• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
First sentence was correct: ... there is a circumstance by which intelligence doesn't have to be given by a higher intelligence... a circumstance (singular), only known circumstance is God Himself. Outside of God, there is no intelligence that arises from nothing without intelligence being given first by a higher intelligence.
These are all unfounded claims. You have yet to explain emergent intelligence we see in the fossil record (both in cranial capacity and improvement tool creation and usage in hominids) and/or demonstrate your God that has always existed with said omni-intelligence, and/or that intelligence can only be brought about by a higher intelligence. You've not demonstrated any of this. Your assertions are of the same calibre as a Hindu's assertions of their Gods and creation narrative, or for that matter, any religion's version of anything.
Satan wasn't thinking, he was rebelling.
Again, why would Satan be rebelling with full knowledge of God's omnipotence, and while in Heaven to boot? Would/could human souls be doing this too?
Everything else here is a repetition of the evolutionary paradigm, which I am familiar with this paradigm and what it believes (albeit without being able to demonstrate as such - but that's just my view as a creationist).

My interest here is less on trying to convince anyone that biblical creationism is true, but rather that God Himself exists (whether you believe in evolution or not). One does not have to believe evolution is false to believe God is real.
I agree. God is the penultimate million-dollar question and is a stand alone question irrelevant to the facts of evolution - I'm not at all convinced you are familiar with biological evolution though, given what you've claimed so far. It's good to see you're honest about your goal (for which you ought to be commended) - but this being the case, why are you fighting facts and evidence that completely supports the Theory of Evolution with unsupported assertions about these paradoxical ideas of intelligence only coming from a higher intelligence, when literally all the evidence we have goes against it?

This doesn't bode well for your ascribed goal... If you don't mind my asking, is the truth of an idea you have, or position you hold, actually important to you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, that’s the thing, ToE requires time and study before one begins to understand it. Creationism OTOH, is taught by in Sunday school by volunteers to ten year olds in an hour.

For those who can’t be bothered or have the aptitude, goddidit is sufficient.

God: My invisible force.
Natural Selection: Your invisible force.

We both credit our invisible forces for making stuff. But my force doesn't screw around with itsy bitsy changes over gazillions of years. :bow:

It's true that I can't be bothered as I'm using my aptitude for more productive pursuits (for me that is). I still enjoy arguing about it however. ;)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,313
52,682
Guam
✟5,165,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, that’s the thing, ToE requires time and study before one begins to understand it.
Sure it does.

You remove God from the picture, and you'll end up having to work harder (Big Bang) and longer (Deep Time) to reach the same conclusion about how the universe came about.

Then a little child should tell you you're wrong.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sure it does.

You remove God from the picture...
Nobody did any such thing, God is not even addressed in the ToE, and "Magic" can answer anything as well as your particular God of your particular creation myth - does that make "Magic" right?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,313
52,682
Guam
✟5,165,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nobody did any such thing, God is not even addressed in the ToE, and "Magic" can answer anything as well as your particular God of your particular creation myth - does that make "Magic" right?
Well if magic can answer them, think what miracles can do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleMouse
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well if magic can answer them, think what miracles can do.
well, same thing, so all over it. Mind you, I don't take any stock in either bedtime story, tbh...
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sure it does.

You remove God from the picture, and you'll end up having to work harder (Big Bang) and longer (Deep Time) to reach the same conclusion about how the universe came about.

Then a little child should tell you you're wrong.
See what I mean.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
These are all unfounded claims. You have yet to explain emergent intelligence we see in the fossil record (both in cranial capacity and improvement tool creation and usage in hominids) and/or demonstrate your God that has always existed with said omni-intelligence, and/or that intelligence can only be brought about by a higher intelligence. You've not demonstrated any of this. Your assertions are of the same calibre as a Hindu's assertions of their Gods and creation narrative, or for that matter, any religion's version of anything.
Isn't it precious - the creationist thinks that they can arbitrarily suspend or alter or ignore their own rules/criteria as it suits them, so long as doing so props up their failed cause and rescues their child-like notions of "logic."

'All Effects must have a Cause'
'What caused God'
'God is eternal and needs no cause'
'Why not?'
'Because He is God'
VOILA! Creationist logic.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
God: My invisible force.
Natural Selection: Your invisible force.

We both credit our invisible forces for making stuff. But my force doesn't screw around with itsy bitsy changes over gazillions of years. :bow:

It's true that I can't be bothered as I'm using my aptitude for more productive pursuits (for me that is). I still enjoy arguing about it however. ;)
Unlike your made-up invisible force, the effects of Natural Selection are not only measurable, but the more intelligent creationists that do not lie about their IQs accept it as reality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
First, let us clear up the accusations of dishonesty. Let me give you an example: Everybody agrees that atoms contain protons. Now I can define "proton" any way I want, being as it's a free country, so I define "protons" as "invisible purple pixies." Then I go on to quote many secular physicists as asserting that atoms contain protons and point to that that as support for my claim that atoms contain invisible purple pixies. Do you see why doubts about my honesty might arise, given that these physicists define protons as hadrons made up of three quarks, not invisible purple pixies--especially if that definition supports my religious views and is only used by me and my coreligionists?

As to the difference between Shannon and Gitt, there is an important distinction to keep in mind between "message" and "information." Shannon originally developed his theory while working at Bell Labs on a particular problem. Sending information through a communication channel costs money. If the amount of information sent can be reduced without corrupting the message encoded into it then money can be saved, so you can see that the distinction is important. Shannon's information can be quantified as being proportional to the size of the algorithm required to reproduce it. For example, a transmitted long string of the letter A, AAAAA... can be reproduced at the other end of the line by merely sending the algorithm "repeat A" and so requires very little information to be sent. On the other hand, a long string of random letters, FCMUKL... can only be reproduced by repeating the whole string, which is the maximum amount of information. Shannon discovered that meaningful content (a "message") is arbitrary to information content; a string of dots and dashes with a message encoded does not necessarily contain the same amount of information as the same message encoded into a different symbol system.

Think on that a little; I have to keep this short because I am sitting in a meeting I am supposed to be paying attention to, but the thing with Gitt is that he has confounded "message" and "information." The other thing is that he has included "purpose" in his definition, but the presence of purpose is unfalsifiable and thus has no place in a scientific definition, either to confirm or deny it.
Excellent explanation.
On the biological end, I always find it interesting that these "information" mongering creationists - Gitt included - cannot tell us anything about the "purpose" or "message" or "meaning" in a sequence of DNA until a biologist tells them what that sequence of DNA is - is it a gene, is it intergenic DNA, is it ...'. IOW - their whole 'DNA = language = information = Jesus' routine is mere post hoc rationalization premised on inapt analogies and wishful thinking. I cannot count the number of times I have encountered Gitt/Dembski/Marks spewing creationists and upon providing a sequence of DNA and asking them to tell me how much information it possesses and what message it carries am met with indignant declarations that I must first tell them what the sequence is.
This is akin to a person declaring that they are in possession of a device that can add numbers together like magic, and you asking him to tell you what 5+6 is, and him saying "Well, YOU first have to tell me what the sum actually is, THEN I can have my adding machine give you the answer!"

For the YEC/information types - if an insertion occurs in a gene's promoter/enhancer region, and this produces an increase in gene expression which confers a benefit to the organism - does that count as an 'increase' in information? Why or why not?

If it is, then the notion about 'corrupting' the message decreasing information is false.

If not, then the whole 'an increase in information if required for beneficial outcomes' is moot.

This is the problem with taking a concept like "information" in communication and directly applying to biological systems.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,313
52,682
Guam
✟5,165,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, this is the party line. But its just dressing. When one examines the evidence, its clear that the purpose of evolution is not science, but to offer a false alternative to the biblical account (irrespective of evidence), using scientific-sounding principles.
Sounds very much like your worldview is premised entirely on Alex Jones' style conspiracy theories.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Roughly 2/3 of scientists do not believe the God of the Christian Bible and many of today's younger adults are turning away from their faith with "science" being cited by many:

Scientists and Belief
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Sooo.... the connection is: What if we could make the Bible say what scientists conventionally believe? This grabs the attention of those with a bent towards scientific assertions - as if to say, "See, the Bible is really saying the same thing you already believe... you just need to reinterpret what it otherwise says"

Seems like you are advocating.... lying to gain converts?

Wouldn't surprise me - that seems to be the norm.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are correct, it is not a science book. But among other things, it IS a history book, and the events contained therein did happen, whether we find scientific evidence supporting or not.

So... How do you KNOW these events occurred if there is no evidence?

Wishful thinking?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lie 1: That God did not create life on days 3, 5, & 6 of creation... or that these days were not days. This lie is to help propagate evolutionary beliefs.

Lie 2: That God did not blot out all living flesh on the face of the earth at the time of Noah. This lie is to help propagate old ages conventionally believed within geology.

There is more twisting/manipulating that will occur, but these are two key areas.

Given that those are, um, "lies", perhaps you can start a thread explaining how, for example, the bat-Kind breeding pair gave rise to the 1000+ recognized species alive today in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing,
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Unlike your made-up invisible force, the effects of Natural Selection are not only measurable, but the more intelligent creationists that do not lie about their IQs accept it as reality.

Nice try, but no cigar. :D
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Tas' law: The length of a creationist's unique original discussion forum post (i.e., not a point-by-point response) is inversely proportional to its relevant information content.
Science? Let's add some honest perspective here. Even if the world were say 6k-10k years old, there are no written records going back more than about 5k years ago. There's no direct support for thousands of years old OR billions of years old. Now, scientists don't believe in billions of years or evolution because they are stupid - to the contrary, they believe these things based upon the conclusions they've drawn from research, lots of research and a lot of hard work. Does that mean they are right? Well... no. As sincere as the efforts have been, they can be sincerely wrong.

If I told you something was a billion years old, and say I concluded this based upon a method where I know that something that happens in the present happens at a certain rate and if we look at the evidence left with this 'something' that shows that a billion years has passed and I know this because I have measured the evidence and mathematically calculated the amount of time that would have to pass given the present rate to arrive at what I see as the evidence, that is what scientists are doing. What this is, is an inference... they didn't directly see it happen, the evidence didn't come with a label saying "Made 1x10^9 B.C.", it's a linear extrapolation of what is currently seen. Now, what I haven't told you is that the mathematical model has assumptions built into it... first, one assumes a constant rate, also one assumes they know the original conditions of the evidence, and also one assumes they know that there has been no contamination during the entire billion years that the evidence has been there. I've also not told you until now that within the evidence, there are other measurements of it that give contradictory ages of only thousands of years old.

So, within science there is evidence for a young earth and no evolution, AND there is evidence for an old earth and evolution, science doesn't have a definitive answer - so it really is pointless and irrational to base one's belief and arguments for/against solely on the basis of what scientists believe (right now, subject to continue on changing after you and I are dead). Agree?

I've used this example in other threads: Do you believe Washington crossed the Delaware river? Why? There's no 'scientific' evidence. Oh sure, there were supposedly eye witness accounts and it was written down as a historical record of what happened, but what about 5,000 years from now (should people still be around then)? Will people be doomed to not believing the events recorded because they cannot indirectly corroborate the written records with scientific evidence?? You and I can believe that Washington crossed the Delaware because it was a historical event, regardless of whether we find a fossilized footprint near the bank of the river left behind from Washington's boot or not. In the same way, God gave a historical account of creation. We weren't there to witness this so His Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote these events down, in order that we may know what happened. Yet for God, we have a higher standard - that scientific conclusions must unequivocally support only what is in the Bible in order that we might believe? There is no sense (nor faith) in that. We've heard that Christianity is not a blind faith - there IS scientific evidence for many of the events in the Bible, but there won't be for everything. Either we choose to believe or we choose not to believe.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry, to actually answer your question: I believe what science asserts (regarding creation) has been propagated by some to support a lie. Though, it may not have originally been intended to deceive, many have been deceived.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nice try, but no cigar. :D
Nice, but as usual, no real content.

Find any evidence for the aorta sending motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN to produce 'vocalizations' yet? :scratch::scratch::scratch::sleep::sleep:
 
Upvote 0