The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Pogo]

And you know or believe these dates because why?

Because we use the same physics to build nuclear reactors and atomic bombs and medical imaging. The knowledge we have of radioactive elements used in these devices which I assume you know exist in reality is the same knowledge used in radiometric dating.
It is not guesswork or speculation in any way.

 

[blü 2]

Atheists spend so much time wrapping themselves in the denial of God they go to the grave leaving themselves without hope...its kaput when an individual who denies God dies.

I haven't had the chance to get around to "denying" God. As far as I can tell, the only manner in which God exists is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain ─ which is frequently there because the individual has been acculturated with the idea since birth.

The alternative for God is to be objectively real, to be found in nature, the world external to the self. There are many problems for God here. First, God never appears, says or does in reality. Some say that's because [he]'s a "spiritual" being, but unfortunately for that view, no objective test that i know of can distinguish the "spiritual" from the imaginary. A good example of how this works is a Christian telling a Hindu that eg Lakshmi doesn't exist, is not real, and the Hindu replying that the gods of Hinduism are the true gods, and Yahweh is a fake god.

If gods were objectively real, we could solve this with live appearances, TV interviews, photos and news items. But the evidence seems to be EXTREMELY strong that they're not.

Another part of that evidence is that God has no description appropriate to a real being ─ number and types of sensory organs, number of limbs (if any), height, weight, distinguishing features, diet, breeding habits, evolution &c. Instead [he]'s described in imaginary terms ─ omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, external &c. So we can't even determine what we should be looking for when we seek a real God. There isn't even a definition of "godness", the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

However, if you're able to provide this information ─ as distinct from excuses as to why the information isn't available ─ I'm very interested to hear it.

You get one chance at life, In my view it's best not to waste it. As Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 says,

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.​

Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun.​

Which seems to be a very good summary.

At least the Christian chooses to place their hat in the ring and therefore has hope in life after death.
You can play around with this all you like, you are choosing kaput. A Christian will never be convinced by the the blind stupidity of kaput.

The author of Ecclesiastes was not a Christian, of course.

But what's the point of living forever? As the poet said,

One hundred​

billion​

years on​

what will you say​

to your true love?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi IC5559,

So, it's like I have been saying - it's conjecture. Some say 5784 years old, some 40,000 years old, some 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old. They have no solid knowledge, only their speculation.

What about God parting the Red Sea?
What about Noah and the flood?
What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?
What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Do you think all the above things are just myths too?

No, it i s not speculation. They are all tested and confirmed claims. Something that you should be willing to learn about. As to the list that you made, those are myths.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because we use the same physics to build nuclear reactors and atomic bombs and medical imaging. The knowledge we have of radioactive elements used in these devices which I assume you know exist in reality is the same knowledge used in radiometric dating.
It is not guesswork or speculation in any way.

Ok I've been looking at atoms and what they consist of. Do scientists figure it must have been gravity that put the particles together?

 

[YoursTrue]

They think they have reliable information. That thinking keeps changing as time goes by. In the future they will probably think something else. Thinking something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.

Wow, so when YHWH said he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of slavery, it was just a myth how he did it. Deuteronomy 5:6 I didn't realize that was how the Jews feel about it.

Yes, those last things were parables giving examples of things in order to teach something. But not everything is a parable.

That's what some people think. They honor and virtually worship a myth.
Isaiah 29:13 -
Then the Lord said: "Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, worship of me has become merely like rules taught by human beings."
Matthew 15:8 - These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what some people think. They honor and virtually worship a myth.
Isaiah 29:13 -
Then the Lord said: "Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, worship of me has become merely like rules taught by human beings."
Matthew 15:8 - These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

That may be the most ironic post of the year.

 

[Pogo]

Ok I've been looking at atoms and what they consist of. Do scientists figure it must have been gravity that put the particles together?

Only in the sense that it brought fundamental particles together as the big bang cooled.

• The Four Fundamental Forces.
• Gravitational Force.
• Electromagnetic Force.
• Strong Nuclear Force.
• Weak Nuclear Force.

Of these gravity is actually the weakest but has the greatest range.
That is enough, you are way in the weeds already, come back when you have a few more HS physics concepts under your belt.
That said, spend 15 minutes on this video and put nuclear physics out of your mind for a while.

The Four Fundamental Forces of nature - Origin & Function​

 

[Pogo]

That may be the most ironic post of the year.

Maybe, but it has a lot of competition.
On another note, I was googling for the name of the fallacy which is basically; We don't know everything so we don't know anything. It is sort of the argument from ignorance, but not quite, it is usually the justification for an argument from ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but it has a lot of competition.
On another note, I was googling for the name of the fallacy which is basically; We don't know everything so we don't know anything. It is sort of the argument from ignorance, but not quite, it is usually the justification for an argument from ignorance.

I do not know if there is a specific logical fallacy for that one, but it appears to be a hybrid of an argument from ignorance and a black and white fallacy.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok I've been looking at atoms and what they consist of. Do scientists figure it must have been gravity that put the particles together?

No. The force holding the atoms together is electromagnetic. The force holding the nucleus together is the strong nuclear force. Both are understood quite well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok I've been looking at atoms and what they consist of. Do scientists figure it must have been gravity that put the particles together?

Gravity doesn't play much of a role putting or holding things together below a certain scale of size. I am not aware of gravity having any direct effect on a bacterium, for example.

Looking at Pogo's list of the fundamental forces, at the scale of the atomic nucleus, it's the strong nuclear force that keeps the quarks bound together into neutrons and protons and the neutrons and protons bound together into nuclei (nuclear physics).

At a slightly larger scale - atoms and molecules - it's the electromagnetic force that holds electrons to the nucleus and atoms to one another and allows atoms to form molecules (chemistry).

At larger scales, it's gravity that does the rest of the pulling and holding.

It forms stars, planets and moons from gas clouds by collapsing nebulae, holds oceans and atmospheres to their moons and planets, holds you and me to the surface of earth, causes stars to collapse when they run out of fuel (which leads to supernovae and the distribution of heavy elements to remote nebulae, essential to rocky planets like earth and life forming), holds solar systems together, forms galaxies and their central supermassive black holes. and causes them to collide and grow. And though it seems unlikely now that we know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, if the universe experiences a big crunch in the distant future, it will be gravity that causes that.

The fourth force listed, the weak nuclear force, is relevant in the areas of nuclear reactions such as fission and fusion, the former being relevant in radioactive decay as with radiodating, and the latter essential for stars to produce light, heat, and heavy elements. As far as I know, it doesn't "put particles together" like the other three forces do. It helps some come apart and to transmute into other particles.

Edit: I see that @Polymath257 just posted. Maybe he will review this post and correct or augment anything that isn't quite right. I'm not a physicist, just an interested lay person.

 

[Valjean]

AdamjEdgar said:
Given the large amount of historical evidence in support of the bible narrative (both internal and particularly external evidence), one should choose Christianity because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from being one and there are a lot of resources historically that support its narrative...if you bother to actually go and find them to check (which most in your postiion do not bother)

As some of us have informed you, many of the Bible's historical narratives: Genesis, Worldwide flood, Egyptian exodus, &c. did not happen; they are factually wrong.

Many of the miracles and historical events mentioned are apocryphal; second-hand hearsay, told and retold hundreds of times, eventually written down, then copied, recopied, and variously edited.
These don't meet most standards of evidence, particularly the miracle (magic) claims, for which no known mechanism exists.

The Bible also contains contradictions and inconsistencies.
The authors of many of the books are unknown, later attributions.
The books now considered canonical her often haphazard additions, often voted in by church committees.

So what makes this book either reliable or authoritative?

 

[Valjean]

YoursTrue said:
And you know or believe these dates because why?

TrueBeliever37 said:
Pure myth. No witnesses - Only speculation.

I've noticed that believers often know very little about science or the scientific method. Nor do they know of or understand the evidence supporting scientific claims. In short, they don't know why scientists make their claims.

They seem to equate scientific knowledge with religious knowledge, and assume it's based on speculation and the authority of some received doctrine.

They spend a lot of their time trying to nitpick the scientific claims they don't understand and assume to be largely faith based. If they can undermine the science, they feel their religious "alternative" is supported.

False dilemma, based on a false equivalence, which doesn't follow.

 

[Valjean]

That's what some people think. They honor and virtually worship a myth.
Isaiah 29:13 -
Then the Lord said: "Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, worship of me has become merely like rules taught by human beings."
Matthew 15:8 - These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Before trying to support your theological claims with Bible quotes, you need to establish the authority of the Bible you're using to support its own authenticity.

See the problem here? You're appealing to an authority you haven't established.

 

[Valjean]

They think they have reliable information. That thinking keeps changing as time goes by. In the future they will probably think something else. Thinking something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'm constantly amazed at this claim that science's greatest strength, it's ongoing growth and refinment as research discovers new evidence, is a flaw.
Unlike religious doctrine, science is not writ in stone. Science is a research and testing modality, not a claim of ultimate reality. It follows evidence, not tradition or authority.

This claim of immutability is religion's greatest flaw. Its claims are unfounded, not derived from actual objective, tested evidence. It's claims have been crumbling for centuries, as they're overtaken by evidence.

Wow, so when YHWH said he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of slavery, it was just a myth how he did it. Deuteronomy 5:6 I didn't realize that was how the Jews feel about it.

On what objective evidence do you base this claim about YHWH? How do you explain the evidence that this didn't happen?

The evidence that it didn't happen is greater than the evidence that it did. I could even claim that there is no evidence that it happened, just a story in a book -- which cannot be considered real evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is. Much, if not most of it, is based on guesswork, not evidence, because what is considered by scientists as evidence does not definitely verify the theory.

Note the bolded part. That's not how evidence works.
Evidence supports the hypothesis (ie: it matches the verifiable predictions).

There is no "definitely". And the absence of such certainty doesn't mean the alternative is "just guesswork".

For example, let's take a murder case. A body with a bullet in the head.
Forensics show the bullet was fired from gun X.
Let's say DNA of the owner of said gun is found on the victim.
Let's say fingerprints of the owner of said gun is found on the gun and no other fingerprints are present.
Let's say gunpowder matching the gun is found on the hand of the owner of the gun.


None of this "definitely" show the owner of the gun is the murderer.
But all of it sure supports it.

So, the hypothesis that the owner of the gun is the murdere is NOT "mere guesswork".
It is indeed a model of the murder which is fully supported by the available evidence.

We can pile on additional evidence supporting this model...
For example, perhaps the suspect has no alibi.
Perhaps phone records of the suspect puts his phone at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder.
Perhaps a traffic cam accross the street captured the suspect entering the building around the time of the murder.

NONE of it "definitely" would show the suspect is the murderer.
But all of it would support it. Evidence. Not the same as "proof".


To say that because of this, it is "mere guesswork" is just plain wrong.

But if you say so, and scientists say so, that's what counts for you.

No. The evidence says so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While I know there is a controversy about "kinds,"

Only in the minds of creationists.

I (1) do not believe evolution has really solved the problem/mystery of supposed evolved organisms from -- let's say -- fish to humans.

Your beliefs are not relevant to the science.
How evolution works might be a mystery to you, but it's not a mystery to the science of biology.

They may conjecture in line with the proposed theory, but that's about it.

No. There's lots of evidence. So much that we can accept the theory. It's evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Willfull ignorance is not an argument.

Because there is nothing to show that this type of evolution happened as proposed in realtime.

No, we can't show you a process that takes some 400 million years to unfold "in real time".
Nevertheless, we can demonstrate it happened.

That humans share ancestors with fish = genetic fact btw. Not "some theory".

Only suppositions based on a pre-set formula. But really, from my observations of the theory plus evidence scientists think fit, it does not add up.

That's because you only insist on strawman versions of evolution.
This has been explained to you many times.

Or show for certain anything.

Nothing in science is shown "for certain".
Your argument now is against all of science, not just biology.

Thanks though for conversation. I appreciate it.

Do you? Do you, really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, but I don't agree. Many people have been wrongly convicted or put to death because the juries were either were prejudiced or convinced that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ironically, the extreme vast majority, if not all, of wrongly convicted people were convicted on the type of evidence you praise into the sky to defend your religion: anecdote and testimony.

Even more ironically, when they were finally released and shown to be innocent, that was done on the type of evidence you try to denigrade and call "just conjectue" and "guesswork", like DNA.

Go figure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do you believe there was a great flood and only Noah and his family were saved or is that a myth in your opinion?

Obvious myth. Demonstrably myth.

What was the Jewish calendar based on? Evidently they really don't even have an idea what year it really is - right?

There are many calendars in the world. That doesn't mean much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are saying things evolved. I made the point that you have to have something here first, so it can evolve. (So you have to have life first.)

Yes. So?

So now I am asking you what your possible scenario is, to get that life to begin with so it could start evolving.

Don't know & doesn't matter to evolution.