There is no Creation Debate

[tiglathpileser]

Since atheism is not a religion it seems that you are merely ranting against a concept that you disagree with. When I see what looks like an ad-hom attack I have to wonder about the motives of the poster. "Sceintism" is almost always a false charge by those that do not understand science against others that do. What do you mean by " Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. "? Science properly understood has refuted pretty much all of the first two books of the Bible. That of course does not mean that there is no God. It only means the obvious, that there are flaws in the Bible. Now if I wanted to be nasty I cold point out that many Christians make a false idol of the Bible and call that "biblism". But let's try to be reasonable here.

You really must catch up on the news. last time I read it atheism has 35 churches and there is another 15 in the pipeline. At the same time it has applied for religious tax exemption for their organisation. By any stretch of the imagination that sounds like a religion.

Science has done no such thing that is why the teaching of the truth of biblical creation is coming back into schools.

 

[The Cadet]

Science has done no such thing that is why the teaching of the truth of biblical creation is coming back into schools.

You mean like in Dover County, where a school got the pants sued off them for trying to sneak it in under a scientific moniker?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Certain claims can be debunked. If you claim that life was created only 6,000 years ago or so and started with one man and one woman that claim can be debunked. If you claim that there was a worldwide flood, that claim can be debunked. If you claim that life is not a product of evolution that claim can be debunked. When you make a specific claim those claims can often be refuted. What are your beliefs? I may be able to explain to you how they have been refuted.

Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.

I challenge you to provide this evidence and not turn it into a philosophical debate.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You mean like in Dover County, where a school got the pants sued off them for trying to sneak it in under a scientific moniker?

Not al all. The school district has said both are to be taught and the kids are allowed to make their own minds up as to what is true.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You have no valid evidence that he existed, let alone been executed. And no evidence at all that he defied the laws of nature by resurrecting. All you have is blind faith.

And you have no evidence that he did not exist. You have no evidence that he was not crucified and you have no evidence that he did not resurrect. Even writers of the day who were not christians admit to these things happening.

 

[tiglathpileser]

There is even more scientific evidence to show it is impossible or at least very very very unlikely. Creation is the logical view. Otherwise you have to believe in dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

Roger Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it was more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, said that evolution demands a suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales.

 

[SteveB28]

And you have no evidence that he did not exist.

This is so tedious. Learn this carefully:

If you make a claim, the responsibility lies with you to provide the evidence to support your claim!

It is known most commonly as 'the burden of proof'.

People like yourself fail to carry this burden. You make outlandish claims and then, displaying a dishonest intellect, you demand that it is the person who will not accept your claim that must provide the evidence!

You have no evidence that he was not crucified and you have no evidence that he did not resurrect.

And nor do I have evidence that our sun was not vomited into existence by a sun-producing goblin! Does my absence of such evidence make it likely that it is nothing more than vomitus shining down on me??

Even writers of the day who were not christians admit to these things happening.

Writers of which "day"? Certainly not of the time when these events are claimed to have occurred.

 

[The Cadet]

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

Our knowledge of the geologic column. If there was a global flood within the last 10,000 years, we should be able to look at the geologic column essentially anywhere on earth and find a very recent layer made up of the kinds of silts we find in flood deposits. We don't find this. There are a great many places on earth that simply have not been subjected to flooding at any point in the last 10,000 years. This is just one of many examples of how the flood story falls flat. Want another?

Not al all. The school district has said both are to be taught and the kids are allowed to make their own minds up as to what is true.

Huh?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

And, more importantly:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

Courts have constantly and consistently found that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional. If your school district is teaching creationism next to actual science, then they should expect a lawsuit.

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, said that evolution demands a suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales.

Is this the same David Berlinski who made the asinine argument about how many changes would be required to turn a cow into a whale, which completely falls apart under even the most cursory examination? I'm not sure why we should take him seriously. Or, indeed, any mathematical arguments that evolution is "improbable".

Everything is improbable. How likely is it that you were born? If every event in the universe hadn't happened exactly as it did up to your birth, you wouldn't be here to talk about it. We can't work backwards like this when it comes to the probability of established events, because while a specific thing is improbable, something is essentially guaranteed. His calculations in that argument I mentioned earlier really are just that simplistic - "It's phenomenally improbable that all of these things would have happened in precisely that order, therefore it can't have happened." But that's not how it works. If those things hadn't happened in precisely that order, we wouldn't have whales... We'd have something else entirely. It's hugely improbably that any given four lottery winners would have won the lottery. But if they hadn't, someone else would have.

It's worth noting that neither Berlinski nor Penrose has any expertise in biology, and thus their opinions on the subject of evolution are merely the opinions of a layperson and nothing more. You might as well ask a literature professor his opinion.

Also, how the heck do you get a subzero probability? Yeesh.

 

[SteveB28]

Roger Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it was more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

In that case, either Mr Penrose, or yourself, or both, have absolutely no idea of the manner in which probabilities are calculated!

Please enlighten us as to the means by which we can have a probability "less likely than zero"!?

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, said that evolution demands a suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales.

What a shame for Mr Berlinski, all those tons of evidence laughing squarely in his face!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will have to correct me if I am wrong but I didn't think that atheists believe in absolutes. That being the case, you cannot say we lost over 100 years ago. We lost what may I ask? And these last few weeks I have noticed that the truth of creation is slowly being introduced back into schools again.

Sorry, but you will not find an atheist that says 2 + 2 = 5. That is down playing how wrong the lunacy of creationism is. And sadly yes, some teachers are breaking the law in various schools. The fact that someone is breaking the law does not make it right. Sooner or later this will have to go to court again and once again the creationists will lose. They always lose in court because there is not reliable evidence that supports their beliefs.

But now seriously, you can't believe in creationism, can you? There is no truth to it so if you love the truth you would hate that lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really must catch up on the news. last time I read it atheism has 35 churches and there is another 15 in the pipeline. At the same time it has applied for religious tax exemption for their organisation. By any stretch of the imagination that sounds like a religion.

Science has done no such thing that is why the teaching of the truth of biblical creation is coming back into schools.

Those are groups of atheists. That does not make atheism a religion. There may be a groups of housewives that get together on Sundays because their husbands are glued to the television watching football. Those groups would not make not watching football a sport and those atheist groups do not make atheism a religion.

You really need to work on your logic skills. People here can help you. When you don't understand ask you should ask questions politely. So far you have been asking questions but your attitude is not quite as polite as it should be when you are obviously wrong.

 

[Oafman]

Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.

I saw all of this in high school. Were you homeschooled?

And you have no evidence that he did not exist. You have no evidence that he was not crucified and you have no evidence that he did not resurrect. Even writers of the day who were not christians admit to these things happening.

Those making the affirmative claim must support it with evidence. Otherwise, we're left assuming that everything that could be true is true, until shown otherwise, and that's silly.

Roger Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it was more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

He doesn't sound like much of a mathematician!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.

But life was never created, it probably arose through natural means. Did you just see what I said about asking questions politely? This was not polite.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.

All of the scientific evidence supports that idea, but a quick one for you would be the fact that the lack of a all but extinction level population bottleneck is missing from mankind's DNA alone tells us that that did not happen.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

Ice floats. There you go. You probably do not understand how this simple fact debunks the flood. There are hundreds of thousands of years of ice at the ice caps that would have been destroyed in a worldwide flood.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.

Again, every single bit of scientific evidence on the subject debunks the creation story. You are either ignorant of that fact or won't let yourself understand the evidence.

I challenge you to provide this evidence and not turn it into a philosophical debate.

Who is trying to turn this into a philosophical debate? Please, don't make false accusations. If you will let yourself learn you will see why you are wrong. But I have a feeling that your fear of reality will not let this happen.

 

[In situ]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

Science does not discuss creation - people do - since it is not a topic for science but region. The only one that believes creationism has a ligimit place in science is creationists themselves - and it is not because they think it is science, or even care about science, but it is used as tool to put their religious agenda onto everyone - in particular children that does not have the knowledge to judge for themselves yet. I say this as a first hand observation of what creationists themselves have written on their own propaganda website.

About the "limitations"of science. It is thanks to science you got electricity... That is the "limitations" of science, now what have creationism ever done for humanity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Roger Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it was more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

I have doubts about that. Penrose seems to accept the theory of evolution. I would like to see a proper quote that supports this claim.

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, said that evolution demands a suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales.

Now this may be true. Outside of his areas of expertise Berlinski is a bit of an idiot. His arguments against evolution are so poor that a high school student can refute them.

What you just did was to slander one man and attempt to use both of them in an appeal to authority fallacy. I don't say "My car needs premium gas, I know because my doctor told me so." That is a false appeal to authority. My doctor is not an authority on cars. The two people you mentioned are not authorities on the science that they supposed do not like.

 

[In situ]

Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.

When you say "the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago", it suggest that you do not know what a fact is. Your statement also implies that you do not understand what is meant with 'evidence'.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.

It is kind of pointless to try to present evidence to a person that does not know what a fact is.

 

[In situ]

Roger Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it was more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

I doubt that Penrose ever claimed that, so I request your reference to this claim.

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician, said that evolution demands a suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales.

Berlinski does not impress on me at all. He is a known leading creationists. He works for the Discovery Institute, and the Discovery Institutes biased religious agenda is well known; if science does not agree with their interpretation of the bible then the science must be wrong. The discocvery institute does not worship god, but the Bible - they are guilty of the first sin according to Christian doctrines.

And to what Berlinski said. Why should we care about what he said, do you think it true just because he said it is so or what else did he have to add to it?

That said I do not need any belief what soever to accept the fact that evolution takes place, since it is

it is an observed fact that selection operates in nature.
it is an observed fact that parent pass traits to their offsprings.
it is an observed fact that resources are limited and cannot sustain all new born.
it is an observed fact that all of life (including the fossil record) forms a nested set

In other words, evolution is an observed fact and is not dependent on any beliefs.

That Berlinski pretends this are not facts and claims it to be "fairy tales" is just an dishonest statement on his religious biased part...

 

[In situ]

Outside of his areas of expertise Berlinski is a bit of an idiot.

I wanted to use the word "idiot'" about Berlinski as well, but restrained myself, because once I start going about the lies and distortions of science leading creationist ilks makes there is no end to it...

 

[In situ]

[Penrose] doesn't sound like much of a mathematician!

Roger Penrose is a well know theoretical physicists. While he have written some nonsense about consciousness, I doubt he would make up such nonsensese about the theory of evolution. What is more likely is that the claim he done this is referring to some quote mining of Penrose or it is just made up stuff. Both of these methods are commonly used by creationists to "prove" their own case.

 

[Oafman]

Roger Penrose is a well know theoretical physicists. While he have written some nonsense about consciousness, I doubt he would make up such nonsensese about the theory of evolution. What is more likely is that the claim he done this is referring to some quote mining of Penrose or it is just made up stuff. Both of these methods are commonly used by creationists to "prove" their own case.

I was merely highlighting the absurdity of the claim that a mathematician had calculated the probability of something to be 'less than zero'. I have no doubt that this is not what he said.