mistake.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 01:11:28 PM
Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.
It's completely accurate in its premise and what follows.
1) Darwinism specifies that evolution is unguided.
2) This can
never be scientifically verified. If "guidance" is not discovered, that is not evidence that guidance doesn't exist through an as-yet undiscovered mechanism. (Just like you cannot prove that "there is no God.")
3) Thus, the claim that evolution occurs without any guidance is a metaphysical claim (not a scientific claim).
QuoteThe OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided: if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist. Why do humans have appendixes? Why can whales drown? Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.
Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes. I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence.
Amateur design mistakes? Why? What does God have to prove to you about his Creation? Is he answerable to you? Are you going to sue him when a whale drowns?
Quote from: MFA on May 10, 2013, 04:40:18 PM
1) Darwinism specifies that evolution is unguided.
No, it just does not include a creator because such a variable is not needed to explain the evidence. In science, you don't add superfluous elements to a theory; hence, the principle of parsimony.
Quote
2) This can never be scientifically verified.
The absence of a creator is an "assertion" of omission, and need not be proven. This is like you claiming that the omission of Julius Caesar having a twin brother from most thesis's on the formation Roman Empire cannot be verified.
Quote
3) Thus, the claim that evolution occurs without any guidance is a metaphysical claim (not a scientific claim).
By that logic, my assumption that you are not a flying unicorn is a metaphysical claim, because I cannot verify this statement.
In reality, I can make this assumption and be certain of it to any reasonable standard, because the theory that you
are a flying unicorn involves an unnecessary and unsupported variable, and also fails to explain a host of questions, such as why you aren't on the news. Meanwhile, the theory that you are a human explains this just fine. Ergo, it is the better theory because;
1) It is simpler/it introduces no superfluous variables
2) It better explains the evidence
Quote
Amateur design mistakes? Why? What does God have to prove to you about his Creation? Is he answerable to you? Are you going to sue him when a whale drowns?
See, there you go with posting every possible evasion and sophistic rhetoric, rather than actually answering the damn point.
This has nothing to do with God having a "duty" to reveal something, or being "answerable" to me. You do realize that this is an issue of science, not legality, do you?
Now, I will repeat my point:
The theory that Evolution was intelligently guided
does not fit the evidence, because it does not explain the existence of vestigial organs and inefficiencies in animals and humans. Meanwhile, Evolution by natural selection has a very believable answer: natural selection is highly limited in that it is an unguided process, and therefore vestigial leftovers of previous evolutionary stages is not only understandable, but expected.
Intelligent guidance and intelligent design are two different concepts. Because God is perceived as perfect, it does not mean that all of creation is perfect by human standards. As an example; if a person finds the "perfect" acorn and plants it, the environment and way it is nurtured determine what the eventual outcome of its existence is.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 05:41:28 PM
No, it just does not include a creator because such a variable is not needed to explain the evidence. In science, you don't add superfluous elements to a theory; hence, the principle of parsimony.
Actually, no, it
specifies that there is no creator. It specifically
denies the existence of a creator or "guiding hand."
QuoteThe absence of a creator is an "assertion" of omission, and need not be proven. This is like you claiming that the omission of Julius Caesar having a twin brother from most thesis's on the formation Roman Empire cannot be verified.
You're right that it's an assertion of omission. But since an omission can
never be verified, what is it doing in a scientific theory?
QuoteBy that logic, my assumption that you are not a flying unicorn is a metaphysical claim, because I cannot verify this statement.
That's right. So if you formulated a scientific theory that included that statement, you'd have a problem then, wouldn't you?
QuoteIn reality, I can make this assumption and be certain of it to any reasonable standard, because the theory that you are a flying unicorn involves an unnecessary and unsupported variable, and also fails to explain a host of questions, such as why you aren't on the news. Meanwhile, the theory that you are a human explains this just fine. Ergo, it is the better theory because;
1) It is simpler/it introduces no superfluous variables
2) It better explains the evidence
See...now there's the problem. Introducing the word "unguided" into the theory is exactly the issue. The
mechanism is connected adaptation and genetics--i.e., natural selection. There's no way of determining whether or not it's guided or not.
QuoteSee, there you go with posting every possible evasion and sophistic rhetoric, rather than actually answering the damn point.
This has nothing to do with God having a "duty" to reveal something, or being "answerable" to me. You do realize that this is an issue of science, not legality, do you?
No, I'm actually addressing your presumption--that whatever God has made must not have made any "mistakes" in creation. I will admit that, given the statements of some young-earth creationists, your presumption has some merit. But I'm just calling it into question. Is it reasonable? What is it presuming?
QuoteNow, I will repeat my point:
The theory that Evolution was intelligently guided does not fit the evidence, because it does not explain the existence of vestigial organs and inefficiencies in animals and humans. Meanwhile, Evolution by natural selection has a very believable answer: natural selection is highly limited in that it is an unguided process, and therefore vestigial leftovers of previous evolutionary stages is not only understandable, but expected.
And the problem with this statement is that you are claiming to know and understand the
intention of a purported creator.
Furthermore, you say that evolution by natural selection is a "best fit." But up until now, it isn't. There are huge numbers of unanswered questions. It may very well be the best naturalistic fit. That doesn't make it the best fit.
MFA, I appreciate it that you're actually attempting a point by point rebuttal, rather than responding to a vague generalization of my post.
Quote from: MFA on May 11, 2013, 07:40:12 AM
Actually, no, it specifies that there is no creator. It specifically denies the existence of a creator or "guiding hand."
You're right that it's an assertion of omission. But since an omission can never be verified, what is it doing in a scientific theory?
You're playing with semantics here. OK, the absence of a creator cannot be denied with absolute certainty (although you seem to have the false impression that any scientific theory must be proven with absolute certainty). Fine. That doesn't change the fact that the existence of a creator is higher improbable, unsupportable and without any sort of logical or scientific merit.
But going back to the OP, if creationists want to make their religion into a science, they have the burden of proof to actively explain evidence that contradicts their own model, and explain how intelligent design better fits the principle of parsimony.
Quote
That's right. So if you formulated a scientific theory that included that statement, you'd have a problem then, wouldn't you?
I would for entirely unrelated reasons, that is, that anybody who publishes a paper on the lack of flying unicorns on Mars is probably on drugs.
But I would certainly not object to the theory on the grounds of it being
wrong, because it surely isn't.
Quote
See...now there's the problem. Introducing the word "unguided" into the theory is exactly the issue. The mechanism is connected adaptation and genetics--i.e., natural selection. There's no way of determining whether or not it's guided or not.
OK, I'll repeat myself again. Nothing can be "determined" beyond a shadow of a doubt in science. However, unguided evolution better fits the evidence by a very clear and convincing margin than guided evidence, because:
1. It introduces no superfluous elements
2. It introduces no supernatural phenomena
3. It explains vestigial adaptations
4. It explains experiments demonstrating that micro-scale evolution can occur within human lifespans without direct manipulation
5. It explains why evolution is such a slow and conditional process
So the statement:
"There is definitely no divine plan behind evolution."
Is
technically incorrect. We should say:
"The probability of there being a divine plan behind evolution is infinitesimally small."
So please drop the semantics argument.
Quote
No, I'm actually addressing your presumption--that whatever God has made must not have made any "mistakes" in creation. I will admit that, given the statements of some young-earth creationists, your presumption has some merit. But I'm just calling it into question. Is it reasonable? What is it presuming?
I'm assuming that you believe God to be perfect and benevolent. So explain why he'd design a female body that can miscarry, or parasitic insects that slowly eat animals alive.
Quote
And the problem with this statement is that you are claiming to know and understand the intention of a purported creator.
Using this logic, you could simply dismiss any argument, no matter how reasonable, against your theory by saying that "God works in mysterious ways".
Quote
Furthermore, you say that evolution by natural selection is a "best fit." But up until now, it isn't. There are huge numbers of unanswered questions. It may very well be the best naturalistic fit. That doesn't make it the best fit.
These "unanswered questions" hardly compare to the inability of any creationist on this board to even attempt to explain a simple question.
Amazing, the fact that we even exist, is proof of creation of some kind, yet Atheists simply can't see the forest fore the trees.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:46:43 AM
MFA, I appreciate it that you're actually attempting a point by point rebuttal, rather than responding to a vague generalization of my post.
Why, thank you! :smile:
QuoteYou're playing with semantics here. OK, the absence of a creator cannot be denied with absolute certainty (although you seem to have the false impression that any scientific theory must be proven with absolute certainty). Fine. That doesn't change the fact that the existence of a creator is higher improbable, unsupportable and without any sort of logical or scientific merit.
Maybe, maybe not. But even though a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven with absolute certainty (it simply needs to be a "best fit" a là logical positivism), it's unfalsifiable to assert that evolution, but definition, is unguided. It's not a scientific statement. That's my point.
QuoteBut going back to the OP, if creationists want to make their religion into a science, they have the burden of proof to actively explain evidence that contradicts their own model, and explain how intelligent design better fits the principle of parsimony.
You're right. Some religious people would say that science and religion answer different questions. Others say that science and religion, when done right, are in harmony (more specifically, that both science and religion are interpretation, a fallible process). I would lead towards the second. But if someone does want to "make their religion into a science," then yes, they do have the burden of proof to explain the evidence.
QuoteI would for entirely unrelated reasons, that is, that anybody who publishes a paper on the lack of flying unicorns on Mars is probably on drugs.
But I would certainly not object to the theory on the grounds of it being wrong, because it surely isn't.
But I didn't say that it was "wrong." I said it was a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one. Could be right
or wrong. But it's not "science."
QuoteOK, I'll repeat myself again. Nothing can be "determined" beyond a shadow of a doubt in science. However, unguided evolution better fits the evidence by a very clear and convincing margin than guided evidence, because:
1. It introduces no superfluous elements
2. It introduces no supernatural phenomena
3. It explains vestigial adaptations
4. It explains experiments demonstrating that micro-scale evolution can occur within human lifespans without direct manipulation
5. It explains why evolution is such a slow and conditional process
So the statement:
"There is definitely no divine plan behind evolution."
Is technically incorrect. We should say:
"The probability of there being a divine plan behind evolution is infinitesimally small."
So please drop the semantics argument.
I'm assuming that you believe God to be perfect and benevolent. So explain why he'd design a female body that can miscarry, or parasitic insects that slowly eat animals alive.
Using this logic, you could simply dismiss any argument, no matter how reasonable, against your theory by saying that "God works in mysterious ways".
These "unanswered questions" hardly compare to the inability of any creationist on this board to even attempt to explain a simple question.
I believe God to be perfect and benevolent. I don't believe this requires that his biological creation is necessarily "perfect," whatever that even means.
I also believe that evolution
by itself has such huge questions to answer that addressing the basic mechanisms is certainly valid.
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 11:12:14 AM
Amazing, the fact that we even exist, is proof of creation of some kind
By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...
This is basic logical reasoning, which you yet again fail to grasp in even the most superficial contexts.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...
Only if you hold to some inferior definition of "God."
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...
This is basic logical reasoning, which you yet again fail to grasp in even the most superficial contexts.
I'll play. So you admit them, that there is a Creator, or God for reference?
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
I'll play. So you admit them, that there is a Creator, or God for reference?
No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).
But I'll play too. Let's just assume that there is a creator. Who created this creator?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 01:22:49 PM
No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).
But I'll play too. Let's just assume that there is a creator. Who created this creator?
Good question, one that is beyond mans ability to comprehend.
If we knew the answer, would that not take the mystery out of life itself?
Seriously, I'm not asking for an answer, just theory, in that if man knew the purpose behind life, would it not change the entire aspect?
Like why am I here, when life is better where I came from. Or, I can steal, rape, murder with impunity, because I know there will be no consequences when I leave.
Or, knowing that the punishment is so severe, that it would hamper his ability to take risks, for fear of reprisal.
Point is, were not supposed to know, that would remove the drive to discover all that life has to offer, would it not?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 01:22:49 PM
No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).
But I'll play too. Let's just assume that there is a creator. Who created this creator?
What makes you think a creator "must" be created?
It is irrelevant if there is a God of God. That is, until the existence of God is accepted.
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 01:54:20 PM
Good question, one that is beyond mans ability to comprehend.
If we knew the answer, would that not take the mystery out of life itself?
You claim to not know the origins of the universe, yet, assuming you are religious...you claim to know the origins of the universe. :rolleyes:
Of course, your "I don't know!" appeal to ignorance is only pulled out when it's convenient.
Quote
Like why am I here, when life is better where I came from. Or, I can steal, rape, murder with impunity, because I know there will be no consequences when I leave.
A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that. You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works. That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.
Quote
Point is, were not supposed to know, that would remove the drive to discover all that life has to offer, would it not?
There is plenty in life to discover outside of whether or not a deity exists (even though, hypocritically enough, Christians claim to know this with
more certainty than atheists). I am fairly certain that there is no God, but I still learn something new every day.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 06:59:44 PM
A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that. You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works. That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.
No, someone shouldn't (and doesn't) need eternal reward or punishment to do "good works."
However, if God doesn't exist, you have a pretty tough time defining what "good" is (unless by "good" you simply mean "my preference").
Quote from: MFA on May 11, 2013, 07:06:12 PM
No, someone shouldn't (and doesn't) need eternal reward or punishment to do "good works."
However, if God doesn't exist, you have a pretty tough time defining what "good" is (unless by "good" you simply mean "my preference").
Interesting argument.
Name a single moral philosophy espoused by the bible that you couldn't defend using secular morality.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 07:10:33 PM
Interesting argument.
Name a single moral philosophy espoused by the bible that you couldn't defend using secular morality.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about "morality as contained in the Bible." We're talking about the necessity of a transcendent being for the existence of morality.
I think you understand this, that you are stuck, and you're trying to distract with an irrelevant tangent.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 06:59:44 PM
You claim to not know the origins of the universe, yet, assuming you are religious...you claim to know the origins of the universe. :rolleyes:
Of course, your "I don't know!" appeal to ignorance is only pulled out when it's convenient.
A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that. You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works. That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.
There is plenty in life to discover outside of whether or not a deity exists (even though, hypocritically enough, Christians claim to know this with more certainty than atheists). I am fairly certain that there is no God, but I still learn something new every day.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.
I pose a spiritual question, and you claim it's Religious dogma? What an pitiful little man you are, it was a serious question, one obviously well beyond your comprehension.
So you're claiming you know more about our origins than I do, is that your claim, because if it is, you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
You may have spent your spiritual years combating Religion and the existence of God, but son, I passed that crap decades ago, and ventured into questioning our sole existence, and for me, I found an answer, and believe me, you are missing out on a huge part of life.
Though I do pity you in a sense, you stagnated long ago when you refused to open your mind and look beyond the little room of walls you've created to protect your idled view of life, like that of a scared little child.
I have no idea what the real answer is, but I do know there is an energy waiting to be tapped, another realm that will blow your mind, if only you are willing to open your mind and enter it.
Some call it God, others believe it's the love of Jesus, some even refer to it as the force or electricity, maybe they are all correct, but regardless, it is what gave me complete happiness and allowed me to retire in my early 40s.
Can your religion do that, can you claim total fulfillment through your belief system, were you able to achieve your every dream, every goal, accomplish everything you wanted and more than you ever could have dreamed possible?
Well I did, and I give all the credit to God, that's right, God, I asked his guidance everyday of my life as far back as I can remember, and I never questioned it once, and my life has exceeded my wildest expectations.
Yes, I pity you because you are so closed minded that you are not willing to accept that there is an energy more powerful than you can imagine, just waiting to help you, and ask nothing in return other than being true to yourself and others you come in contact with.
That is proof enough for me that God does exist.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:46:43 AM
MFA, I appreciate it that you're actually attempting a point by point rebuttal, rather than responding to a vague generalization of my post.
You're playing with semantics here. OK, the absence of a creator cannot be denied with absolute certainty (although you seem to have the false impression that any scientific theory must be proven with absolute certainty). Fine. That doesn't change the fact that the existence of a creator is higher improbable, unsupportable and without any sort of logical or scientific merit.
But going back to the OP, if creationists want to make their religion into a science, they have the burden of proof to actively explain evidence that contradicts their own model, and explain how intelligent design better fits the principle of parsimony.
Then please read Signature in the Cell and the works of William lane Craig just as Christians read Richard Dawkin, if you want to debate the topic then read the material. Because it is obvious you have never read Intelligent Design. Saying something is without logical or scientific merit without offering proof puts the burden of evidence on you.
And define your terms mister. Are you arguing against a general indefinable/inconclusive concept of creationism or the actual philosophy of intelligent design? because these are two different concepts.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:46:43 AM
I would for entirely unrelated reasons, that is, that anybody who publishes a paper on the lack of flying unicorns on Mars is probably on drugs.
zzzz yes yes drawing an analogy by using a ridiclous humerous statement in order to question the integrity of your opposition.. very mature indeed.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:46:43 AM
I'm assuming that you believe God to be perfect and benevolent. So explain why he'd design a female body that can miscarry, or parasitic insects that slowly eat animals alive.
God never designed this universe to be without danger, his benevolence comes only if you follow his way.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:46:43 AM
Using this logic, you could simply dismiss any argument, no matter how reasonable, against your theory by saying that "God works in mysterious ways".
These "unanswered questions" hardly compare to the inability of any creationist on this board to even attempt to explain a simple question.
I love how you militant new atheist love to use the
"God works in mysterious ways" cliche as an argument. It is a very good rethorical technique used by politicians to put statements in your opponents mouth, debunk it and claim victory :laugh: Please watch some debates between atheists and intelligent design professors, and read the books if you are really interested. Or run away again, whatever you choose is same for me.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 02:07:41 PM
But I find it interesting that you do not actually bother to deny my assertion.
I sometimes forget that I am mod here, I tried to quote SFF and deleted his post, I went back and put it back as it was. I apologize for the mistake.
Of course not, that would be a lie. Of course I am biased, I love the Lord whom I serve.
And concerning proof of a theory.
Show me an example of documented observed evolution where one species evolve into another species and that is not just changes within species. Keep in mind posting examples of historical intermediate forms between species are just still just hypothesis of how that species came to be and not scientific proof as it has not been observed or replicated.
Quote from: JustKari on May 13, 2013, 08:19:50 AM
I sometimes forget that I am mod here, I tried to quote SFF and deleted his post, I went back and put it back as it was. I apologize for the mistake.
Been there, done that. :blush:
Which is why I seldom use admin mode, to easy to screw up the entire forum. :unsure:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...
This is basic logical reasoning, which you yet again fail to grasp in even the most superficial contexts.
When did the universe begin?
Quote from: taxed on May 19, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
When did the universe begin?
Libs were told they are the center of the universe.
Each and everyone of them were told they were special, all 100 million of them believe they are chosen for bigger things in life, but without a belief in God, this makes them question and despise those that raised them.
How can one be special, if there is no God?
But there is no God, therefore I'm not special, I was lied to!
It's quite the conundrum they live with, thinking they're special, yet believe there is nothing special about life.
It's akin to believing you're the smartest kid in the school, only to find out it was a school ffor the mentally retarded.
I think what irritates them the most, is that we know our purpose in life, where we came from and where we're going.
They are clueless wanderers looking for an answer, when all they have to do is lose the hatred.
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2013, 05:42:24 PM
Libs were told they are the center of the universe.
Each and everyone of them were told they were special, all 100 million of them believe they are chosen for bigger things in life, but without a belief in God, this makes them question and despise those that raised them.
How can one be special, if there is no God?
But there is no God, therefore I'm not special, I was lied to!
It's quite the conundrum they live with, thinking they're special, yet believe there is nothing special about life.
It's akin to believing you're the smartest kid in the school, only to find out it was a school ffor the mentally retarded.
I think what irritates them the most, is that we know our purpose in life, where we came from and where we're going.
They are clueless wanderers looking for an answer, when all they have to do is lose the hatred.
I concur, in addition to this feeling of privilege and that this life is all there is I can see from their selfish point of view that they think society and indeed the universe owes them a good life. If this life is all there is then why all the strife? Why all the hard work just to attain what is to them a "right" granted to them, i.e housing, food, clothes these are things to be taken for granted and not worked for. Because life is short what is the point of enduring hardship just to die in the end without any reward?
Better there is a planetary bureaucracy to ensure that every human get essential goods and housing to live a good life free of hardship no?
Socialists are the most selfish people you can meet, they talk about safety net for others but what they really want is protection for themselves at the expense of other
(though some actually do think inflation is a non-issue)
Quote from: Mountainshield on May 20, 2013, 06:05:38 AM
I concur, in addition to this feeling of privilege and that this life is all there is I can see from their selfish point of view that they think society and indeed the universe owes them a good life. If this life is all there is then why all the strife? Why all the hard work just to attain what is to them a "right" granted to them, i.e housing, food, clothes these are things to be taken for granted and not worked for. Because life is short what is the point of enduring hardship just to die in the end without any reward?
Better there is a planetary bureaucracy to ensure that every human get essential goods and housing to live a good life free of hardship no?
Socialists are the most selfish people you can meet, they talk about safety net for others but what they really want is protection for themselves at the expense of other (though some actually do think inflation is a non-issue)
Couldn't agree more. God and culture is the only barrier that stands in the way of socialism/communism, it's why we have a culture that believes homo sexuality is wrong and should never be legitimized, why a work ethic and self preservation is so important, a 2nd Amendment, without it, socialists get a foot hold.
No one cares if someone doesn't want to believe in God, but they also have no right to insist he be removed from the public square, to do so, allows the communists a toe hold in the American culture.