• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
What I said is that you were being dishonest by deflecting and not answering the question posed to you. That's not me being "dishonest"-- it's me citing a fact as you continually walk around my question on eggs during the Cambrian Explosion that aren't found.

So, why don't you answer the question and actually be a True Believer? :shrug:
Please rephrase your question on eggs for me. I'm not sure what you are asking me.

How does answering or not answering your question make me a true believer or not? That doesn't even make sense to me. I believe the scriptures not your explosion.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Your anti-science sarcasm only tells us that you don’t understand science, and that your religion has been a negative influence.

There’s nothing to be proud about in getting science wrong.
If it was true science I would agree. Sorry but I just don't believe it. There's no need in us arguing. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do. Maybe persuade, but not force. My sarcasm was only to show how ridiculous your claims seem to me.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please rephrase your question on eggs for me. I'm not sure what you are asking me.

How does answering or not answering your question make me a true believer or not? That doesn't even make sense to me. I believe the scriptures not your explosion.

I asked you at least three times before, never got a response from you one way or the other, so I'm simply not going to continue to play any more of your games. An honest person, when asked a question that many times but can't answer it, would admit they don't know the answer, or they would try and look it up and provide an answer. You didn't do either.

Finally, you believe in your interpretations of the scriptures as they often do not define themselves.

Anyhow, just forget I asked you, OK.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
If it was true science I would agree.
There is only science, and it is determined by experts, not lay people, especially those who are indoctrinated to be biased. You only inform us that you have been indoctrinated and resist being corrected by educated folk.

Sorry but I just don't believe it. There's no need in us arguing. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do. Maybe persuade, but not force. My sarcasm was only to show how ridiculous your claims seem to me.
You have no argument against science. You are biased against it for religious reasons. That’s an embarrassment in the 21st century.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
are biased against it for religious reasons.

Reminds me of when my fundamentalist Protestant pastor told me that one cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, which seemed nonsensical to me so as that I am to reject what I can see with my own eyes and blindly accept what I can't see? Needless to say, I left that church.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
"A Trilobites Tale"

Long long ago I was blind. But strikingly suddenly I could see. It was amazing. I was tired of that pond sludge too, so I said I'm gonna develop me some taste buds while I'm at it. OOOH OOOH boy was that leaf extra tasty.
"strikingly suddenly "

Thank you for perfectly illustrating why you hold archaic, odd beliefs and cannot upgrade to what science has learned over a century of research. Your strawman, red herring version of the argument is exactly what creationists do with evidence, ignore it.

What you mean by "strikingly suddenly "

-Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes.

-The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.

-Those intermediate forms have now been found. According to evolutionary biologists, it would have taken less than half a million years for the most rudimentary eye to evolve into a complex “camera” eye like ours.

-The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.

-The next step was for multicellular organisms to concentrate their light-sensitive cells into a single location. Patches of photosensitive cells were probably common long before the Cambrian, allowing early animals to detect light and sense what direction it was coming from. Such rudimentary visual organs are still used by jellyfish and flatworms and other primitive groups, and are clearly better than nothing.

-The simplest organisms with photosensitive patches are hydras – freshwater creatures related to jellyfish. They have no eyes but will contract into a ball when exposed to bright light.

-The next step is to evolve a small depression containing the light-sensitive cells. This makes it easier to discriminate the direction the light is coming from and hence sense movement. The deeper the pit, the sharper the discrimination.

-Further improvement can then be made by narrowing the opening of the pit so that light enters through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. With this sort of equipment it becomes possible for the retina to resolve images – a vast improvement on previous models. Pinhole camera eyes, lacking a lens and cornea, are found in the nautilus today.


-The final big change is to evolve a lens. This probably started out as a protective layer of skin that grew over the opening. But it evolved into an optical instrument capable of focusing light on to the retina. Once that happened, the effectiveness of the eye as an imaging system went through the roof, from about 1 per cent to 100 per cent.

-Eyes of this kind are still found in cubozoans, highly mobile and venomous marine predators similar to jellyfish.


- Trilobites became the first active predators, able to seek out and chase down prey like no animal before. Unsurprisingly, their victims counter-evolved. Just a few million years later, eyes were everywhere and animals were more active and bristling with armour. This burst of evolutionary innovation is what we now know as the Cambrian Explosion.


-However, sight is not universal. Of 37 phyla of multicellular animals, only six have evolved it. But these six – including our own phylum, chordates, plus arthropods and molluscs – are the most abundant, widespread and successful animals on the planet.





Now re-read your ridiculous version. This is creationism explained better than ever before.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If it was true science I would agree. Sorry but I just don't believe it. There's no need in us arguing. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do. Maybe persuade, but not force. My sarcasm was only to show how ridiculous your claims seem to me.
A completely misleading version of the actual story, using several fallacies, does not show how ridiculous the claims are, it shows how ridiculous your interpretation of them is. Even worse is that probably isn't your interpretation, it's a forced snow job because you cannot accept evidence or it will challenge your beliefs. Your sarcasm seems to be denial.

If you could actually raise an argument to any of the points you would. Give a reason backed by evidence why any of the steps is ridiculous.
All you are doing is showing you have a huge bias toward a myth and will not accept real world evidence if it contradicts it.

It's like refusing to accept germs are real because in a Zeus scripture it says he creates all illness.
Yes, anyone can take a reasonable explanation and change it into a farce. Great, so you cannot deal with that actual evidence.

So what is left? Cognitive bias? Why have the intermediate forms of the eye been found?


EYE Evolution


-Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes.


-The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.



-Those intermediate forms have now been found. According to evolutionary biologists, it would have taken less than half a million years for the most rudimentary eye to evolve into a complex “camera” eye like ours.


-The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.

-The next step was for multicellular organisms to concentrate their light-sensitive cells into a single location. Patches of photosensitive cells were probably common long before the Cambrian, allowing early animals to detect light and sense what direction it was coming from. Such rudimentary visual organs are still used by jellyfish and flatworms and other primitive groups, and are clearly better than nothing.


-The simplest organisms with photosensitive patches are hydras – freshwater creatures related to jellyfish. They have no eyes but will contract into a ball when exposed to bright light.


-The next step is to evolve a small depression containing the light-sensitive cells. This makes it easier to discriminate the direction the light is coming from and hence sense movement. The deeper the pit, the sharper the discrimination.


-Further improvement can then be made by narrowing the opening of the pit so that light enters through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. With this sort of equipment it becomes possible for the retina to resolve images – a vast improvement on previous models. Pinhole camera eyes, lacking a lens and cornea, are found in the nautilus today.



-The final big change is to evolve a lens. This probably started out as a protective layer of skin that grew over the opening. But it evolved into an optical instrument capable of focusing light on to the retina. Once that happened, the effectiveness of the eye as an imaging system went through the roof, from about 1 per cent to 100 per cent.


-Eyes of this kind are still found in cubozoans, highly mobile and venomous marine predators similar to jellyfish.

- Trilobites became the first active predators, able to seek out and chase down prey like no animal before. Unsurprisingly, their victims counter-evolved. Just a few million years later, eyes were everywhere and animals were more active and bristling with armour. This burst of evolutionary innovation is what we now know as the Cambrian Explosion.


-However, sight is not universal. Of 37 phyla of multicellular animals, only six have evolved it. But these six – including our own phylum, chordates, plus arthropods and molluscs – are the most abundant, widespread and successful animals on the planet.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
This proof uses mathematical induction. Thus, the proof is irrefutable.
n = intelligently designed objects.
n=1 is just one cell phon, an intelligently designed object
n=k is many cell phones and all other intelligently designed objects.
n>0 -> C>=0 where C is the number of intelligent creators.
This doesn't look like mathematical induction.

This looks like a weirdly formatted syllogism.

I fear the title missold the OP.

So disappointed that I'm speaking in paragraphs.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Reminds me of when my fundamentalist Protestant pastor told me that one cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, which seemed nonsensical to me so as that I am to reject what I can see with my own eyes and blindly accept what I can't see? Needless to say, I left that church.
Here's my point about that -- and I am quite sure I do not agree with fundamental ministers on many subjects, so perhaps we can separate that. So--the Bible has a timetable stemming from Adam until basically the present. That is sharply in disagreement with the scientific viewpoint of the human race. So -- virtually everything from creation on down to Revelation simply conflicts with the timetable of evolution. And, of course, many refute the historicity of Exodus. I don't mind hearing a point of view from someone who believes in evolution AND the history as written in the Bible about this, i.e., how do they mesh? If they do...or do they? If they do not agree, what parts does a person believe in the Bible? Did Jesus exist as written? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a nice guy that was persecuted for his outspokenness?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Here's my point about that -- and I am quite sure I do not agree with fundamental ministers on many subjects, so perhaps we can separate that. So--the Bible has a timetable stemming from Adam until basically the present. That is sharply in disagreement with the scientific viewpoint of the human race. So -- virtually everything from creation on down to Revelation simply conflicts with the timetable of evolution. And, of course, many refute the historicity of Exodus. I don't mind hearing a point of view from someone who believes in evolution AND the history as written in the Bible about this, i.e., how do they mesh? If they do...or do they? If they do not agree, what parts does a person believe in the Bible? Did Jesus exist as written? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a nice guy that was persecuted for his outspokenness?
No, the fictitious time table is a very small part of the Bible. A lot of it was written into the New Testament. That it is false does not refute Christianity.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I see that a couple do lay eggs which are considered mammals. According to Scientific American, those are the duck-billed platypus and the echidna, or spiny anteater. later, perhaps.
Yes, and if you remember evolution occurs when two populations split. Some keep some traits depending upon the environment and develop new ones others keep different traits and evolve new ones due to the environment.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
the Bible has a timetable stemming from Adam until basically the present.

The accounts are not consistent even within the Tanakh.

And, of course, many refute the historicity of Exodus. I don't mind hearing a point of view from someone who believes in evolution AND the history as written in the Bible about this, i.e., how do they mesh?

We know evolution has and continues to take place, but there is no way possible to check the authenticity of Exodus.

Did Jesus exist as written?

I'm quite positive he did.

Did he perform miracles?

I doubt it, but then I'm not the "final answer".

Was he just a nice guy that was persecuted for his outspokenness?

What's wrong with being a "nice guy"? Which we had a lot more of them around.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What's wrong with being a "nice guy"? Which we had a lot more of them around.
I did not know anything about him much until I studied the Bible even though I went to church. Other than he was horribly depicted as hanging on a cross on the wall of the church.
 
Top