Order and Design

[MartinM]

What a surprise. He left without answering my little puzzle. Anyone who knew the first thing about logic could answer it in a flash. For that matter, anyone who doesn't know the first thing about logic should still be able to get at least two parts out of the three correct.

Oh, well. 'Tis the mark of a troll, I suppose.

 

[MartinM]

Now, "before" the Big Bang there really was NOTHING. No space, no time, no matter, no energy

And perhaps not even that

 

[lucaspa]

Have you noticed that the trolls on this forum always claim to be Christians? I mean, sure, it's a Christian Forum, but you think we'd get a Muslim, a Wiccan, or an Atheist troll once in a while.

We have had at least one Muslim troll. But he didn't last long.

I'm not sure yet that Fezzilla is a troll. He sounds like a rather naive person without much exposure to science. Then he ran into Carl Baugh and was bowled over by that con man. After all, that's what con men do.

So he came charging on here just SURE that he could falsify evolution and everyone would bow down to him. After all, it's a Christian forum and he is a zealous Christian with PROOF that evolution is atheistic and it's wrong. Therefore he is out to save Christianity.

Now he is feeling hurt and angry because:
1) We don't consider him a Christian hero, but an enemy to Christianity.
2) We don't fall down to his "proof"
3) Worse, we refute his proof and give him information that he never got from Baugh and doesn't know how to evaluate.

So now he's in denial. Keep working gently on him. I think this one can be saved, but he is going to have to go thru the shock first and that is going to take a couple of weeks to get over before he can start to listen. Just be patient.

 

[Arikay]

Well he isnt even willing to back up his claims, I doubt he would attempt to play a puzzle.



Its funny though (the thread).

 

[lucaspa]

1.)You need to start read entire scripts and not just segments.

I am reading the entire script. All the OT. It is you who is focussing on a segment, such as Isaiah 40:22
"2.)Isaiah 40:22;
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."

A circle is flat. A SPHERE is round. And Hebrew does have a word for sphere, but the flat circle is used. Also go to the part where God takes Daniel up high to see the ENTIRE world and where Satan takes Jesus to a tall mountain to show him the ENTIRE world. On a round earth, you can't see the ENTIRE world from a mountain or even from orbit. The ONLY shape where this is possible is a flat earth.

Now, do you want to tell me how I failed to read Mark 10: 1-10 correctly? The same thing is said in Matthew 19.

When I read Genesis on my own I quickly see that Genesis 1:1-2:4a clearly tells us that God created in 6 days. But then Genesis 2:4b clearly tells us God did all that in ONE day. "beyom" if you need the transliterated Hebrew. I went to the effort to get a Hebrew-English dictionary so I could check that out and, sure enough, beyom is "within a day"

Now, if Genesis is to be taken literally, how can the 2 creation stories contradict so blatantly? Conclusion: neither creation story is history. BOTH are theology.

Once you do that, and compare Genesis 1 to the Enuma Elish, then it all becomes clear. Genesis 1 isn't history. Instead, it is a magnificent essay for monotheism. Now, at this point I suspect that you are not going to like me thinking on my own, because my research doesn't match YOUR ideas.

Erosion by the way,is an axiom fact that proves evolution dead wrong.

I dealt with that in the other thread. You have the wrong value for the rate of erosion.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution is the most arrogant religion i've ever known. You clain to be science. I say you use science as a decoy/cover up for you bias point of view based strictly off of philosophy. ... Evolution has been and always will be an intellectually dishonest religion.

This describes creationism. The "intellectually dishonest religion" part at any rate.

There is a philosophy called scientISM, but no one here advocates it.

Sence science is the non-bias quest for axiom proof; Truth and understanding truth.

Oh, boy. Philosophy of science time. Science is the study of the physical universe. JUST the physical universe. It cannot provide truth in politics, art, or religion.

And it doesn't rest on axiomatic proof. It rests on objective, intersubjective experience of the universe.

Here, let me sum up science for you. I'll use the words of Kitty Ferguson because she did it best and you should give credit where it is due:
"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

I have yet to see any proof or axioms backing up your claim.

If you keep your eyes closed, of course you won't see the evidence.

In the end,its just your philosophical belief,just like my belief in God.
We both take our faith seriously and full heartedly believe our philosophies.

Evolution is neither a belief or a philosophy. Atheism is both. But evolution is not atheism. My philosophy, for instance, is NOT atheism.

Since you can't prove evolution,then it is philosophy-religion.

Scientific theories are not "proven". Evolution has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. It is so well supported by the data that it is perverse not to view it as (provisionally) true.

The evidence has conclusively falsfied creationISM, particularly Baugh's version. God simply did not create that way.

Your religion (Evolution) doesn't even explain the orgin of the cosmos.

It's not supposed to. So what?

You have no argument so give up tying unless you can provide axiom proof the evolution happened.

Axiom proof? The bad designs in nature. Only explained by evolution by natural selection.

this proof would explain not only the orgins of man,but the infinite biginning of how nothing produce and intelligent something.

That's natural selection. An algorithm to get design.

Evolution is not academic and therefore serves no purpose in the truth of science.

You are describing creationism again. Do you realize that, if evolution were not true as you say, that NONE of the medical advances in the past 50 years could have happened? They are ALL based on evolution. No cardiac bypass operations, no drugs to lower cholesterol, no intermedullary rods to treat fractures, no arthroscopes or laproscopic surgery. None of the medical advances.

What if you saw Jesus coming in the clouds today,would you understand then?

And what would that have to do with evolution? We still evolved from ape-like ancestors.

Excuse my french,but i can't fathom the thought of not forming my own opinion based on many different resourses.

Sure you can. You've done it. And rather stay around and discuss those different resources, you left.

 

[JohnR7]

Ya know,Darwin himself admitted he could be wrong. that in itself is a sign of doubt and weakness.He died agnostic. Does that tell you anything?
6.)Have you ever consider the fact that you could be wrong?

Darwin has already been proven wrong, he has been replaced with Neo Darwinism. The problem is the gap between the data and their explaination for the data. What is sometimes refered to as Einstein's Gulf. They do not want to address this issue.

They think that because they have the ability to observe, then somehow that makes their opinions of what they observe worthwhile. The only thing that is worthwhile and is going to stand the test of time is: "Thus sayeth the Lord". Man's opinions will prove to be worthless.

But the observations, the data will still stand. Which means if you do not accept Darwin or Neo Darwin explainations for the data, then you have to come up with a better explaination. An explaination for a observation usually holds up to some degree, right up until someone comes along with a better explaination.

So does anyone have a better explaination than Neo Darwinism, to explain the data that Darwin observed? The issue then becomes, can anyone give us an explaination on the bio diversity of life?

 

[Arikay]

John, "Einsteins Gulf" has been addressed.

 

[notto]

The problem is the gap between the data and their explaination for the data. What is sometimes refered to as Einstein's Gulf.

This is a misrepresentation of Einstein's Gulf. There is no "problem" with the gap, our intelligence, awareness, and language allows us to bridge the gap. Einstein's Gulf has nothing to do with "data" but with senses themselves and explainations of the physical with abstract ideas ("hot", "cold", "light", "dark").

"We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf - logically unbridgeable -- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions." - Einstein

This has absolutely nothing to do with the aquiring and recording of data and synthesizing cause and effect relationships. It deals with the fact that we can describe them at all to each other because even something as simple as "hot" is an abstract idea that we all share a common perception about in relation to the physical.

Apparently you are suffering a bit of a gap in this conceptal understanding or you have relied on some bad sources. After all, your original source that you used to express the idea of Einsteins gulf lied and misrepresented Darwin, why wouldn't he do the same with Einsteins ideas.

 

[JohnR7]

Apparently you are suffering a bit of a gap in this conceptal understanding or you have relied on some bad sources. After all, your original source that you used to express the idea of Einsteins gulf lied and misrepresented Darwin, why wouldn't he do the same with Einsteins ideas.

I enjoy reading your posts and I am going to give what you say here more consideration and a bit of research. But let me address this question.

That web page was the first I had ever heard of "Einsteins gulf". Even though this is a concept I have been trying to discuss on this forum. So I grabbed the page and posted it to get the conversation going.

It did come from a creationist web site. So needless to say anything a creationist says is going to get shredded on here. But the creationist viewpoint is not really what I wanted to discuss. I was wanting to have a conversation about Einsteins gulf. Or anything else that Einstein has to say about anything related to this topic.

Do you want to start the thread all over again, or just get on with the conversation about the topic?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya know,Darwin himself admitted he could be wrong. that in itself is a sign of doubt and weakness.He died agnostic. Does that tell you anything?

Are you ever wrong? Have you ever made a mistake? Is it possible you don't have all the answers?

Are you willing to admit such "doubt and weakness?"

6.)Have you ever consider the fact that you could be wrong?

Same question back at ya.

 

[ifriit]

You must believe that truth is relitive.
That meaning-Believe what thy will. There is no right or wrong.
Life is a world of Grey-not Black and White.

That's not what relative truth means. Nor do I believe all truth to be relative. You're conflating morality in there.

Why do you insist on trying to tell people what they think?

I differ from you.
Life to me is Black and White!
No grey skies cloud my judgement. I believe in ultimate truth.
Nothing in this world is blury or undefined.

So what?

Ya know,Evolution also believe in ultimate truth! they confess this every day. sounds to me that you've become Dogmatic over time-your a religion.

Okay, English again please. First, evolution is a theory. It doesn't "believe" anything. People believe things. Secondly, it confesses nothing; theories cannot confess. Thirdly, I am not a religion, nor is evolutionary theory.

Now, to attempt to figure out what you mean, I'm assuming that you're trying to say that evolution is a religion, and that I have become dogmatic. Back it up; present your proof, or I will consider your accusations retracted.

 

[JohnR7]

Now, to attempt to figure out what you mean, I'm assuming that you're trying to say that evolution is a religion, and that I have become dogmatic. Back it up; present your proof, or I will consider your accusations retracted.

Simple, define religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

What is evolution: Natural Selection, What is Natural Selection: Survival of the Fittest. Or the stongest or the most powerful.

Natural Selection is a creative power and that makes it a religion. If the natural world created itself, that would be random and that is impossible in that it has been falsified.

 

[notto]

Simple, define religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

What is evolution: Natural Selection, What is Natural Selection: Survival of the Fittest. Or the stongest or the most powerful.

Natural Selection is a creative power and that makes it a religion. If the natural world created itself, that would be random and that is impossible in that it has been falsified.

I think you overlooked the word supernatural in your definition of religion when you tried to call natural selection a religion. Are all creative "powers" (read processes) supernatural? Can you tell us what supernatural mechanisms Natural Selection uses and what supernatural mechansisms are used in mainstream evolutionary theory?

I don't quite understand your falsification explaination. Can you explain it in more detail? What exactly has been falsified?

 

[ifriit]

Simple, define religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

What is evolution: Natural Selection, What is Natural Selection: Survival of the Fittest. Or the stongest or the most powerful.

Natural Selection is a creative power and that makes it a religion. If the natural world created itself, that would be random and that is impossible in that it has been falsified.

John, you missed several points. First, it says "supernatural power or powers." As notto pointed out, what supernatural powers are involved in evolution?

Secondly, you missed the "reverence" part. I do not revere evolution. The vast majority of people who think evolution valid do not revere it. It does not demand reverence.

So, no, John, evolution does not fit the definition of a religion.

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)However, does God ever tell you exactly HOW He created?
1b.)Or does God deal with your personal life and you don't get that communication?

2.)Did GOD tell you that evolution was atheism? Or did you pick that up from Carl Baugh? Did God tell you that a literal Genesis was the right interpretation, or did you hear that from a person?

1.)Genesis chapter one explains everything clearly enough to understand that God created the world and universe in six literal days-about 24 hour days.theres nothing wrong with the Hebrew and Greek grammar of the bible.
1b.)YES!! God woke me out of my sleep (And i sleep as sound as a dead person) And told me to wake up and write down the info He was about to give me. God told me that the truth behind Creation vs.Evolution was in the Stones and Bones. God told me that erosion is a very over looked subject within the creationist camp. God told me that erosion was the answer i was seeking (and praying for!). God did not use evolution to create the world-He told me

2.)YES! Evolution is creation without the creator. God is hurt about that.
Im more of a bible reader than a brainwashed puppet. I believe that Only Divine wisdom and knowledge is infallible,so i question even my favorite authors like Ken Ham sometimes.
I think on my own with the guidence of Christ.
To exept evolution is to exept death before Adam.
this would not be biblical.

@Everyone
I've been tough on you all but don't take it personal.Im passionate in my debates. I mean no harm or disrespect.
Take care and see ya on another day.

 

[Arikay]

You havent been tough on us at all.

There is a difference between being a tough debator and not listening.

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of Errosion

Are you going to keep claiming it, without showing any evidence?

 

[JohnR7]

I think you overlooked the word supernatural

You overlooked the word "OR" maybe because it is so short of a word. Long words are more difficult to overlook.

I don't quite understand your falsification explaination. Can you explain it in more detail? What exactly has been falsified?

I suppose we could try to find the thread. The discussion was about Crick's book where we are told that life forming it self at random is just not possible. It would be something like 10 to the 243 power.

That is why you need natural selection to guide the formation of life from one stage of development to the next. Of course this just raises the next question. Natural selection would not work without a natural world for life to adapt to.

 

[ifriit]

You overlooked the word "OR" maybe because it is so short of a word. Long words are more difficult to overlook.

Okay, John, quick English lesson.

When you see a phrase of the form <adjective> <singular noun> or <plural form of same noun>, the adjective is intended to apply to both forms of the noun; the phrase "supernatural power or powers" is equivalent to "supernatural power or supernatural powers."

So as a matter of fact, no, he isn't ignoring the "or."