The Delusions of Richard Dawkins

[PaxThroughX]

Evolution is descent with modification, or the change in inherited characters of populations over time.

Ok, so if that is true, than does that mean Science is the equivalence or a synonym of Evolution? Science can change daily if certain "evidence," contradicts the current theories at hand. However, I see no point in Creationism vs Evolutionism. If the average Creationist is a "Christian," than he believes he will die and go to Heaven. If the average Evolutionist is a "Atheist," then he will die and become dust; being born into a tree or whatever the certain individual holds to be true. So with theses basic afterlife beliefs in mind, what is the point of arguing over the existence of life if we can never know, fully, for sure? Its pointless and I think that when many people recognize that, they will find more time in their day to play an instrument or whatever.

Also, CabVet, I really wasn't that convinced that Creationist "lie," over a pointless argument. Creationist also believe in the Old Earth Theory, Theistic, or other theories that are out there today. The Young Earth seems to be a theory held by Christians who read everything in the bible, taken it literal; you wouldn't sacrifice a lamb on a mountain so why would you think that you can count the age of every person in the bible? After all, there was a great flood that regenerate the earth's life basically.

 

[PaxThroughX]

No, it is fact. For example, it is a fact that planet earth has existed for more than 6,000 years.

Ok sure, but how long? I think it is wise to leave the reader to someone who actually wants to know rather than stating fact to close-minded people. No, I was not referring to you, but rather to certain Creationist and Evolutionist.

 

[PaxThroughX]

He will never prove it because it's simply not true:

Can creationists be real scientists?

Many secular and atheist groups mock Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum for not being scientific. However, some of the most influential scientists past and present have been and are creationists (see below).​

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Grace and peace,
Mark

If the bible is read like an Atlas, a book that is being underestimated, than they have every right. We wouldn't read the Epic Of Gilgamesh literally, now would we?

 

[CabVet]

Ok, so if that is true, than does that mean Science is the equivalence or a synonym of Evolution?

There is no if. That is true, you can check any book. And no, science and evolution are not synonyms. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. Science is the systematic study of the natural world through observation and experimentation.

Science can change daily if certain "evidence," contradicts the current theories at hand.

That is absolutely wrong and just another falsehood spread by creationists. You should look up the meaning of scientific theory. It does not mean what you think it does.

However, I see no point in Creationism vs Evolutionism. If the average Creationist is a "Christian," than he believes he will die and go to Heaven. If the average Evolutionist is a "Atheist," then he will die and become dust; being born into a tree or whatever the certain individual holds to be true. So with theses basic afterlife beliefs in mind, what is the point of arguing over the existence of life if we can never know, fully, for sure? Its pointless and I think that when many people recognize that, they will find more time in their day to play an instrument or whatever.

Yet, you are still here debating it.

Also, CabVet, I really wasn't that convinced that Creationist "lie," over a pointless argument. Creationist also believe in the Old Earth Theory, Theistic, or other theories that are out there today. The Young Earth seems to be a theory held by Christians who read everything in the bible, taken it literal; you wouldn't sacrifice a lamb on a mountain so why would you think that you can count the age of every person in the bible?

True, I should have been more specific. The type of creationist that often spread misinformation and falsehoods are Young Earth Creationists. I apologize for that.

After all, there was a great flood that regenerate the earth's life basically.

You forgot one small detail about the flood: It left no evidence behind.

 

[CabVet]

Ok sure, but how long? I think it is wise to leave the reader to someone who actually wants to know rather than stating fact to close-minded people. No, I was not referring to you, but rather to certain Creationist and Evolutionist.

Not exactly sure if I understood the post, but if you are asking about the age of the earth, many different lines of evidence support the hypothesis that the earth has existed for 4.54 billion years ± 1%.

 

[AECellini]

It's been argued in circles endlessly, that's about it.

maybe by you and the rest of the creationist community. there is nothing about evolution that violates the second law, unless you have something for me to consider looking at.

i have some questions for you to answer for me to gauge what your understanding is:
1. what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics state?
2. what is entropy?

Obviously you haven't read the rules, or you simply choose to ignore them

obviously you haven't read the rules. all that says is i can't post in CHRISTIAN ONLY sections of the forum, you said i can't post anywhere, which is the opposite of what the rules you quoted say.

i don't know if you have adequate vision, but when you click on the "physical and life sciences" section (as well as some others) you'll most likely notice it says something to the extent of "this forum is open to nonbelievers." i wonder what that combination of letters means...

Which translated means you post a random link, make a statement based on a gross ignorance of the rules or reckless indifference to same. Then you conclude with a pedantic dismissal indicating you have not the slightest interest in the actual subject matter.

haha "random link." you're calling me ignorant? did you even read the entire link that i provided? it answers your question quite clearly.

here i'll provide it, as well as other links containing the same information presented in different ways, you may choose to read then or shrug them off in your obvious ignorance, whatever floats your ark:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://ai.stanford.edu/~csewell/essays/ch3.htm

 

[PaxThroughX]

There is no if. That is true, you can check any book. And no, science and evolution are not synonyms. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. Science is the systematic study of the natural world through observation and experimentation.

Which means the two are compatible right?

That is absolutely wrong and just another falsehood spread by creationists. You should look up the meaning of scientific theory. It does not mean what you think it does.

Noun1.scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
scientific theory - definition of scientific theory by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

I have and did once more, I don't know what you are talking about really?

Yet, you are still here debating it.

Funny story, it was the other day when I realized that I was wasting time, trying to discover something new everyday on the internet. I should have clarified, sorry.

True, I should have been more specific. The type of creationist that often spread misinformation and falsehoods are Young Earth Creationists. I apologize for that.

I see, but even maybe 5% or less may have worthy evidence to consider. I think my Father supports that actually.
No need to apologize. Why would I be "mentally wounded," over a comment on the internet? lol

You forgot one small detail about the flood: It left no evidence behind.

I did? Woah, two mistakes in one post! What was I doing? Yeah, I agree.

 

[CabVet]

Which means the two are compatible right?

It depends on how you interpret the Bible.

Noun1.scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
scientific theory - definition of scientific theory by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

I have and did once more, I don't know what you are talking about really?

Science can and does change daily. Scientific theories do not. They are supported by several independent lines of evidence and are very stable. It takes a lot to change one.

Funny story, it was the other day when I realized that I was wasting time, trying to discover something new everyday on the internet. I should have clarified, sorry.

No worries!

I see, but even maybe 5% or less may have worthy evidence to consider. I think my Father supports that actually.

No, they do not. If they did, they would publish their evidence in the scientific literature and change science. As you know, that can be done.

No need to apologize. Why would I be "mentally wounded," over a comment on the internet? lol

I did? Woah, two mistakes in one post! What was I doing? Yeah, I agree.

No worries!

 

[Loudmouth]

It's been argued in circles endlessly, that's about it.

Until someone can explain how a child growing from a single cell in 9 months does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but a child evolving form a single cell over 4 billion years does violate that same law then, and only then, can we have a discussion based on knowledge instead of distortion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which means the two are compatible right?

Science is a method. Theories are the product of that method.

Are the David statue and chiseling synonyms?

 

[PaxThroughX]

Science is a method. Theories are the product of that method.

Are the David statue and chiseling synonyms?

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Pointing out the obvious is ridiculous.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Pointing out the obvious is ridiculous.

Not so obvious if you need it explained.

 

[pgardner31]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

"God is logical" -- you, however, have demonstrated a false dilemma fallacy.

Since the rest is based on a false premise, it can be dismissed.

 

[Loudmouth]

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe.

That is actually called abiogenesis. Evolution is the process by which life changes over time once it was already here. Using evolution to describe the origin of life is a bit like using organic chemistry to explain the origin of the universe. It just isn't meant to explain that phenomenon.

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

Many have argued that intelligence carries the seeds of its own destruction. The discovery of massive sources of energy, such as fision and fusion, will only lead to a species eradicating itself with it's own inventions.

 

[CabVet]

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Wrong, that is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life changes, adapts and diversifies, it has nothing to say about how life started. You should get your scientific theories straight before you criticize them.

 

[Strathos]

...The creationist arguments here are so bad they're making me feel ashamed, even though I'm not even a creationist.

 

[PaxThroughX]

Not so obvious if you need it explained.

Who said I did?

 

[Splatt]

'The universe is “built in a way that to me suggests intelligent design,” says Stephen King in an interview with NPR: If you say, “Well, OK, I don’t believe in God. There’s no evidence of God,” then you’re missing the stars in the sky and you’re missing the sunrises and sunsets and you’re missing the fact that bees pollinate all these crops and keep us alive and the way that everything seems to work together. Everything is sort of built in a way that to me suggests intelligent design. But, at the same time, there’s a lot of things in life where you say to yourself, “Well, if this is God’s plan, it’s very peculiar,” and you have to wonder about that guy’s personality — the big guy’s personality. And the thing is — I may have told you last time that I believe in God — what I’m saying now is I choose to believe in God, but I have serious doubts and I refuse to be pinned down to something that I said 10 or 12 years ago. I’m totally inconsistent." - S. KING

 

[pgardner31]

Free will precludes objective proof of God, although the creation testifies of Him, and outward knowledge is intended to be a type to point us to eternal reality- which is God in Christ as the Spirit to mingle with our spirit. That alone is (subjective) proof of God: knowing Him organically by allowing Him to be one spirit with you. Satan believes in God. Many people state that they 'believe in God'. So what? Meaningless and doesn't change them from anyone else who doesn't believe in God. "As many as received Him, to them He gave authority to be sons of God". You need another life, a re-birth- in your Spirit. Its a free gift, but no one know the expiration date. amessageforthehumanrace