Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Shad]

ok.

Doesn't seem to be relevant to the point I was making though. Being that science doesn't require "faith"

Axioms are taken on faith.

 

[HonestJoe]

One doesn't say theory of Photosynthesis because it's proven fact with each step in order & described. The problem evolution has is you have to describe how photosynthesis came to evolve & exist by random trial & error by only naturalism creating itself by itself without that complex Functional Process ( design ) occurring w/o any Intelligence behind it.

Same with every science process.

So why are you obsessively focusing of evolution then? By your argument, nobody should be permitted to espouse any scientific hypothesis, theory or idea unless they can definitively prove every single process step from the origins of all existence up to their specific topic. And given nobody has every managed that, you’re saying absolutely no science can be accepted as valid.

Significantly, wouldn’t this principle also apply to the Intelligent Design theory you’re now proposing? Unless you can explain exactly what the Intelligence you’re proposing is and how it came about, doesn’t you objection to evolutionary theory apply in exactly the same way?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Axioms are taken on faith.

They are? In the sense of religious blind faith?
Let's test that.

What axioms does evolution use and how are they taken on faith?

 

[Patriottechsan]

I am going to post a link that I have had a hard time finding anywhere else but here. It isn't in this type fashion in the two textbooks I have nor on the internet. I know you will all go off on the source. Forget the source. Just tell me if the order of events it claims for evolution are correct in that order. If not then find and post on here something like this for me to look at so I can refer to it when I make my points. I would have used another source if I had found one that had it laid out this simply. What I found on the net was way too complicated to follow. Here is the first that I found on the net that was too much and too hard to follow. I wanted it simple like the second one. Forget the howling about the source. Either put one on here you agree with that is simple to follow like one I posted or just say it has it correct regardless of their statements. All I care about is correct order for evolution from Big Bang to mankind in this type simple format or organization making it easy to follow for everyone. Hopefully one you guys can all agree on before I go further. Simple but correct but not bogged down by minute details for now.


evolution from Big Bang forward to mankind - Results For Image Search Results

Evolution v Genesis order - creation.com

I've got to get ready for a Dr. appt but will try to get back before I leave and see if you have either posted one you all agree on or you say the one I posted has the order correct despite you don't agree with the source and how it comments. All I am seeking is correct order in simple format from Big Bang to mankind per evolutionary time scale.

 

[SkepticThinker]

.So as a complete Naturalist you have to either believe there was something that was 1) Eternally Existent then you have to explain how that came to be and or what it was and what role did it play in our origins. But if atheist then you don't have that option. So you are left to explain how from nothing came all that exits from nothing by using only naturalism which doesn't allow for Faith or supernatural.as atheist. Faith involves eternal existences and supernatural and then start explaining origins from whichever choice you make. So that is like my original question. Do you believe in eternal existence. That is key in which way we have to start for talking about origins.
If believe in eternal existence then that uses faith and supernatural but as theist it explains the obvious need for ID which is needed to explain all the complexity needed to explain Functional Design and DNA and RNA etc.

If Atheist then you have to explain where or how things that exist came into existence which will absolutely require and inordinate amount of faith and supernatural when you don't believe in eternal existence or a possible ID. So you have to explain existence of everything that exist being able to create itself by itself from itself without using faith or supernatural when we know nothing can be created from nothing and if it did that takes faith and supernatural because it can't be done in any type science experiment to prove it can happen.

Regardless you have to choose which faith or supernatural you will start with.

But make it easy on yourself for now. Just deal with my scientist dissent list and what they say. It isn't me it is a great group of scientist with great credentials and doing as I explained risking careers due to gestapo tactics of evolutionary community which doesn't look good for honest academic research and teaching.

You guys amaze me at how you dodge everything to avoid what you can't handle.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am going to post a link that I have had a hard time finding anywhere else but here. It isn't in this type fashion in the two textbooks I have nor on the internet. I know you will all go off on the source. Forget the source. Just tell me if the order of events it claims for evolution are correct in that order. If not then find and post on here something like this for me to look at so I can refer to it when I make my points. I would have used another source if I had found one that had it laid out this simply. What I found on the net was way too complicated to follow. Here is the first that I found on the net that was too much and too hard to follow. I wanted it simple like the second one. Forget the howling about the source. Either put one on here you agree with that is simple to follow like one I posted or just say it has it correct regardless of their statements. All I care about is correct order for evolution from Big Bang to mankind in this type simple format or organization making it easy to follow for everyone. Hopefully one you guys can all agree on before I go further. Simple but correct but not bogged down by minute details for now.


evolution from Big Bang forward to mankind - Results For Image Search Results

Evolution v Genesis order - creation.com

I've got to get ready for a Dr. appt but will try to get back before I leave and see if you have either posted one you all agree on or you say the one I posted has the order correct despite you don't agree with the source and how it comments. All I am seeking is correct order in simple format from Big Bang to mankind per evolutionary time scale.

Why would anyone bother to respond to you when you never respond to anyone's rebuttals of your "arguments" and simply come back every day with big long swaths of texts that contain tired old, creationist canards that have been debunked decades ago, straw man arguments and misrepresentations of science?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To get to mankind by " Evolution" which isn't proven since its still a theory & numerous theories within it.

One invariant characteristic of the creationist apologist is the inability or refusal to learn.

You've already been told that theories cannot be proven even if correct, they can only be demonstrated to be useful at predicting how nature will respond in a given situation such as how an object the size of earth would be expected to move around an object like our sun, or how to get a space probe to intercept Pluto. As long as science can accomplish these feats, it will continue to be useful to mankind in improving the human condition.

Let me give you a chance to learn two facts, incorporate them into your thinking, and show evidence that you have learned them in your future posting.

1. Theories are not provable even if correct. They can potentially be disproven if incorrect, a process called falsification, but they can never be proven. You never want to ask for a theory to be proven again, right, nor lament that one is still unproven. You will if you are capable of learning. If not, you will repeat your error.

2. Theories are the highest form of knowledge in science, outranking facts and laws. Theories account for the facts and subsume the laws. Gravitational theory accounts for the observations of objects accelerating, and includes a handful of laws. The word theory has a specialized meaning in science, different from the usual lay meaning given the word, which is essentially synonymous with hypothesis or hunch, a very low level of knowledge. A scientific theory is very different. As I indicated, this is a very high level of knowledge unifying large numbers of observations (facts) and predicting previously unknown qualities of reality which are then confirmed as fact as well. Now that you know this, you will never commit the error of saying, "It's only a theory" when referring to a scientific theory.​

a fact can't have theories within & around it & be a Fact.

A fact can be explained by a theory. It is a fact that living populations evolve. The theory of evolution explains how. It provides the mechanism, which invokes certain laws of biology such as that gene pools vary spontaneously and natural selection cull less competitive forms from populations. This is how scientific theories unify observations and laws.

Our origins which starts in textbooks from Big Bang forward is theory not fact.

You're never going to make mistakes like this one again after today, correct - implying that scientific theories don't rise to the status of facts when it is the other way around - comprehensive scientific theories outranking the facts and laws that they unify?

You can't ignore the beginning & start anywhere you want to.

Good point. Tell me a little about yourself. Don't start anywhere you want. You can't ignore the beginning. Begin with the Big Bang or whatever you think is the source for the universe. Please give the order in which the major transformations occurred from the creation of reality until today so that I can have the necessary context to understand your personal story.

Pythagorean theorem is a fact

No mention of proof here? This is where you get to use the word.

One doesn't say theory of Photosynthesis because it's proven fact

We could call the falsifiable narrative that unifies the observed fact that plants fix light and atmospheric CO2, and generate energetic biomolecules and O2 using assorted enzymes in a prescribed order to generate specified intermediates a scientific theory, although the term is usually reserved for more overarching narratives unifying more data. But the relationship is the same. It's not an either-or matter, fact or scientific theory. They go together.

The problem evolution has is you have to describe how photosynthesis came to evolve & exist by random trial & error by only naturalism creating itself by itself without that complex Functional Process ( design ) occurring w/o any Intelligence behind it.

It's already been done. Darwin gave us the mechanism for evolution.

Would you like me to begin with the Big Bang? I may run out of time this morning, probably at about the formation of the galaxies, but in a few weeks, I should be up to the part where the earth arises, and then life followed by photosynthesis appear on it.

How about a more abbreviated version, one starting in the middle, when life is already present on earth, but not photosynthesis? I know how much you object to doing that. I'll bet that whenever you read a scripture, you start at Genesis 1:1 and read until you arrive at it, correct?

Here's what Darwin would tell you: Like all aspects of living things, photosynthesis evolved by the blind application of natural selection to living populations experiencing intergenerational genetic variation and competing for scarce resources. If you'd like to know the details for any particular evolutionary path, you'll need to go outside the theory of evolution. Evolution has no problem there, and no guidance to offer the paleobotanists or algologists studying the problem.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You still can't explain the steps etc it took for photosynthesis to occur.

You seem to think that the fact that science's program of unraveling the mysteries of physical reality is a work in progress with areas that need to be investigated further is a defect in science of some sort.

You also can't shake your continual argument from ignorance - if science can't explain something yet, then a god must responsible. That's obviously incorrect. Do yourself a favor and learn this. Making arguments from ignorance implies that you have nothing better.

It's not science that is in crisis. It's the fundamentalist and literalist religions that find the pronouncements of science inconvenient that are in crisis. They are diminishing in size and clout. Isn't that why you're here - fighting to promote intelligent design, and with a degree of passion and urgency? That's the institution in crisis. It will survive by evolving its doctrine to comport with science, but suffer a loss of market share for the hearts and minds of men.

Thus, most of Christianity has accepted evolution, although even that hasn't prevented its attrition, since the march of science isn't the only reason for that attrition. Most of the damage is self-inflicted, as you are doing now. Your Internet presence is confirmation to those who reject the kind of thinking that you embrace that they have made the right choice. The effect you have is opposite to what appears to be your intended effect.

There are so many holes evolution has.

Evolution has no holes. Your criticisms of it, criticism such as that it hasn't been proven, it's only a theory, it can't tell us the specific pathways or timeline of the evolution of metamorphosis or photosynthesis (or man) are simply not valid criticisms for the reasons given, reasons you never rebut or even acknowledge. You simply repeat the rebutted claim unchanged, which is deemed a defeat for you by others.

You're not even using the reply button any more, nor addressing the points made in rebuttal to you. You simply repeat the same thing you posted last time using more or less the same language - functional design, computer program, RNA/DNA, faith and supernaturalism, atheists need to explain yadda, evolution is not proven and is only a theory (not a fact), evolution is full of holes and is in crisis, you have some quotes of people calling the teaching of evolution propaganda, science uses Gestapo tactics, nobody will dialogue with you like the man at the treadmill notwithstanding even you ignoring the entire forum's attempt to have a discussion with you. Instead, you preach without listening, and repeat rebutted claims unchanged having ignored the rebuttal.

I've told you how that is judged by the academic community and juries. The last feasible argument that goes unrebutted or is unsuccessfully rebutted prevails. If the defense attorney makes a claim of innocence, the prosecutor successfully rebuts the defense (perhaps by discrediting the alibi) and presents compelling evidence and argument in support of guilt, and the defense ignores all of that and simply repeats what it said before unchanged, the defendant is likely to lose his case and go to prison. That's your status here now. You're presently losing your case, as your Religious Forums jury is telling you. Several seem to have already given their verdict and vacated the jury box and courtroom.

Given your Internet "debating" etiquette, I'm wondering if there really was another guy on a neighboring treadmill. Did you look?

Why evolution uses Gestapo tactics to keep people in line by threatening careers, grants & refuse to publish any paper that exposes the fraud & huge cover up.

Yeah, we get that a lot from frustrated creationists unable to get their foot into the science community's door. It must be due to the selfish, malicious, Nazi-like tactics of scientists trying to defend an indefensible position from the pronouncements of creationists and the intelligent design movement, who it turns out are the ones with the truth. That's about it, right?

Here's why ID is rejected by all but a marginalized fringe of the scientific community. ID has nothing to offer science or mankind. It has no explanatory or predictive power. It can't be used for anything except to mislead others, which is why science isn't interested, and which is why nobody will underwrite ID research except those with a religious agenda. It's been a sterile pursuit. Soon, even the Christians will be unwilling to fund this dead end.

Science has to be useful to be science. An idea isn't considered scientifically correct until it can be used to make predictions. That's how the idea is confirmed, as when scientific ideas are used to predict eclipses or send men to the moon and back (the implied prediction being that the craft and moon will behave in a predictable manner). When the predictions are accurate, the ideas underlying them probably are as well.

And it's ID that is the fraud, not science. Are you familiar with "cdesign propnentsists"? They're pretending that ID is not just repackaged creationism, and that it's not a religious idea, but rather, a scientific one. This is how Behe was humiliated at Dover, when it was demonstrated that by his definition of a scientific theory, astrology was one, which he agreed was the case. How is that not dishonest?

I recently read an extremely dishonest creationist argument stating that man could not have evolved from a common ancestor with the other extant great apes because they all have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man only has 23, adding that a chromosomal dropout would lead to death, not further evolution. If you're interested in what the deception is, look up human chromosome 2.

Then evolution uses their tactics as propaganda as reasons to promote & discredit good science as Dr Singham admitted in his article.

Why would it matter to anybody but Mrs. Singham what Dr. Singham thinks? As with anybody else, what matters is what he knows and can demonstrate.

The tactic evolutionary scientists use is to study nature and then to publish their peer-reviewed and peer-approved findings in scientific journals. ID scientists are welcome to submit their papers for review, as well as to have them published in journals sympathetic to their values, methods, and agenda.

Speaking of fraud and deception, are you familiar with the tactics creationist Richard Sternberg used to get an ID paper published in a mainstream journal that he helped referee? From Wiki:

• "The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the pseudo-scientific concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed. One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals. On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. "Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor. The position of editor was unpaid and voluntary, and Sternberg had put in his resignation from it six months earlier."

Read the explanation of why they started that list in the first place. Then their credentials. When I first became aware of the list it was only around 200. It's now 1000.

We know why they started that list. They were hoping to gain support for creationism by giving the impression that a large number of scientists either rejected or didn't accept evolutionary theory, when actually, it was a tiny fraction of scientists. It was another attempt to deceive.

If all the facts are given and the numbers of scientists who accept or reject are presented, we see that creationism really is a marginalized idea with no more place in science than Behe's astrology, which I'd bet some scientists would embrace as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

See the more sophisticated science becomes the more complexity of the function they find & just can't ignore that you MUST HAVE ID.

Actually, the trend is in the opposite direction. The more science learns, the less role there is for an intelligent designer, a deity in retreat known as the god of the (ever-narrowing) gaps. The trend is in one direction only - things thought to be the bailiwick of gods have been shown to be blind, unguided nature reacting passively to the unconscious forces animating it.

And naturally, you failed to learn or discuss the topic when told that complexity is not always the result of intelligence.

How complex is a coastline? How much information must be provided to specify all of its features? How much information would it take to specify the state of the rings of Saturn as it changes over time, specifying each piece of the rings, its distance from the planet and its surrounding pieces, its shape, velocity, orientation, any tumbling motions, it's orbital eccentricity and period, etc.. for each piece as they tug onto and collide with one another.

How much data would it take to completely specify the characteristics of a mountain chain? I mean all of it - its altitude everywhere (not just the peaks and crests), the number, location and specifications for every piece of rock, gravel, and soil, the minerals included and the shapes of their inclusions, the vertical direction the range is moving (uplift versus erosion), and on and on.

These are both very complex arrangements of matter made more complex by their dynamic nature, meaning that the data to specify the state of the mountain at any given instant has changed and will continue to change, increasing the complexity of the description by orders of magnitude.

And yet, no intelligent designer seems to be required. So do yourself a favor and please stop making the error of claiming that complexity implies intelligence. Your audience knows better, and wonders why you don't.

That's what complexity means - multiple features requiring multiple specifications to describe completely. Contrast that with the simplicity of a circle, completely specified by just radius and a location for its center

I'll give you a true to life example from Isaac Newton. He had a friend that was a very committed atheist. Newton could never convince him otherwise. So one day he goes to a master woodland. He has him make to a scale the model of our solar system & planets. When it's finished he picks it up & sets it in the middle of his house. Newton's friend comes over & notices the fine piece of art work displaying our solar system. So he asks Newton who made it. To which Newton replied, "No one!, It just appeared just like that out of nowhere just like that!"
His friend keeps asking & Newton keeps giving him the same answer. Finally the friend starts getting really mad. So Newton explains, " I had so & so make it to illustrate something to you. You keep trying to tell me our solar system etc was created out of nothing by itself". "Yet you won't believe the same type thing on just this model of our solar system & you want me to believe what you do about our solar system. Now do you get my point?"

That's Paley's watchmaker argument in disguise, and it has been debunked :

If you pay attention to Paley's argument, you'll notice that even he can tell a man-made from a natural one. He walks through the heath passing the plants and stones until he comes across something that is clearly machined. He doesn't offer one of the stones or plants as an example, but wants to piggy back them onto his argument that the watch is intelligently designed. If they were all obviously intelligently designed, why isn't the rock being used to prove that the watch was intelligently designed?

Are you appealing to authority invoking Newton? He was an authority on mathematics (calculus) and science (force, gravity, celestial mechanics, optics), not gods. Nobody is.

Newton famously invoked a god to account for the stability of the solar system because he couldn't do it mathematically. He thought that the effect of planets like Saturn and Jupiter ought to tug on planets like earth and mars with each orbit, and either eventually throw them into the sun, or out of the solar system. He was wrong about planets being flung without a god to prevent it. From Newton's Principia :

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Laplace solved the problem with new math called perturbation theory. Once again, the gap for this god to hide in narrowed.

Here is a quote from Darwin's original book you need to grasp. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

That's the original statement that irreducible complexity implies an intelligent designer. Nobody has ever demonstrated any biological system to be irreducibly complex, although many claims of such have been made and refuted (eye, flagellum, immune system, clotting cascade).

Darwin's theory predicts that no such irreducibly complex biological system exists, since that would require an intelligent designer, and that therefore none will ever be found. If anybody ever discovers one, you might have an argument, although I don't know how one can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex if it is, just that it isn't if it isn't.

There's always the possibility that something has been overlooked, or that a pathway was followed that included a temporary feature that later dropped out, something making the evolution of the seemingly too large a leap for nature to make in one bound possible by giving an intermediate step function and a competitive advantage not apparent without it, such as when we see natural rock arches. If we make the error of assuming that only the visible structure was ever there, we can't conceive of a path for nature to take to construct such a thing naturally. It might then seem man-made or of divine origin and be declared irreversibly complex - beyond the abilities of undirected nature.

But that would only be the case if we neglected a temporary structure no longer present due to the differential erosion of the arch and the rock previously supporting it, like the form used to build a Roman arch or a vaulted brick ceiling, there for a while, essential for the arch or ceiling to come to be, but now no longer visible. Maybe ab cant evolve into abd in one step, but perhaps it can evolve into abc, then abcd, then abd.How would you know about c - what it was, how it conferred a competitive advantage without d, but once d was present, became vestigial, and then disappeared.

Yet we have so many complex systems like muscular, nervous, cardiovascular etc that are essential for life & won't work unless complete

Your argument fails when you realize that a zygote can develop into an infant, and be alive throughout the entire process even though it starts with no organ systems, organs, or tissues.Your analogous argument would have to be that its impossible for a baby to ever have been any less than a complete baby because it couldn't live if you remove its heart or lungs.

I can't help you see what you refuse to see.

I can't help you learn what you refuse to discuss, perhaps didn't understand, perhaps didn't consider, and perhaps didn't read.

Then sadly, you've decided to remain intellectually uninformed & stay dishonest & have no interest in learning the whole truth & why are they so scared of that truth forcing them to act that way to suppress it.

You like to use that word dishonest a lot when discussing those who disagree with you. Isn't that you being dishonest, not to mention uncharitable? Is it your understanding that anybody who doesn't admit to finding your case compelling is lying - that they actually were convinced, but said otherwise?

I'd avoid calling others intellectually uniformed, especially when in their wheelhouses. You're talking with several well-educated people with advanced degrees in the one or more of the sciences, all of whom are telling you that it is you who has it wrong. You claim to have a science education yourself with two masters degrees in unnamed sciences, but I nobody seemed to believe you, including me. Can you guess why?

I'd also stop referring to your faith-based beliefs as truth until they can be shown to be true empirically. They're merely guesses supported only by poor reasoning - the things you just can't imagine could have happened spontaneously, so they didn't.

But don't worry. You're in good company. Here are several prominent people who all suffered from a poverty of imagination :

• "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." - Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

• "The phonograph has no commercial value at all." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

• "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

• "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient." - Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.

• "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." - King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.

how did plants turn into animals & stages.

Plants didn't turn into animals.

Would you please tell the forum what your science degrees are in, and when and where you earned them? Did you work in your field of study?

Man do I hate this rainy damp weather & what it does to my pain level.

Sorry about your pain.

 

[Polymath257]

I am going to post a link that I have had a hard time finding anywhere else but here. It isn't in this type fashion in the two textbooks I have nor on the internet. I know you will all go off on the source. Forget the source. Just tell me if the order of events it claims for evolution are correct in that order. If not then find and post on here something like this for me to look at so I can refer to it when I make my points. I would have used another source if I had found one that had it laid out this simply. What I found on the net was way too complicated to follow. Here is the first that I found on the net that was too much and too hard to follow. I wanted it simple like the second one. Forget the howling about the source. Either put one on here you agree with that is simple to follow like one I posted or just say it has it correct regardless of their statements. All I care about is correct order for evolution from Big Bang to mankind in this type simple format or organization making it easy to follow for everyone. Hopefully one you guys can all agree on before I go further. Simple but correct but not bogged down by minute details for now.


evolution from Big Bang forward to mankind - Results For Image Search Results

Evolution v Genesis order - creation.com

I've got to get ready for a Dr. appt but will try to get back before I leave and see if you have either posted one you all agree on or you say the one I posted has the order correct despite you don't agree with the source and how it comments. All I am seeking is correct order in simple format from Big Bang to mankind per evolutionary time scale.

The first link has a number of images, many of which are misleading.

The second seems to be correct in basic outline. I'd say that death and life started at the same point, though.

 

[Patriottechsan]

I'm now at Dr office. Don't have time to read all the responses until I get home.
First reaction from quick perusal.

I have answered some but you don't like it due to bias not that it's wrong.

Apparently you won't answer the simple question I asked. I don't get it. What's so bothersome about starting at the very start to our beginnings.

Yes theories are in fact just theories so by that they aren't PROVEN TRUTH. Yet evolution teaches from Big Bang forward in its order that it is indeed fact. I couldn't post all the verbiage from the textbooks or internet explaining all that & order they present it. I have shown the Gestapo tactics used against dissenters, scientist not creationist but just scientist with great credentials, don't step out of line. Dr.s here. See ya later.

 

[Patriottechsan]

I now haven't been home very long. As it turned out though not surprising. Dr had to do a in office minor surgery on my back & will need to send it in for biopsy. Problem is with my back pain & those major surgeries plus other issues. The pain killer is wearing off so I have that plus normal pain to deal with tonight. I'm very uncomfortable & can't possibly sit at computer & even my recliner is tough due to where minor surgery was to cut out the lump that kept growing.

So what few remarks I make here now certainly won't be near as complete as you want but you still are refusing to even start at the same starting point for beginning of Origins.

Oh btw for the comment on evolution having any type statements or whatever of faith. It certainly wouldn't or couldn't since its atheist & based on pure Naturalism with no allowances for Faith or Supernatural.
Yet refusal to openly acknowledge something doesn't mean it's not there. It's there but you refuse to acknowledge it.

What I'm trying to do is first agree on a starting point where we start from & then move forward by steps to get to mankind.

Evolution starts with the Big Bang.
Creationist start with "God created the heavens & the earth". He did so by just speaking it into existence. If there is a All powerful all knowing omniscient omnipresent God Then that is certain within His ability.

I'm not asking you to agree He exist &/or created all things.

I'm just asking us to agree on where the different starting parts are.

Atheist Big Bang with No God & creation has to occur w/o anything but Naturalist means. IE All of creation starts from itself & continues to mankind by pure Naturalism & no faith or Supernatural allowed per their view.

I just did Creationist with God & in 6 24 HR days & in the order the Bible says. Obviously relies on Faith & Supernatural & admitted to from the start.

Theistic evutionist. Admit there has to be ID due to the extreme complexity of Functional Design seen in creation. So they acknowledge what they see as unavoidably necessary an ID. Some say same God as Creationist but this God used evolution & it's time frame etc just as Naturalist atheist evolution uses except they allow that God had to intervene to help guide it as Intelligence is so obviously needed & required.

Some Creationist as described above won't allow for a God that uses evolution & death & because as link posted due to different order than the Bible. They say a choice must be made. Believe the Bible is inerrant & that Jesus Himself validates Genesis in the Bible & it's inerrancy or compromise & try to put both together as many Theistic do.

What I clearly want for us to truly start. Is agree that these are the prevailing viewpoints of where we start & move forward on mankind & all that exist got here.

I don't see why that's such a problem for everyone. You have to have some belief system on mankind's Origins & have a starting point.

So let's agree to the starting points & number them so we have full agreement of those terms to start. It's the only way to begin this discussion.

Then proceed. Give me what you'd agree to. If not explain what are you so afraid of to agree on the starting points. That's truly confusing to me.

I'll try & come back when I can depending on my pain levels tonight.

I really hope to be able to do this.
Have good evening. Need to get more comfortable right now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, the trend is in the opposite direction. The more science learns, the less role there is for an intelligent designer, a deity in retreat known as the god of the (ever-narrowing) gaps. The trend is in one direction only - things thought to be the bailiwick of gods have been shown to be blind, unguided nature reacting passively to the unconscious forces animating it.

And naturally, you failed to learn or discuss the topic when told that complexity is not always the result of intelligence.

How complex is a coastline? How much information must be provided to specify all of its features? How much information would it take to specify the state of the rings of Saturn as it changes over time, specifying each piece of the rings, its distance from the planet and its surrounding pieces, its shape, velocity, orientation, any tumbling motions, it's orbital eccentricity and period, etc.. for each piece as they tug onto and collide with one another.

How much data would it take to completely specify the characteristics of a mountain chain? I mean all of it - its altitude everywhere (not just the peaks and crests), the number, location and specifications for every piece of rock, gravel, and soil, the minerals included and the shapes of their inclusions, the vertical direction the range is moving (uplift versus erosion), and on and on.

These are both very complex arrangements of matter made more complex by their dynamic nature, meaning that the data to specify the state of the mountain at any given instant has changed and will continue to change, increasing the complexity of the description by orders of magnitude.

And yet, no intelligent designer seems to be required. So do yourself a favor and please stop making the error of claiming that complexity implies intelligence. Your audience knows better, and wonders why you don't.

That's what complexity means - multiple features requiring multiple specifications to describe completely. Contrast that with the simplicity of a circle, completely specified by just radius and a location for its center



That's Paley's watchmaker argument in disguise, and it has been debunked :

If you pay attention to Paley's argument, you'll notice that even he can tell a man-made from a natural one. He walks through the heath passing the plants and stones until he comes across something that is clearly machined. He doesn't offer one of the stones or plants as an example, but wants to piggy back them onto his argument that the watch is intelligently designed. If they were all obviously intelligently designed, why isn't the rock being used to prove that the watch was intelligently designed?

Are you appealing to authority invoking Newton? He was an authority on mathematics (calculus) and science (force, gravity, celestial mechanics, optics), not gods. Nobody is.

Newton famously invoked a god to account for the stability of the solar system because he couldn't do it mathematically. He thought that the effect of planets like Saturn and Jupiter ought to tug on planets like earth and mars with each orbit, and either eventually throw them into the sun, or out of the solar system. He was wrong about planets being flung without a god to prevent it. From Newton's Principia :

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Laplace solved the problem with new math called perturbation theory. Once again, the gap for this god to hide in narrowed.



That's the original statement that irreducible complexity implies an intelligent designer. Nobody has ever demonstrated any biological system to be irreducibly complex, although many claims of such have been made and refuted (eye, flagellum, immune system, clotting cascade).

Darwin's theory predicts that no such irreducibly complex biological system exists, since that would require an intelligent designer, and that therefore none will ever be found. If anybody ever discovers one, you might have an argument, although I don't know how one can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex if it is, just that it isn't if it isn't.

There's always the possibility that something has been overlooked, or that a pathway was followed that included a temporary feature that later dropped out, something making the evolution of the seemingly too large a leap for nature to make in one bound possible by giving an intermediate step function and a competitive advantage not apparent without it, such as when we see natural rock arches. If we make the error of assuming that only the visible structure was ever there, we can't conceive of a path for nature to take to construct such a thing naturally. It might then seem man-made or of divine origin and be declared irreversibly complex - beyond the abilities of undirected nature.

But that would only be the case if we neglected a temporary structure no longer present due to the differential erosion of the arch and the rock previously supporting it, like the form used to build a Roman arch or a vaulted brick ceiling, there for a while, essential for the arch or ceiling to come to be, but now no longer visible. Maybe ab cant evolve into abd in one step, but perhaps it can evolve into abc, then abcd, then abd.How would you know about c - what it was, how it conferred a competitive advantage without d, but once d was present, became vestigial, and then disappeared.



Your argument fails when you realize that a zygote can develop into an infant, and be alive throughout the entire process even though it starts with no organ systems, organs, or tissues.Your analogous argument would have to be that its impossible for a baby to ever have been any less than a complete baby because it couldn't live if you remove its heart or lungs.



I can't help you learn what you refuse to discuss, perhaps didn't understand, perhaps didn't consider, and perhaps didn't read.



You like to use that word dishonest a lot when discussing those who disagree with you. Isn't that you being dishonest, not to mention uncharitable? Is it your understanding that anybody who doesn't admit to finding your case compelling is lying - that they actually were convinced, but said otherwise?

I'd avoid calling others intellectually uniformed, especially when in their wheelhouses. You're talking with several well-educated people with advanced degrees in the one or more of the sciences, all of whom are telling you that it is you who has it wrong. You claim to have a science education yourself with two masters degrees in unnamed sciences, but I nobody seemed to believe you, including me. Can you guess why?

I'd also stop referring to your faith-based beliefs as truth until they can be shown to be true empirically. They're merely guesses supported only by poor reasoning - the things you just can't imagine could have happened spontaneously, so they didn't.

But don't worry. You're in good company. Here are several prominent people who all suffered from a poverty of imagination :

• "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." - Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

• "The phonograph has no commercial value at all." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

• "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

• "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient." - Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.

• "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." - King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.

Plants didn't turn into animals.

Would you please tell the forum what your science degrees are in, and when and where you earned them? Did you work in your field of study?



Sorry about your pain.

Some brilliant pieces of work IANS. If I was not already convinced, these would have done it.

 

[night912]

Think about this. If you walked up on a cell phone on a beach. You don't think. Look what evolved by Random chance by trial & error over eons of time. If you did that would take incredible Faith & Supernatural. You'd instantly recognize Intelligent Design.

I hope I've at least made you think openly & honestly. I have many more quotes from evolutionist that expose the fraud it really is in addition to this. Get out of the box those 2 evolutionist put you in by their own admission.

Hahaha. Apparently you didn't think about that. You just showed that that the world wasn't intelligently designed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently you won't answer the simple question I asked. I don't get it. What's so bothersome about starting at the very start to our beginnings.

Nobody has any problems with investigating beginnings.
In fact, investigating beginnings of the universe, is exactly what cosmologists do.
Investigating beginnings of life, is exactly what abiogenesis researchers do.

And this research is public and ongoing. Not some secret or conspiracy. It's a scientific study like any other.



The thing that you seem to be determined to not comprehend though, is that all these things have their place and scope.

Life exists, that's a fact.
Life has a history on this planet, that's a fact
Life is subject to certain processes, that's a fact
Life works in a specific way, that's a fact.

It is entirely uncessary to know how life originated, in order to be able to study these facts and draw conclusions from. It is entirely unecessary to know how life originated, in order to study life's history on this planet..

It DOES NOT MATTER how life originated, when talking in the scope of these facts.
Wheter your god created first life, a natural process or interdimensional aliens: those facts are what they are and remain what they are. The processes that life is subject to, will also remain the exact same after we find out where life comes from.

This is something you really really really need to start understanding.
This is going nowhere unless you open your dogmatic mind for just an inch and understand how we don't have to know everything, in order to know some things.

Yes theories are in fact just theories so by that they aren't PROVEN TRUTH.

www.notjustatheory.com


Please.... read that webpage. You clearly didn't the first time I gave you that link.
To say about a scientific theory that it is "JUST a theory", is about the most stupid thing one can say and about the best way to loose any shred of credibility you might have had left.

Learn2science

Yet evolution teaches from Big Bang forward in its order that it is indeed fact.

Evolution is a theory of biology and it has exactly zero to do with big bang cosmology.
Case in point: evolution was a thing long before LeMaitre came up with big bang theory.

3rd time this is pointed out to you by me. Others have told you this as well.
Why do you keep repeating an already exposed falsehood? What do you hope to accomplish by consistently getting things wrong?

I couldn't post all the verbiage from the textbooks or internet explaining all that & order they present it. I have shown the Gestapo tactics used against dissenters, scientist not creationist but just scientist with great credentials, don't step out of line. Dr.s here. See ya later.

and out come the conspiracy theories again.


This is really just a bad joke, is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution starts with the Big Bang.

No.

Evolution starts with life existing. On our planet, that's some 10 billion years after the big bang.

Creationist start with "God created the heavens & the earth".

Indeed.

Evolution starts with a factual thing: life exists. That's a pretty safe assumption.
Creationists start with an a priori dogmatic belief, which also happens to be their conclusion. Aka "an assumed conclusion". It's a fallacy, btw.

He did so by just speaking it into existence

"abracadabra"
*POOF*

I'm just asking us to agree on where the different starting parts are.

And we are all asking you to stop arguing your strawman about where "evolution" starts.

Atheist Big Bang with No God

It's funny, because the cosmologist who actually came up with Big Bang theory, was also a catholic priest.

Oeps.

What I clearly want for us to truly start. Is agree that these are the prevailing viewpoints of where we start & move forward on mankind & all that exist got here.

We keep telling you that what you have are just prevailing strawmen. But you don't seem to care.

 

[HonestJoe]

You know it would be much easier to follow your arguments if you quoted the posts of the people you’re replying to (and actually directly address their points). As it stands, you just seem to be going around in circles.

Evolution starts with the Big Bang.
Creationist start with "God created the heavens & the earth". He did so by just speaking it into existence. If there is a All powerful all knowing omniscient omnipresent God Then that is certain within His ability.

You keep stating this without making any argument in favour of the principle that we can’t discuss evolution without first explaining the origins of everything. I ask again, do you apply this to every other scientific theory? Can we not explain gravity, electromagnetism or combustion without first going back to the origin of the everything either?

And again, based on your own principle, what re you allowed to present God as the creator of life without going back and explaining the origin of everything, including the origin of God? And not just asserting “God has always existed”, actually explaining and proving in exactly the same way you’re demanding of the Big Bang in relation to evolution.

You’re also ignoring the fact that while most people who accept evolutionary theory will also accept the Big Bang theory, neither relies on the other. It is perfectly possible that the universe and life came about via some other means, even a divine creator but the it developed via evolutionary means. It is also perfectly possible that the universe came about via the Big Bang but some divine being created and developed life.

Atheist Big Bang with No God & creation has to occur w/o anything but Naturalist means. IE All of creation starts from itself & continues to mankind by pure Naturalism & no faith or Supernatural allowed per their view.

These words are an irrelevant distraction to the whole topic. Faith is irrelevant to what actually happened, it only refers to what we individually think. In the grand scheme of things, we’re all irrelevant. The universe and life will have come about via whatever means they actually did regardless of any faith we each have. We could all be completely wrong.

Supernatural literally means something happening that cannot happen. If a God actually exists and created the universe, it wouldn’t really be supernatural, it would just be part of the natural universe that is much wider than humans currently perceive. In my opinion, the entire concept of supernatural is merely used to make assertions without having the support them with evidence, or even if they directly contradict apparent evidence and understanding.

I don't see why that's such a problem for everyone. You have to have some belief system on mankind's Origins & have a starting point.

Everyone will have ideas and opinions but “I don’t know” remains a legitimate conclusion as we stand. The fact remains that conclusion doesn’t invalidate any ideas, hypothesis or theories based upon the existence of the things we don’t now the source of.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Supernatural literally means something happening that cannot happen. If a God actually exists and created the universe, it wouldn’t really be supernatural, it would just be part of the natural universe that is much wider than humans currently perceive. In my opinion, the entire concept of supernatural is merely used to make assertions without having the support them with evidence, or even if they directly contradict apparent evidence and understanding.

This. A thousand times, this.

 

[ecco]

If an evolutionist doesn't believe in eternal existence. They have a huge problem. They have to explain the origin of the original energy w/o using Faith or Supernatural & it coming into existence from nothing.

You are wrong - on multiple levels.

First, there are many people who believe in Evolution who also believe God created the universe.

I know you have a hard time believing that, but it's true. There are far more people who believe in evolution (~50%) than there are atheists (~18%).

For those of us who are atheists, we don't need to know "the origin of the original energy". We are quite comfortable saying "We don't know", unlike those who, throughout history, have touted GodDidIt. GodDidIt didn't work for lightning. GodDidIt didn't work for locusts eating crops. GodDidIt didn't work for mountains erupting. GodDidIt didn't work for infections. GodDidIt didn't work for anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have answered some

I don't remember seeing that. I don't recall seeing you address another poster, nor seeing you acknowledge points made or questions asked.

That's been the case with me. I no longer expect you to answer or even read my posts. In fact, I can't tell that you aren't just software generating extremely similar posts that contain no information or even evidence that their source isn't a random paragraph generator.

you don't like it due to bias not that it's wrong.

No, you are wrong in many places, but apparently will never be right, especially if you are unwilling to interact with others, or won't even look at what's been written to you

Apparently you won't answer the simple question I asked. I don't get it.

Pretty much everybody has lost interest in whatever it is that you keep telling us you intend to do or want others to participate in. You don't hold up your end of the bargain. I suggest that you get to whatever it is you have to say. Maybe a poster or two will still be here by then, although I doubt that anybody wants to enter into a discussion with you any longer. They just want to point out your errors for the benefit of people who can benefit from that exercise, a group the doesn't include you.

What's so bothersome about starting at the very start to our beginnings.

It's not necessary or helpful. Furthermore, nobody seems to be interested any longer. You've taken too long to get started, and you've ignored too many posts.

Yes theories are in fact just theories so by that they aren't PROVEN TRUTH.

You are utterly ineducable. This is another reason people aren't interested in your thoughts. What would a person with a decent education in science care about the opinions of creationists that don't understand the basics of science. You're a stranger to the world of science. You should be asking questions, not lecturing.

evolution teaches from Big Bang forward in its order

Only if you mean material evolution, which is the history of the appearance of forces and particles, and their epochal transformations from isolated individual particles to ions to atoms, which evolve into galaxies of solar systems.

This is followed by chemical evolution, or abiogenesis, when simple molecules evolved into living cells.

Then biological evolution. This is where biological evolution begins.

Next comes psychological evolution, as mind arises and increasing levels of awareness and assorted faculties such as vision and conscience appear.

Finally, cultural evolution, as the most advanced mind on earth, the human mind, learns to harness fire, acquire language, develop permanent settlement with farming and animal husbandry, make sophisticated tools..

These are all evolution.

And there you have it, from the beginning of time.

I have shown the Gestapo tactics used against dissenters

No, you haven't. You've only shown your tactics. You've merely made the unsupported claim that ID is excluded from science because of a selfish and malicious conspiracy to inappropriately reject creationist submissions to respected refereed journals, the same claim you've made earlier, one which was rebutted and which rebuttal you ignored only to repeat your claim unchanged

what few remarks I make here now certainly won't be near as complete as you want

Agreed. They also won't be remarks of much use, they won't vary from what you've already posted multiple times, they won't be a response to anybody else present in this forum, and they won't be directed at anybody in particular or different

you still are refusing to even start at the same starting point for beginning of Origins.

If you want to start with the Big Bang, feel free. You seem to want others to do it for you. Maybe somebody will still be interested, but probably not if they're here to discuss creationism versus (biological) evolution.

Theistic evutionist. Admit there has to be ID due to the extreme complexity of Functional Design seen in creation. So they acknowledge what they see as unavoidably necessary an ID.

And their thinking is rejected as faulty for that reason. Their conclusion is a non sequitur, meaning that it doesn't follow from what preceded it due to a logical error of credulity.

The way things seem to you - what you can and cannot imagine - is irrelevant to others, and being unable to conceive of something easily conceived by others doesn't make your impression correct.

Give me what you'd agree to. If not explain what are you so afraid of to agree on the starting points. That's truly confusing to me.

What I'd agree to discuss with you? Nothing at this point. You bring nothing to the table except bad debating manners. You have nothing to offer the forum except the chance to entertain ourselves and one another correcting your errors.