Creationists: Here's your chance

[painted wolf]

Knowledge begets more confidence, I disagree with Darwin.

Do you disagree with all Darwin's work or just the parts that make you uncomfortable?

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes I have. You have not established my points as wrong.

That is where you have failed in the scientific method.
It is not up to me to prove you incorrect.
It is up to you to prove yourself correct.
Something you have continually failed to do.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

Do you disagree with all Darwin's work or just the parts that make you uncomfortable?

I agree with micro evolution, small changes. I don’t agree with macro evolution. I don’t agree that mutations increase information or make new information.

Also what do you mean by uncomfortable? I really want you to define that.

Tumbleweed41

That is where you have failed in the scientific method.
It is not up to me to prove you incorrect.
It is up to you to prove yourself correct.
Something you have continually failed to do.

Look, being that the data is limited to prove something 100% one way or the other for any view, I think I have done a good job at explaining my view to be most plausible philosophically speaking. I have also done well in showing all views that are on the table, I have also made a prediction that there will never be a 7th view ever come to the table.

Also if you want to say I have failed in the scientific method, then so have you and all the other views that are on the table. Because you see, science is not exempt from using philosophy to explain the data and make theories. If you want to go down the science path ALONE without using theory and philosophy, then I will say nothing can be proven 100% one way or the other for any view. If you want to go down the philosophical path while using some science (data) I will say my view is most plausible because some of my arguments have not been addressed by you or others yet. So, if you want to resist being accountable, that is your choice, but it’s not my choice, but I can’t force you to do what I would like you to do and what I know you should do and I know is the right thing to do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Philosophy is not a part of the scientific method.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree with micro evolution, small changes. I don’t agree with macro evolution. I don’t agree that mutations increase information or make new information.

ok... but "macro" is just a build up of "micro" changes, not one giant step.
Also, I'm curious as to why creationists only think Darwin came up with evolution and made no other contribution to science.

Also what do you mean by uncomfortable? I really want you to define that.

I wan't you to define "kind" and "information"...
but from seeing your posts you seem to have deep issues with evolution far beyond any simple disagreement with it's scientific merit.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If you cannot give me “tangible” evidence for macro evolution, then why should I give you tangible evidence for God? Also if you cannot give tangible evidence for gravity, and time, why should I give you tangible evidence for God?

Because this is a thread for EVIDENCE

What part of that do you not understand?

Also by you dismissing my argument of the first cause, that is not addressing the argument. Remember, it’s not just me you’re trying to convince; you’re trying to convince some undecided listeners listening in on our conversation. There the judge, now think of a judge in court, if you just told him that you dismiss my argument, but won’t tell him why you do so, he would not take your statement seriously.

As I said before, your 'cycle of eternity' nonsense isn't worth addressing until you can prove it's anything more than a fantasy.

So, answer the argument or move on. It is worth responding to, both for the sake of your case and the listeners listening in and for my sake, because if you don’t answer it, I will flaunt that you keep dismissing it over and over and make your case look like it cannot answer something.

So, in other words, answer your argument or you'll spend the rest of the thread acting like a child? Bravo :clap

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this. No one has shown that a first cause is unnecessary; all they have shown is that no one knows with 100% proof what the first cause is, if any. And they have not proven that a cause is unnecessary. They just think a cause is unnecessary. That’s not a proven fact, that’s a view point. So, no, it has not been SHOWN by proof, it has only been shown by the view. The view has been shown, NOT the proof FOR the view. And then, even when I assumed the view was true and offered some questions to it, STILL NO ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS! You atheists and agnostics are something else.

The irony of the above is staggering.

Yes, it is a get out of jail free card, because there is ONLY 6 views and NO MORE, and I predict never will be a 7. When your about 70 to 80 years old, please be on here, because I want to scrub it in your face that my prediction has STILL held the test of time that there never will be a 7th view on origins.

More nonsense. I've already told you why I don't take your "4 views-" oh, wait. It's 6 now? Hmm, 2 more views crept in, eh? Okay.

I've already told you why I don't take your "6 views or nothing" statement seriously.

Something has to be a first cause, there HAS to be a first cause, for reasons I already told you, which you nor anyone addresses, but instead keeps dismissing a very valid point.

Because it isn't a valid point when you're arguing that complexity = design and then trying to insert a complex first cause. You're shooting yourself in the foot, man! You're trying to create a god shaped loophole in your argument without offering any logical reason why a god would be immune. All you've said over and over again is "first cause" but first cause doesn't make the contradiction go away.

Plus, even if my position has a contradiction in it, then PICK the most plausible contradiction out of the 6 views because you will waist your whole life waiting for a 7th view to come to the table to be optional.

Hmm, pick a contradiction? No thanks.

BUNK!!!!!!! Wrong answer. I am NOT, I repeat I am NOT!!! Using the first cause argument as a COP-out so I don’t have to face a flaw in my line of reasoning. I am using it because there is a fatal flaw in the view that says energy or the universe is eternal! And I have shown repeatedly that flaw. I have shown by reason that a first cause has to be. I am not motivated by a cop-out, I am motivated by reason here.

And yet you continue to make the same unreasonable argument over and over and then wonder why no one seems to take it seriously.

The argument from complexity forbids a complex first cause because it requires that complexity be designed. This is why I keep telling you that you can't have it both ways. You cannot use the argument from complexity and then postulate a complex first cause. It simply doesn't work. All it does is create a massive contradiction.

If you were, in fact, motivated by reason then you would see this too.

Or, maybe God set it up in such a way to where he wants’ an element of faith involved, but philosophically, he has shown that he is most plausible. Plus I did not say there was a contradiction in my view, the first cause saves my view. But I did say, IF there was a contradiction, then PICK which contradiction you wish to accept because there never will be a 7th view.

First cause doesn't save your view and I've already explained why.

You’re not listening to me apparently. It’s not my point of views, it’s the point of views that has been on the table through human history up to the present time, and it’s the ONLY points of views that are optional that are on the table. I know, I have studied. My point of view is the God view, the other views are views I don’t believe in, but they are the ONLY views ON the table. There is no 7! There is no question about it that there is no 7, the only question is, will there ever BE a 7? I PREDICT there will NOT BE. LET’S see if I am right. Let’s see if I am proven a fool, or let’s see if I get the chance in let’s say 60 or so years to rub it in your face the prediction. And mark my words, if I am alive in about 50 to 60 years from now, I will be on here and I will SURELY rub my prediction in your face. I hope your still on here by then. And if my prediction proves to be false, I will HUMBLY BOW my head in disgrace, DEAL?

Well then, if you're good with limiting yourself to those six views then your welcome. Just don't mind it if I decide not to limit myself to them.

 

[Jose Fly]

The human body is complex.

So "complex = design"? If so, how are you defining "complex" and how are you measuring it?

If we had none vital parts we could still survive, such as a finger. But a vital part which there are many, we could not survive without. So all those vital parts would need to be there or come into being at the same time in order for us to survive, otherwise we won’t survive. The brain, the heart, the intestines, the veins, any organs, all these vital parts we would need in order to survive

So there are no organisms that don't have brains, hearts, intestines, or veins? Funny...I'm quite sure there are all sorts of organisms that don't have some of those things yet still survive quite well.

They would all need to come into being at the same time, that implies an intelligence would have to pull that off, chance could not do so, and if you say, chance didn’t do it, but something natural, well what is that natural? Is that just another fancy way of saying chance? Just hiding it?

Um, you do realize that evolution is non-random, yes?

But I think the main flaw in your thinking is you're working backwards. You're taking H. sapiens and taking parts away, noting that it can be lethal, and using that to conclude "it must have come together all at once". But that's not anything like how evolution operates. No one has ever suggested there were H. sapiens without hearts or brains and those things just evolved into them.

Instead, evolution states that humans evolved from earlier species of primates that already had brains, hearts, etc. And those primates evolved from organisms that had those things as well. You see the point here, right? The organisms in which the precursors to, and later the early versions of brains, hearts, etc. evolved weren't human at all...heck, they weren't even mammals!

That's why your reasoning is simply a straw man fallacy.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Then everyone claims omniscience then. Because you claim my view is wrong and that the other views are also none plausible, but you don’t KNOW that, but you claim it as if you did. And all others who claim to the other views, they are claiming omniscience. Also science makes predictions, religion also makes them, and I myself have made one, it is, there never will be a 7th view. So if you call that omniscience, then you’re calling science omniscience because it makes predictions. If that is what you want to do, go ahead. Call it whatever you want. But the reality is, it goes on. And there is nothing wrong with it, UNLESS the prediction is wrong, then there is something wrong with it. And the same goes for the views, there is nothing wrong with making them, unless the view is wrong.

Wrong, I never said that making a prediction is a claim of omniscience.

However, saying "there will never be a 7th view" as a statement of fact is a claim of omniscience.

If you're saying "no 7th view" as a prediction, that's fine.

Dude, you got to be kidding me? You can’t be serious right? Look, I have studied, these are the only views CURRENTLY on the table, there is no more. There is no question. The question is, will there come to be more? I predict NO, what do you predict? Yes?

Plus I don’t take all 6 views seriously, I only take ONE of the 6 seriously, that’s the God view. So you don’t have to take all of them seriously, you just have to take ONE of them seriously and you have to seriously EXAMINE ALL of them. But, when I tell you these views are the only ones on the table, that statement you need to take seriously, because it’s a darn fact.

Okay let's, for the sake of argument, assume that these 6 views really are all that there is. Why must I commit to any one of them? My position on the origin of the universe is a very simple one, "I don't know." Now, unlike what your 6 view chart would have us believe, saying I don't know is not saying that the other views are wrong. If one of them turns out to be right, great. However, I refuse to commit to any of them until there is enough evidence, simple as that.

Why? Because it’s a point I am making based on the fact that no one has 100% proof one way or the other for any view, therefore it’s a valid question I have for you based on curiosity on how you would respond. The reason for my curiosity is I want to find out if you take the issue lightly or not. I want to find out if you show any concern whatsoever, or if you think you’re nice and comfy and ok. I am not at the moment saying you are going to hell, I am saying IF I am right (that there is a God and he is the God of the bible, and that he sends you to hell) and you’re wrong, what would your response be then?

If the god of the bible is the real one then I guess I'm screwed, aren't I? I'll be sent to hell for the crime of being an atheist and spend all of eternity burning in agony simply because my faith could not overcome my reason.

Believe it or not, there was a time when I wanted nothing more than to believe in god. I studied the bible, I prayed, I wept, but it simply never "clicked". My mind would never allow faith to take root. I prayed that god would allow his words, his spirit to take hold of my life. I surrendered myself totally to god. Still, it simply wouldn't work. I spent nearly 20 years trying to overcome what I called "my skeptic's mind." I tried as hard as I could to simply turn my reason off. It never worked. You can't even begin to imagine the guilt I felt for that. The entire time I tried and failed, I begged to know what I was doing wrong. I referred to my own mind as "my curse". Jollybear, I nearly went mad trying to find god and if god decides to send me to hell because I couldn't bear putting myself through the torment anymore then I guess he isn't worth worshiping anyway.

And this is what troubles me, is that you have no concern at all, YET you do not KNOW what the truth is by means of absolute proof. Yet your lack of concern in action asserts that you know with absoluteness that your ok and nothing bad will happen to you. That is troubling, and that is where your wrong, and that is where you need to show more concern. You can only display NON concern ONLY when you KNOW 100% that I am wrong. And that, you do not know, so therefore, why then do you not show concern?

Right….ok, why do you show no concern when you don’t know I am wrong?

Why am I not concerned about what will happen after I die? Because I see no reason to believe that my consciousness will survive my own death.

Let me ask you, will we NOT ALL FIND OUT when we die? Won’t we?

But it’s not good to find out then, since the truth may not be in our favor. That is the point I am trying to make, we should be concerned, we should treat this issue with UTMOST MORE respect. We should treat it with greater sacredness, and NOT a lack of concern.

see the two above.

That’s strange, because that would only mean your own people who believe in it don’t know the first thing about it, because this is what I read from them, their own words and their own explanations. I even heard Richard Dawkins say it was by many chances over time. I gauss Richard Dawkins knows nothing about evolution either then, huh?

That's funny, in his latest book he referred to it as "[E]volution by non-random natural selection."

There are no more than these on the table. Make me look like a fool and show me a 7th?

]1: the universe is eternal in it’s present form:
A: variation, is that energy is eternal and took on different forms and the present form is the universe we now see.
B: variation, the universe expands, then contracts for eternity.
C: variation, the universe keeps expanding forever from an eternal singularity of smallness.
D: variation, fill in the line _____________

2: the universe made itself

3: the universe came from nothing and chance and long periods of time
A: variations, just fill in the line _____________

4: I don’t know position, but I know for some odd reason the other views are wrong. But, I don’t know how I know that.

5: The universe is not really here, it just looks like it is, but it’s just a big delusion.

6: God created the universe
A: variation, a polytheistic finite god or gods or goddesses created the universe
B: variation, Allah who is infinite created the universe
C: variation, the Christian triune God who is infinite created the universe
B: variation, fill in the line _____________

Show me a genuine totally unique view from ALL 6 of these views? Do NOT show me one of these 6 SAID IN A DIFFREN WAY.

If you can do that, I will bow my head in shame.

I know you will not be able to do it, and I am putting forth this challenge to you because I KNOW what is on the table and what is not.

Like I said before, I'm waiting for evidence, that's all.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

There are two things wrong with your statement here.

1 I was not arguing whether or not the universe or earth was young or old.

2 God creating the universe is not magic, because God is SOMETHING, not NOTHING, if NOTHING creates SOMETHING, THAT is magic. At least when God creates something, he is creating it from his mind and his spoken command.

You missed my point. The bible does argue for a young earth and we know that the earth is far from young. If a book that claims to be infallible is known to be wrong in this case, why trust it for anything else? A little leaven leaventh through.

Looks like your left with accounting for the problem of the first cause.

Looks like you're still stuck with your contradiction.

Your analogy does not work for I was not arguing for a young or old earth, but I was arguing that God created the universe period, nothing more or less added to it.

see above

You’re not listening to me. Putting aside the scientists who don’t know much about their field, they just work there. Well taking into the equation the scientists who do know there field, there are two groups; both these groups disagree amongst each other. Now, that being said, scientist (A) disagrees with scientist (B) and yet they both know ABOUT their field quite well, but obviously ONE of them KNOWS there field TRULY, not just knows ABOUT their field, but they KNOW there field because they are right and the other is wrong.

Now, if the one guy who is wrong, but knows a lot ABOUT his field, how is he any better than the layman who agrees with the guy who happens to be right? He is NOT better, he is WORSE. And why is he worse? Because he is in the position to where he should KNOW BETTER and the layman is not in the position to know better, yet he does know better.

So, how do you know which one is right and which one is wrong? You have two scientists, one says evolution, the other says creationism. How do you pick?

So, you don’t understand your view on evolution enough to give me a simple answer to my question?

Evolution is not a simple subject. I posted an article which explains it in simple terms. If you want to know what evolution is, how it works, and how changes come into existence then read the linked to information.

You can’t tell me yourself what that natural means was that brought us into existence? If it’s not chance, as you said it was not, then what was it?

Refresh my memory, when did I say chance played no part in evolution? Chance does play a part but it is not the driving force. Natural selection is the driving force and natural selection is most certainly not random chance.

Yea, and that’s what all bad debaters say, they just like dismissing stuff. Instead of saying I don’t know what I am talking about, tell me why my point was wrong.

Because, saying "All mutations are harmful" is wrong. We have ample evidence to the contrary.

Also, saying that mutations do not add new information is again wrong. Once again, we have ample evidence to the contrary.

Examples of beneficial mutations

Now if not all biologists agree on origins, that means some biologists are no better than a layman

That is a complete non-sequitur.

Your saying that 'they don't know everything about their subject' equals 'they don't know ANYTHING about their subject'.

 

[JustWondering2]

Ok guys I found and example of "kinds". Check it out. This must be what MoF and his buddies are talking about, splains everythin!

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3918153&CAWELAID=447467707

Look closely at the enlarged photo. I wonder if thay all fit?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ok guys I found and example of "kinds". Check it out. This must be what MoF and his buddies are talking about, splains everythin!

Noah's Ark Stackers Storage Building Play Set - Tier Toys - Toys "R" Us

Look closely at the enlarged photo. I wonder if thay all fit?

Well, where are the dinosaurs, unicorns, and australopithecines? It can't be a complete set without them.

 

[JustWondering2]

Well, where are the dinosaurs, unicorns, and australopithecines? It can't be a complete set without them.

Yeah that's what I thought too. But maybe this will help out. LOL How childish!

 

[McBell]

Why have you finally come up with something?

Your complete unwillingness to learn what evolution actually is for starters.

You prefer to hold on to your strawman version of evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

Ok guys I found and example of "kinds". Check it out. This must be what MoF and his buddies are talking about, splains everythin!

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3918153&CAWELAID=447467707

Look closely at the enlarged photo. I wonder if thay all fit?

Our Recommended Age: 3 - 7 years

Makes sense, by eight years old they should have outgrown this nonsense.

 

[johnhanks]

Originally Posted by Danmac
Give us a visual demonstration of a species evolving into a different species and then tell me evolution is a testable theory. I do not mean a gradual change within a species, I mean a new species.

Originally Posted by johnhanks
Spartina anglica.

Originally Posted by Mestemia
I suspect that you are wasting your time.
The fact is that Danmac is not interested in anything that shows he is wrong.

Why have you finally come up with something?

Spartina anglica.

 

[Autodidact]

Spartina anglica.

What's particularly odd about this is that Danmac agrees that new species emerge from old ones. So he seems to be arguing that he's wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

When a central concept like "kinds" goes undefined, then you can't help but encourage things like hypocrisy and ultimately deconversion by those who grow tired of it.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Philosophy is not a part of the scientific method.

How can you seriously say this? This is so obviously wrong. Science uses theory, explanations, and all of that is a part of philosophy.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

ok... but "macro" is just a build up of "micro" changes, not one giant step.
Also, I'm curious as to why creationists only think Darwin came up with evolution and made no other contribution to science.

I understand it’s not one giant step, but all those micro changes leading to a big change over much time, is NOT PROVEN! It’s not proven that tons of micro changes led up to big changes!

I wan't you to define "kind" and "information"...
but from seeing your posts you seem to have deep issues with evolution far beyond any simple disagreement with it's scientific merit.

Kind is the human race for example. Kind is, a cat for another example. Information is that which holds intelligence. It’s like a language, a communication.

Simple enough?

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

Because this is a thread for EVIDENCE

What part of that do you not understand?

And what part of my sentence did you not understand? The law of gravity has evidence for its existence, but it does not have TANGIBLE evidence for its existence. Magnetism has evidence for its existence, but not TANGIBLE evidence for its existence. God has evidence for his existence, but not TANGIBLE evidence for his existence. Get use to it, no one will ever give you “tangible” evidence for God’s existence to your thread here. But, just because there is not TANGIBLE evidence does not make it false, no more than it would make gravity or magnetism false.

It’s TANGIBLE evidence that you want, not just evidence. If it’s JUST evidence, well I gave it to you. If it’s tangible, well forget it, me nor anyone else will give it to you, because it cannot be given to you until your dead or unless God gives you a sovereign direct revelation or apparition. And those things are rare occurrences. Although you could seek him for one.

As I said before, your 'cycle of eternity' nonsense isn't worth addressing until you can prove it's anything more than a fantasy.

Ok, if you deny that there is a cycle of eternity, then you’re saying in essence the universe came from nothing along with time. Or, do you stick with the “I don’t know”?

Plus, my argument about eternity is a philosophical argument. If you say eternity exists, or that energy is never created, that is to say, eternal, then my philosophical argument stands against that. If you say energy is not eternal and eternity does not exist then I will say, so time came from nothing?

Either way you look at it, you can’t get out of it. You constantly think your nice and snug in your “I don’t know” position and you think that keeps you safe from any problems. No, it don’t, it creates a different problem, the problem which is, your taking a gamble by not committing to God.

You know it too.

I mean you can say all you want “he probably does not exist” but that holds no weight in comparison to the other views, and the fact that no other views are on the table, shows you’re taking a REAL gamble by not committing to him. You know it.

So, in other words, answer your argument or you'll spend the rest of the thread acting like a child? Bravo

NO, if you don’t answer the argument, you show my case to be strong and yours to be weak. Also by not addressing the argument you think this is PURELY a fact or science issue and it’s NOT! It’s a philosophical issue as well. We cannot prove any view 100% either way, I predict we never will, now that being said, the only way we can BEST figure out what view is most plausible, we need to go the philosophical path, which means, ADRESS THE ARGUMENT I MADE.

The irony of the above is staggering.

Two things I have to say to this.
1 saying this does not address what I said.
2 The irony of the above sentence “the irony of the above is staggering” is staggering.

More nonsense. I've already told you why I don't take your "4 views-" oh, wait. It's 6 now? Hmm, 2 more views crept in, eh? Okay.

The only ones that are the most serious are 4 views, the rest are not as serious. The most serious are
1 energy is eternal or the universe is
2 universe created itself
3 nothing, plus chance and time created the universe
4 God created the universe.

The other 2 views are not as serious, which are
5 I don’t know why the universe is here or how it got here
6 The universe is not really here, it’s an illusion

The 5th view is not really a view, it’s the I don’t know position; which asserts still a view which is that nothing bad will happen to you after you die.
And the 6th view is pathetic to say the least for obvious reasons.

That means there are only 4 SERIOUS views. But I mention the 6 to be fair. There is no 7, never will be.