Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Hey meow, I grew up in the south and my biology books were secular!
-
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!
Evidence God Is
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
The argument I am making is that you creationists bastardize your own version of scientific laws and misrepresent them to make your insipid theories work., You learn the science and then you twist and corrupt it to make them fit with your own views. I wish you people were capable of being honest.
Just do a quick search on "how creationists abuse the laws of thermodynamics.
THERE ARE SO MANY ARTICLES. And your argument is yest another abuse. congratulations, ding ding ding, you get a black star, not a gold one.
Just do a quick search on "how creationists abuse the laws of thermodynamics.
THERE ARE SO MANY ARTICLES. And your argument is yest another abuse. congratulations, ding ding ding, you get a black star, not a gold one.
Last edited:
So you can't list the 'assumptions' you asserted were there? No surprise.
How were they "brought forth"? By magic, as described in Genesis 1? How does that work, exactly?
Isn't that an argument from ignorance, not least your ignorance of how evolution works?
For a start, the fact that we have not one authenticated example of magic anywhere, nor any testable hypothesis as to how it might work. We have no reason to think it exists. So any alternative explanation for the origin of species is far more likely, and the strongest, clearest and most thoroughly and reliably demonstrated is evolution. (And from there we can examine the consistency of the fossil evidence across 3.5 bn years or more &c &c.)
Magic? No, as I said, I have no reason to think magic exists outside of the imagination of individuals.
So science without magic can't explain anything? Really? When did magic last put a rover on Mars or create a Bose-Einstein condensate, or map the working brain?
And you ducked a straight answer to my question, which was:
if science presents a clear possible natural pathway from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cell, you'll say, Ah, I was wrong!, correct?
What's your nice clear answer?
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Evolution of the mammalian ear
Evolution of the eye
seem good starting point for those small steps then for more detail follow the references quoted
These explanations make more commonsense than needing magic from weird odd ball cults eg Christian muslim etc.
Cheers
Evolution of the eye
seem good starting point for those small steps then for more detail follow the references quoted
These explanations make more commonsense than needing magic from weird odd ball cults eg Christian muslim etc.
Cheers
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
But he will ignore it, even with the evidence staring at him in the face, which he has already demonstrated on multiple occasions throughout this thread.
I do have to give him credit, i read the updates on this thread every morning since it started to get my blood to a boiling temperature. And it only takes a a couple minutes until my brain is awake and functioning 100% again.
NPeace, you are my alarm clock and I thank you for that.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Why do you resort to calling someone dishonest just because they don't hold to your beliefs or disbeliefs?
Is that not a clear indications of bias?
Not everyone that believes in what you choose to close your eyes to, is dishonest.
They have reasons for what they believe, and they sincerely express them.
Whether you choose to believe that or not is your choice. Just bare in mind that you are pointing your finger at every person that believes in creation, and putting them all in a barrel. That says a lot about your feelings toward them.
Perhaps your thoughts might be to burn the barrel too.
I'm sure creationist don't put all atheist in your category. I've spoken to a few atheist, and they didn't have that view, in fact they felt that some Christians were the most honest people they met, even though the did not accept belief in a god.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The ancient Hebrews tell us this...
Jehovah is the all powerful, almighty spirit - full of dynamic energy. He uses his powerful holy spirit which is called his active force - the most powerful force there is - to accomplish his will. Jesus referred to that force as God's finger, and says that God works. He controls it. So it is not a case of magic, but just as we use our fingers to do things, God uses his active force - holy spirit to work.
Jehovah God promises to do a work on the day referred to as Harmageddon, when he will use his active force operative upon his appointed king and his army, to utterly destroy all his opposers.
The way I picture it though, is that energy is converted to matter in any form God chooses, and he uses his holy spirit to do the fashioning for him.
Most people that use that word, I think use it because they can, not because they know how to use it. So no.
If you want an example of argument from ignorance, you just gave a good one.
You either didn't read the OP, or you didn't understand it, or you couldn't care less what it says. There clearly is no magic there.
Where did you read that? Or is it all in your head?
No I answered your question. What didn't you understand?
nPeace
Veteran Member
These are the topics you asserted that I did not research? Okay.
I have three questions for you.
1 Are you sure I did not research these two topics?
2. Are you sure the ear evolved, as suggested in the article?
3. Are you sure the eye evolved, as suggested in the article?
Wow, that really sounds handy! How does it actually work? Oh, by magic ...
Without that 'how' it's still just magic.
Oh, so you're full bottle on the theory of evolution then? My apologies. So what's your specific demonstration that it's false?
Then be specific ─ what, if not magic, do you say science is lacking?
I don't understand whether you answered yes or no to my question, which was:
if science presents a clear possible natural pathway from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cell, you'll say, Ah, I was wrong!, correct?
So should that happen will you acknowledge you were wrong? Yes or no?
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Because you are being dishonest. A system that does not change breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics but you trying to say that the laws of thermodynamics support your belief in a system that was created to perfection.
That's a lie.
You are not fooling anybody in here.
That's a lie.
You are not fooling anybody in here.
nPeace
Veteran Member
1. Has not been observed, demonstrated, nor verified to be true.
2. The fossil record show fully formed complex organisms arriving on the scene. Plus the thousands of intermediates expected if evolution were true, are nowhere to be found.
3. Hundreds of animals are alive today that are seen in the early fossil record said to date back millions of years.
4. We don't see evolution taking place today.
If it were true, this is what I expect we would see despite the slow process.
Since all organisms don't start evolving at the same time, and end at the same time.
Each would be evolving at different periods of time right?
So for example, say one started evolving at 3 million years, another might start at 3.05 mil.; another 3.07 mil., another 3.12 mil. etc.
So evolution would be taking place actually the same way we see trees bearing, or organisms giving birth - one tree starts at this time, another starts some time after...
Why don't we see this?
5. The evidence given for evolution is based on supposition, interpretations, assumptions and inferences - and is often wrong.
Note: I am referring to evolution as described as large scale - not adaptation.
I'm just saying it is a methodology that does not explore every aspect of life. There are things that science is not concerned with... and please don't act like you are ignorant and don't know these thing, because I am not your tutor, nor am I on a witness stand.
That's that on that.
What don't you understand by this.
Scientists try to retrace the path by using one method, and one method only - natural science. It restrict its exploration, and therefore cannot be considered a clear pathway to truth. In fact it does not even try to reach that.
To add...
I go where the evidence leads. There is no evidence to support a house being built from straw and wood whipped up by the wind, much less without anyone putting it together - building it.
The Bible is no science book, but when it comes to true science - observed and demonstrated - it's bang on.
Evidence that shows a clear pathway, is what I have presented. It requires a designer to produce the design in nature.
Either that's true or it's false.
If it is true, then it can't be false, therefore what is against it is false.
Design (A) requires a designer (B). There is design (A) in nature (C). Therefore nature (C) had a designer (B). A = B. C = A. Therefore B = C
Evolution (E) by natural selection in not a designer (B). E != B
Therefore E != A
Is that clear now?
nPeace
Veteran Member
What are you talking about? Perhaps instead of accusing me based on your flawed and limited judgment, you could show me how the second law of thermodynamics is against my belief.
Oh, grief! You know this is wrong! “Consistency”?
According to scientists, life was unicellular for almost 3Billion of those years. (Now that’s consistency.)
But then, boom! Almost all animal phyla existing today, appear suddenly in the fossil record throughout the next 20 to 25 m.y., with each having no obvious precursors! (As if they were created!)
I love the fossil record!
You call it ‘consistent’? Most paleontologists don’t think so....rather, they call it ‘incomplete’. I suggest it’s more complete than they want to accept!
Lol.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Having the time to look over your questions a bit better since my screen has cleared... for now, I realize that I can give a simple answer here.
In my post here, I made this point.
So really, say there was no Bible, it would not invalidate the fact that there is a designer. As to who or what this designer is, is anyone's guess.
However, the Bible exists as the oldest know in history, and its writings are about a creator of the universe. Its very first words state the act of creation. That is profound.
It goes on to reveal details about the history of mankind, and God's dealings with them. Long story short, the details in the Bible are so precise it's almost like "its not from this world".
Examining the Bible has convinced me that what it says is the truth, and I have lived these experiences. They are real.
The historical accounts are accurate - so accurate that they mesh with archaeological discoveries. True scientific discoveries are discussed well in advance, in the Bible. It's prophetic utterances have proved trustworthy. It moral principles and values are practical, and timeless, and despite it being written by a number of different writers, its message is one harmonious "symphony" that's beautiful when one is in tune with it.
The Bible therefore is a second witness, or piece of evidence that God is.
So people don't believe it. So what?
I have never known the world to revolve around people agreeing. People will disagree to the end of this system, and the world will still spin.
I believe as the Bible says though, when this system ends, and all the creator's enemies are annihilated, then all alive will agree, just as those that listen to God and obey do.
To clear a few things though.
1. My understand is that the earth was not created in 6 twenty four hour days, so the earth is vastly older than 6000 years. How old? The Bible does not focus on those details.
2. I don't see why creation of Adam from clay and Eve from a rib is a problem to persons. For one thing they are being formed by someone with intelligence, understanding and wisdom - not he human kind, but vastly superior... Not to mention superior ability. Secondly, although the Bible does not go into detail, we can appreciate that no magic was involved, and man was wonderfully made.
Here is some information I found interesting about clay and the rib.
It a copy and paste from one of my posts.
However, when the Bible is involved on scientific finding, it usually is accurate.
For example...
A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions that are present in organisms, essential to some typically biological process such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development. Biomolecules include large macromolecules(or polyanions) such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids, as well as small molecules such as primary metabolites, secondary metabolites, and natural products. A more general name for this class of material is biological materials.
Enhanced transcription and translation in clay hydrogel and implications for early life evolution
.... Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution.
Hydrogels
A hydrogel is a network of polymer chains that are hydrophilic, sometimes found as a colloidal gel in which water is the dispersion medium. A three-dimensional solid results from the hydrophilic polymer chains being held together by cross-links. Because of the inherent cross-links, the structural integrity of the hydrogel network does not dissolve from the high concentration of water. Hydrogels are highly absorbent (they can contain over 90% water) natural or synthetic polymeric networks. Hydrogels also possess a degree of flexibility very similar to natural tissue, due to their significant water content.
Apparently, a clay hydrogel is ideal for not only holding together molecules, but very important for allowing dispersion.
That evidently would explain the balance of the water content within, that makes up the various parts of the body.
How Much Of Your Body Is Water? That All Depends.
The Bible isn't a science text book, but along with science we can get an idea of how easy it was for God to create.
Take another example - the creation of Eve.
....
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online
Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months
The team found that mice and humans were able to regrow removed ribs within months - and could be used in treating osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders.
To better understand this repair process, they removed sections of rib cartilage — ranging from three to five millimeters — from a related mammal, mice.
When they removed both rib cartilage and its surrounding sheath of tissue — called the 'perichondrium,' the missing sections failed to repair even after nine months.
However, when they removed rib cartilage but left its perichondrium, the missing sections entirely repaired within one to two months.
They also found that a perichondrium retains the ability to produce cartilage even when disconnected from the rib and displaced into nearby muscle tissue — further suggesting that the perichondrium contains progenitor or stem cells.
Evidently, we have evidence, that the accounts in the Bible, are not outrageous. It is quite easy for a being with far more wisdom, and technological advantage to do what is being done on a minuscule scale.
3. According to the Bible the snake not talking, and the trees did not magically transmit knowledge. That why it is important to read the Bible in an effort to understand it, rather than criticize it.
3. Death introduced on all life on earth from the fall of Adam and Eve.
What critics say about this has no relevance. It just anther case of not understanding the Bible but seeking to find fault with it.
4. The Bible writers reported a global flood. It is quite obvious it was an event that was witnessed. There is evidence to support its authenticity. Who doesn't want to believe it, can change anything.
It's not even relevant, because does it make sense for one to stick out that they are right when they cannot disprove anything?
5. What is the problem with "all human civilizations on Earth from Noah's sons and wives. And an animal migration from Turkey to their present habitat"?
6. What is wrong with the "Tower of Babel being the start of separation of human languages and races"?
You are asking for scientific styled evidence for the Biblical accounts.
How does that work? Which scientific method are you going to use?
The evidence that God is, comes from applying methods based on observation, experimentation, and applying reason and logic.
As regard the Bible, it is already being rigorously scrutinized by those in that field... I forgot what you call them. Right Historical criticism, and Biblical criticism.
I hope my answers were satisfactorily. If not, feel free to press.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Obviously you did not deign to read the link I provided proving my point on your twisting the natural laws around to support magic.
No I am also not reposting, you have working hands and eyeballs, if they were so complex and perfect you would have seen it already.
No I am also not reposting, you have working hands and eyeballs, if they were so complex and perfect you would have seen it already.
Rubbish. Here's a clear >full observed and described, and by now venerable, example<. More general information >here<.
I mentioned before how specific the circumstances have to be for a fossil to form, how relatively they're extremely rare, and the guesstimate that we may be lucky to find one fossil for every ten thousand species that have previously existed. What the fossil record nonetheless shows is the development of life from proto-prokaryotes to the present. (>Here's a timeline<.) On the one hand it's true that the earliest part has the least information hence the most hypothesizing. On the other hand, some evidence is indeed available, and the hypotheses must fit both with that and with what we know of what evolved later. In other words, if you want to argue they got it wrong, the place to start is an understanding of how they've concluded what they have. That will allow you to argue specifically against anything you consider is an error or a leap-too-far (as distinct from trying to assert them away, which is your present procedure).
When we get out the early stuff, the evidence is more abundant. So although the details remain a work in progress, we can show that humans evolved along this track:
from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)
to the single cell (Prokaryota)
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-]
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria)
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia)
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata)
to a backbone (Vertebrata)
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata)
to four legs (Tetrapoda)
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota)
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida)
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida)
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia)
to milk glands (Mammalia)
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes)
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria)
to placentals (Placentalia)
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria)
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta)
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini)
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes)
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini)
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea)
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae)
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae)
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo)
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens).
to Homo sapiens sapiens.
to the single cell (Prokaryota)
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-]
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria)
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia)
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata)
to a backbone (Vertebrata)
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata)
to four legs (Tetrapoda)
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota)
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida)
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida)
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia)
to milk glands (Mammalia)
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes)
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria)
to placentals (Placentalia)
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria)
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta)
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini)
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes)
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini)
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea)
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae)
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae)
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo)
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens).
to Homo sapiens sapiens.
You don't think the list above shows a spectrum?
You think each of those steps was separately poofed into being by magic?
You think such a magician has to screw around with intermediate steps instead of cutting to the chase?
So? You've never heard of punctuated equilibrium, part of the modern theory of evolution? It doesn't strike you that according to common sense and the theory of evolution, a critter that survives and breeds well in all environments (the cockroach is a much-cited example) has little need to change much?
I've corrected your misunderstanding with the nylon bug above.
In some places it's true that evidence is scanty and that gaps are bridged by careful hypothesis. Note however that the hypothesis must be the one that best fits facts. And then in other places there's a great deal more evidence. You've seen the abundance of fossils from, in particular, china, showing the transition from dinosaurs to feathered dinosaurs to protobirds to birds, I take it?
Note that the change is consistent along a time line. Although nothing stops evolution from simplifying if simplifying works best for survival and breeding, the more eye-catching (and personal) tendency towards elaboration is what we find along those paths. You probably recall Haldane's reply when asked what evidence would refute evolution? Well, we don't find such evidence. [Though if we did, it wouldn't in fact refute evolution, just cause a chunky modification to it].
If you want to assert but not be held responsible for what you say, you need a pulpit, not a debating site.
You already said that. And I've already asked you WHAT other "method" (other than magic) science should be using instead, or in addition. Please be so good as to spell it out.
The bible says that the earth existed before the sun moon and stars did, that plants existed before the sun did, that birds existed before land animals did, that the earth is flat and fixed in place and the heavenly bodies go round it, that the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are affixed and if they come loose they'll fall to earth, that pi=3, that within the history of H sap sap at a time when wood technology was capable of building a giant box that could remain watertight for a year, Mt Everest was 15 feet under water, that at a time when humans were capable of brick or stonework, they only spoke a single language until God, out of fear, cursed them to many languages, and buckets more of such nonsense. If you think that's right, then don't get on planes ─ they'll fly you off the edge of the earth.
You can call evolution a 'designer' if you wish, but evolution is simply a natural process, without sentience or purposes. It has at least one large advantage over your imagined sentient, purposeful designer, though, in that evolution is real.
Last edited:
One good LOL deserves another! Try this:
Modern creationism kicks off with The Genesis Flood which Whitcomb and Morris published in 1961. That's 57 years ago.
In all those 57 years up to the time this post I'm writing goes to press, "Creation science" has made not even one not even very tiny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution.
Zero. Nada. Zip. Nil. Nothing at all. Perfect vacuum.
Tell me, old friend, why is that?
While I'm not slogging through nine pages of reading in this thread, I've slogged through similar threads in the past. One thing I usually find missing from them is a recognition that we humans find the world around us awe-inspiring. Attributing that to a creator god - or in my case, calling the things themselves gods - is a way of expressing that awe and wonderment. Why not let that be instead of getting bogged down in the particulars? @nPeace might arrive at a different destination with this awe than some of us, but at heart, don't we all find the world just awesome?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
How then do you account for the fact that, for a very long time now, the world's paleontologists have had the exact opposite view of what the fossil record shows? Are they part of a massive conspiracy? Really, really bad at ther jobs? Under a magic spell?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Then you shouldn't be surprised at how complex the cell is.