Failure is your middle name isn't it?
Understanding Creation
47 Comments - 1461 Views
Why it is science
Submitted By 9tails on 09/06/04
FreeHovind, 9tails, Creation and Evolution
One of the arguments put forward by our evolutionist friends is their insisting that creation is "not science", while evolution is "science". There are some very basic concepts that observation would tell us that this is not so, just the opposite in fact. I'll explain:
If you take everything you know and place it aside. Everything you think. Everything you are predisposed to. Empty your mind of your prejudices and understandings. Empty your mind. Now what do you have? Mere observation.
Now look at the world we live in. It is a world full of life and sound and complexity. There are very basic questions that come to surface when we see our world. What is the earth? Where did the earth come from? What is life? Where did life come from? What is their purpose? Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose? These are the nature of questions that exist with the open mind.
Then you begin to notice how everything is intertwined. All life that exists came from the parent before it. The earth is a body in empty space, like the sun and all the stars. You see the universe. Tracing everything back to it's original cause, it's original source. Now we see that the earth is a part of the universe. It is a body of water and complex chemicals and solid ground. The earth is blessed (or cursed) with life.
When we see the universe as a whole, we begin to tap into a model of eternity, of infinity. How is it that the universe exists?
Was it created from an outside source?
Or does it exist of itself, either an eternal being or of itself created?
If the universe is eternal, never having began or cease, the cosmos would never cease. We begin to understand that the universe is cooling, Going dark. It is also expanding, propagating from a source, as all things do. Everything with a beginning has an ending. We see that the cosmos are slowly coming to an end. A beginning is assumed also.
If the universe exists of itself, the raw energy and resources would have had to have been derived from somewhere. Basic energy with a drive to trans-mutate and replicate, of itself, begs the architecture of what it is that drives the universe. What drives replicating and transformation? What exists that gives manifest to laws, principles, drives, rules, architecture and system of existence.
These approaches to explain the existence of the universe systems of autopoiesis. The idea that the universe exists of and within itself, created itself, is self driven and self designed. Ultimately, there is no way to avoid the paradox, self existence is self design.
The last approach to explaining the universe is known as the creationist idea. The system of allopoiesis. The proposal that an outside source was involved in the creation of the universe. The source for the universe had the drive, resources, ability and projected design with which the universe exists there in, to follow a system of laws and functions that govern the universes bound and limited nature. Thermodynamics plays the role of designating such boundaries and limitations on the universe. The same source also, would, supposedly, be eternal of itself. As time is a thing that exists within the universe. The label that is given to such a source has been, for some time, "God" - the source of the universe and life.
There is, from time to time, criticism from believers of the autopoiesis idea against the believers of the allopoiesis idea. There is an irony of a sort with the criticism, as allopoiesis is a perfectly reasonable, tenable idea and often, is entirely more substantial that autopoiesis, which is often difficult to grasp even it's possibility.
There are systems to allopoiesis, which finds the system of creation, which are observable and testable. The laws of science and the universe, the boundaries and limitations set for the universe, thermodynamics, physics, cosmology, chemistry, all different fields of science bears a architecture, similar one to another, that gives a powerful testimony to creation. Similar drives and design, irreducible complexity. The more we learn about our universe, the more we are able to learn about it's creator, a wonderful prospect.
The same principles can be applied to life and biology. Life is never observed spontaneously generating, is naturalistically impossible and follows similar boundaries and limitations as the universe, yet it exists.
Life itself gives another powerful testimony to creation. It's existence, yet, the impossibility of it self assembling. Theories and models are always being tested and created to help elaborate on the mechanism's of creation.
This assert is not a false dichotomy as it explains and categorizes the possibilities of the universe and life's existence.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
JamesRaynor
22 minutes - 21v
Posted 2009/06/04 - 18:08 GMT
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
No.
If you FAIL to even see the point I made, your likely retarded. I absolutely cannot see how someone could be so dumb witted and dense that they cannot get this argument.
The most interesting thing here is that, you do get it. You just don't want to get it. Because when you perceive the universe this way, it really makes any strict naturalistic approach look stupid. You can see that, you are just having difficult working through it.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Exactly what point did you make? All I could see was: "Life is complicated, therefore the only logical explanation is God did it." It would be refresing to see some actual evidence of creation, I'm not alone in thinking this. Faith is NOT evidence, no matter how much you think it is.
"There is an irony of a sort with the criticism, as allopoiesis is a perfectly reasonable, tenable idea and often, is entirely more substantial that autopoiesis, which is often difficult to grasp even it's possibility"
Excuse me? How can you have a "perfectly reasonable, tenable idea" without any proof whatsoever apart from a book written by humans almost 2000 years ago.
If we were to, as you say, "take everything you know and place it aside" all we would have is "mere observation." This is correct and, ironcally, the very foundation of sience. Sience is not about making random assumptions, it's about observing what is around you and then draw conclusions and form theories based on what you see.
Creationism is the very opposite of this, ignoring what we have observed so far and making physically impossible assumptions (like Hovind's theory about the flood), with no facts to back up the theories.
The countless attempts to disprove evolution are also rendered pointless by the fact that disproving one theory does not automatically make another theory true.
I would recommend watching thunderf00t's series on creationism, starting with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=0&playnext=1
I know you will just call it lies and whatnot, but it would be nice to see if you could counter some of his arguments.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Exactly what point did you make?"
-That believing the universe was created by an outside source, perhaps having certain consequential supposed properties, is a tenable, relevant, practical argument and belief.
"All I could see was: "Life is complicated, therefore the only logical
explanation is God did it." It would be refresing to see some actual
evidence of creation, I'm not alone in thinking this. Faith is NOT
evidence, no matter how much you think it is."
No.
"If we were to, as you say, "take everything you know and place it
aside" all we would have is "mere observation." This is correct and,
ironcally, the very foundation of sience. Sience is not about making random assumptions, it's about observing what is around you and then draw conclusions and form theories based on what you see."
-Agreed. And this has been the consistent reason why we have dismissed the theory of evolution.
"Creationism is the very opposite of this, ignoring what we have
observed so far and making physically impossible assumptions (like
Hovind's theory about the flood), with no facts to back up the
theories.
The countless attempts to disprove evolution are also rendered
pointless by the fact that disproving one theory does not automatically
make another theory true."
-No. All kinds of evidence is used to support this theory. Evolution doesn't need to be disproven, as it was never tenable.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"That believing the universe was created by an outside source,"
if only you hadn't mudied this vauge definition even fruther with the followign line.
"perhaps having certain consequential supposed properties"
the means of creation is what is so unspecified that i could accept ALL the scientific theores we have and STILL be a creationists in this sense, as i could say "god was al behind this and he used the natrual processes"
" is a tenable, relevant, practical argument and belief."
1 it is not tenable, since this thing would be out side of reality and therefore UNOBSERVABLE, and thus no direct way to generate evidence for it's existence, all evidence FOR it's existence tend to follow the pattern that it can all be explained via natural means, and thus no god is required.
i believe this is a good situation to invoke ockhams razor...
2) it is not relevent, as all the relevence of the existence comes either AFTER the the existence is accepted and THEN the existence is specified to a degree that it can and has been refuted (in your case, testign the bible accuracy)
3) IT IS NOT PRACTICAL, as it replaces 1 unknown with another unknown. no explination is added, only "god did it", which tells us as much about why gravity exists as "my dog did it".
it is also not practical as most of the version of this belief are from very old books, which contain quite uotdated and vauge descriptions of reality, let alone it's inner workings.
it's ALSO not practical as the entire claim, is a CLAIM from ignorance. were the existence IS assurted in a myriad of forms, and ignores and conclifting evidence (like how the flood is impossible) instead of weighed on the sound evidence.
4) it is not an argument, it is a CLAIM. a claim at not only the EXISTENCE of a deity, but the ACTIVE involvement of that deity in the FORMATION of our universe, to several vague degrees or involvement (anything from "god caused the big bang" to "god made the universe 6000 years ago"....)
"No."
simply staign this and not bakcing up your claim with ANY arguments, ISN'T goign to make you appear less wrong.
"-Agreed. And this has been the consistent reason why we have dismissed the theory of evolution."
you might have, but the scientific community hasn't, and niether have vast majority the scientific litterate people, and no, this isn ad populum, this is merely to relativese who you mean by "we".
" Evolution doesn't need to be disproven, as it was never tenable."
again, repeating this statement does NOT make it anyless untrue.
or do you REALLY feel that qualified to debate this with actual scientist in the field?
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"
If you FAIL to even see the point I made, your likely retarded. I
absolutely cannot see how someone could be so dumb witted and dense
that they cannot get this argument.
The most interesting thing here is that, you do get it. You just
don't want to get it. Because when you perceive the universe this way,
it really makes any strict naturalistic approach look stupid. You can
see that, you are just having difficult working through it."
dude...you think this is that simple?
if now god is required to explain the world. why would we have to think there is one.
and even IF a god is behind this all.
the you STILL have to convince us it is your god from the bible, because THAT is what you're trying to convince us of.
your "point" is born, as much from ignorance as it is born from intelectual sloth.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
“Or does it exist of itself, either an eternal being or of itself created?”
Ok, you said specifically at the beginning that you were emptying your mind and only using observations. How on earth did you come to the conclusion of an “eternal being” from observation? Yes, our world is complex. Yes, it came from somewhere. But to assume it was created by an eternal being is ridiculous, and no more likely than me claiming that an eternal purple unicorn took a dump which magically turned into the universe.
Nothing about the universe suggests a creator. It’s a big empty space full of burning balls of helium and millions of planets without life. If we’re basing this on observations, then we can rule out the possibility of god almost immediately.
Ok, you said specifically at the beginning that you were emptying your mind and only using observations. How on earth did you come to the conclusion of an “eternal being” from observation? Yes, our world is complex. Yes, it came from somewhere. But to assume it was created by an eternal being is ridiculous, and no more likely than me claiming that an eternal purple unicorn took a dump which magically turned into the universe.
Nothing about the universe suggests a creator. It’s a big empty space full of burning balls of helium and millions of planets without life. If we’re basing this on observations, then we can rule out the possibility of god almost immediately.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Ok, you said specifically at the beginning that you were emptying your
mind and only using observations. How on earth did you come to the
conclusion of an “eternal being” from observation?
I was thinking the same thing. Even earlier than that, he asks what the purpose of life is - a question that pre-supposes there IS a purpose.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
doesn't matter how many fancy words you use, bullshit will be bullshit.
The reason why creationism is NOT science is because you have to prove gods existance to be able to prove creation. Well last time i checked no one could prove gods existance. Creationism requires a god or GOD to have a finger in the creation of the earth and all it's beings, BUT if we cannot prove god we cannot prove creation. Therefore the creation hypothesis can never be tested and hence never be proven to be a scientific theory.
Evolution: observations --> data --> debate --> conclusion --> theory
Creation: "theory" --> debate --> "data"
See the problems?
creation is by definition pseudoscience since we can never test creation or gods existance. If we could test those to, it would be scientific. Maybe not accepted as a valid theory , but still evaluated scientifically.
9tails, no dice.
The reason why creationism is NOT science is because you have to prove gods existance to be able to prove creation. Well last time i checked no one could prove gods existance. Creationism requires a god or GOD to have a finger in the creation of the earth and all it's beings, BUT if we cannot prove god we cannot prove creation. Therefore the creation hypothesis can never be tested and hence never be proven to be a scientific theory.
Evolution: observations --> data --> debate --> conclusion --> theory
Creation: "theory" --> debate --> "data"
See the problems?
creation is by definition pseudoscience since we can never test creation or gods existance. If we could test those to, it would be scientific. Maybe not accepted as a valid theory , but still evaluated scientifically.
9tails, no dice.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"This assert is not a false dichotomy as it explains and categorizes the possibilities of the universe and life's existence."
it becomes a flase dichotomy when you say.
"GOD DID IT! therefore jezus is the son of god."
A god =/= YOUR GOD.
that is where the false dichotomy is always made.
since what you are trying to do is convince us of same extremely vague and broad sense of god, and then you tell us it's Jaweh, excluding all the other possibilities.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
No. I never said that in this post. You are dodging the point.
But, since you brought it up. About 6,000 years of research and spirituality have been invested in connecting and learning about this source.
Christianity and abrahamic theism is a faction demographic that has interpreted providential intercession and spiritual revelations as an approach to explain the 'spiritual' nature of this source. While it is one of a few different models used, all models are providential as I have said.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"About 6,000 years of research and spirituality have been invested in connecting and learning about this source."
more
WAY more then 6000 years. prior to the agricultural revolution, there already was religion.
"You are dodging the point."
what point?
i agree with blink
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"About 6,000 years of research and spirituality have been invested in connecting and learning about this source."
- BAH! This is pure bullshit 9tails, did u bring that out of your ass? The scientific method was derived from William Whewell (1794–1866). Before that science was mostly monks trying to learn about gods world and how it worked. Not the source. You see religion is the lazy mans quick answer for all the big questions. It's crowd control, people are more happy with what they have even if their lifes suck. This is the reason why africas poor and dying cope, religion gives them hope. We on the other hand don't need hope since our lives are good as they are(or alteast mine is :D ). Saying that god made the earth is a REALLY lazy answer and if u accept that it's because you either don't want to study how it really happened OR you're just to stupid to think of anything else. You aren't questioning anything, you don't want to know how it really happened.
- BAH! This is pure bullshit 9tails, did u bring that out of your ass? The scientific method was derived from William Whewell (1794–1866). Before that science was mostly monks trying to learn about gods world and how it worked. Not the source. You see religion is the lazy mans quick answer for all the big questions. It's crowd control, people are more happy with what they have even if their lifes suck. This is the reason why africas poor and dying cope, religion gives them hope. We on the other hand don't need hope since our lives are good as they are(or alteast mine is :D ). Saying that god made the earth is a REALLY lazy answer and if u accept that it's because you either don't want to study how it really happened OR you're just to stupid to think of anything else. You aren't questioning anything, you don't want to know how it really happened.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Saying that god made the earth is a REALLY lazy answer and if u accept
that it's because you either don't want to study how it really happened
OR you're just to stupid to think of anything else. You aren't
questioning anything, you don't want to know how it really happened."
or to put it for all those theistisc scientists out there.
how god had planned it to happen 4.5 bil years ago. remeber, science says nothing about the existence of god, onlt about the natural world.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Funny how 9tails accuses people of dodging the point when that's exactly what he's doing himself...
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
i see you are new here blink.
will you do me a favor and put ur data down on the stats thread.
tnx ^^.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
i told this in another post, there are a lot of projection going on from creationists.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Done, hadn't come across it before. Also, what is "3 days - 4,532v" supposed to mean? Maybe it's something obvious but I haven't been able to figure it out yet.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Done, hadn't come across it before. Also, what is "3 days - 4,532v" supposed to mean? Maybe it's something obvious but I haven't been able to figure it out yet."
i've been trying to figure that out too...
this forum sux ass when it comes to clarity.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Indeed it does. It's obviously something about post count, but I still can't make any sense of it.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
how does that make understanding creation? xD
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
You are dodging the point.
Buwahahahaha! Pot. Kettle. Black.
If you were able to write that with a straight face, I am genuinely impressed.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"it can all be explained via natural means, and thus no god is required."
And that is what it is all about. Your attempt to explain away everything because you don't want god to be required, but everything in our universe suggests that god is required.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"you don't want god to be required,"
i would care less about a god, but if it's explainable via natural means WE DON'T NEED TO INVOKE A SUPERNATURAL EXPLINATION.
it's just that simple.
and ignorance doesn't make such an invokation, when made, correct at all.
"but everything in our universe suggests that god is required."
explainable via natural means, thus no supernatural explination required.
it's just so simple.
and again, even IF a god caused the big bang, you'd still have to support he did all the rest. it's not like :you win here, you win everywhere"
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
And that is what it is all about. Your attempt to explain away everything because you don't want god to be required
The simple, basic fact of the matter is that science has explained numerous natural phenomena - and guess what? No signs of, or requirements for, supernatural agencies.
but everything in our universe suggests that god is required.
Only if you're looking at the universe through your "bible glasses" - aka, looking for evidence of your pre-existing beliefs, as opposed to genuinely looking for answers (also known as "confirmation bias").
That's the same kind of medeival way of thinking that leads someone to conclude "I don't know what causes lightning, so God musta' done it."
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Look 9tails for you to prove creation you must define nad "prove" god. Creation can never be proven until we've proven a super natural being that started it. The idea fails on the first line. From creationwiki:
"The term creation signifies both an act and the result of an action in which an agent (the creator) brings about the origin of an entity. In particular, creation refers to the act whereby an agent, notably God, brought the cosmos into existence from a state of non-existence. "
If there is no evidence for god the idea falls. Claiming it's supernatural is pure bull since you just give the unknown force an attribute you can NEVER test. Until you've got any evidence for gods (or a god) existance, creation can never be considered a valid idea. See the problem?
"The term creation signifies both an act and the result of an action in which an agent (the creator) brings about the origin of an entity. In particular, creation refers to the act whereby an agent, notably God, brought the cosmos into existence from a state of non-existence. "
If there is no evidence for god the idea falls. Claiming it's supernatural is pure bull since you just give the unknown force an attribute you can NEVER test. Until you've got any evidence for gods (or a god) existance, creation can never be considered a valid idea. See the problem?
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Saying that "god" is unfalsifiable is accurate, but the origin of the universe and/or life is unfalsifiable. Every aspect of evolution is unfalsifiable, but you have no problem blindly believing that.
I maintain the original position in the post. I admit it is unfalsifiable, but the source of the universe and life has been called "god". Whether god is a omnipotent old man, aliens, higher beings or an unseen natural process, it is essentially "god". As the title is placed to describe the source for the goods.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
You agree that creation is unfalsifiable because of the god problem. We have tons and tons of evidence for evolution and natural selection. There have been 150 years for science to prove evolution wrong, BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED! How can you be so ignorant of science?! We have natural posibillities for everything creation claims to prove.
"Every aspect of evolution is unfalsifiable, but you have no problem blindly believing that."
- I have studied and tested and made projects on this. What have you done? Evolution is unlike creation testable and FALSIFIABLE! Show me evidence for creation and i will consider it if it's valid as scientific results! NOTHING FROM ICR IS SCIENTIFIC! There is no such thing as a creation scientist, it's like saying someone is an atheist priest! I know what evolution is because i've studied it at univeristy level. WTF HAVE YOU DONE TO KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION?! You don't even know what you are arguing against or how it even works! If we can't prove gods existance we can never test creation at all! YOU GET IT??? Or are you to damn stupid to even know what the scientific method is? GOD DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING!!! When we try to find out scientifically we didn't find any god, but we found it that species can evolve from other species. We found out that we share a large amount of DNA with other animals. We found out that our actions on the animal populations alter the frequency of different traits. We found out that life can start through a large number of different ways. That ALL evidence in nature supports the OLD earth theory. What are there not to explain?! We gave you ALL the answers to ALL your questions! But NO! You refuse to accept our answers as they do not show that "YOUR GOD" made it all. We gave you good arguments, good sources and literature from universities. We debunked everything Hovind had to say as pure bullshit. You don't need to know the square root of 3 to conclude that the square root of 9 is 3. You don't need to know how water and coffee beans are made to know that you make coffee from water and coffee beans. The idea that we need to know what caused the Big Bang to establish that it happened, is patently absurd. Stop claiming things you have no idea of that just aren't true. Just because you (or bigdog or ICR or fake doctors) say it doesn't make it any more true!!!
Are all the major universities wrong or what?! Do you not think that they are right?! You are trusting you lives to them when you take some medication, but not when they say we evolved from other animals when they got the same conclusion by the same method.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
"Every aspect of evolution is unfalsifiable, but you have no problem blindly believing that."
- I have studied and tested and made projects on this. What have you done? Evolution is unlike creation testable and FALSIFIABLE! Show me evidence for creation and i will consider it if it's valid as scientific results! NOTHING FROM ICR IS SCIENTIFIC! There is no such thing as a creation scientist, it's like saying someone is an atheist priest! I know what evolution is because i've studied it at univeristy level. WTF HAVE YOU DONE TO KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION?! You don't even know what you are arguing against or how it even works! If we can't prove gods existance we can never test creation at all! YOU GET IT??? Or are you to damn stupid to even know what the scientific method is? GOD DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING!!! When we try to find out scientifically we didn't find any god, but we found it that species can evolve from other species. We found out that we share a large amount of DNA with other animals. We found out that our actions on the animal populations alter the frequency of different traits. We found out that life can start through a large number of different ways. That ALL evidence in nature supports the OLD earth theory. What are there not to explain?! We gave you ALL the answers to ALL your questions! But NO! You refuse to accept our answers as they do not show that "YOUR GOD" made it all. We gave you good arguments, good sources and literature from universities. We debunked everything Hovind had to say as pure bullshit. You don't need to know the square root of 3 to conclude that the square root of 9 is 3. You don't need to know how water and coffee beans are made to know that you make coffee from water and coffee beans. The idea that we need to know what caused the Big Bang to establish that it happened, is patently absurd. Stop claiming things you have no idea of that just aren't true. Just because you (or bigdog or ICR or fake doctors) say it doesn't make it any more true!!!
Are all the major universities wrong or what?! Do you not think that they are right?! You are trusting you lives to them when you take some medication, but not when they say we evolved from other animals when they got the same conclusion by the same method.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"You agree that creation is unfalsifiable because of the god problem. We
have tons and tons of evidence for evolution and natural selection.
There have been 150 years for science to prove evolution wrong, BUT IT
HASN'T HAPPENED! How can you be so ignorant of science?! We have
natural posibillities for everything creation claims to prove."
-Evolution isn't science. It is a conceptual position, based mainly on lies. You assume that evolution hasn't been proven wrong, which it has, several times. While basing your conclusion on an idea that was never proven in the first place.
And, there is a flood of supporting evidence for the biblical account for the world. In addition, everything in our world supports structured, intended design, not random assortment, as evolution suggests.
As for the rest of your post, you are wrong. Evolution is a very well funded, state endorsed religious stance to explain things. But it has no proof and you equate any extent of dissent with stupidity. No one believes in evolution, it is a dead theory. Evolution is not science, it is a fine concept if someone wants to believe it. But we don't and have no reason to. We see the structures, laws, patterns and drives in science as a mark for design and support for intelligent design.
There are obvious, clear differences in the beliefs. That leads you back to what is the trouble here. Evolution is state endorsed and taught in schools. My children won't be taught that garbage, No more than they would be willingly taught taoism.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Evolution isn't science"
avtually, i'd go as far to say that evolution is an logical attribute of organism that do not perfectly self replicate and live in a changing environment
" It is a conceptual position, based mainly on lies."
and here you co claiming that ToE was just pulled out someones ass....how sorry i feel for your distrust in science....
"You assume that evolution hasn't been proven wrong, which it has, several times."
if that where the case, scientist would have rejected it long ago. and i'm talking about the scientists in the ACTUAL fields, not the 800 "scientists" that signed the ID paper (which was actually phrased in such a way that they exculded sexual selection as a evolutionary driving mechanism....which is just plain dishonest)
"And, there is a flood of supporting evidence for the biblical account for the world."
and yet when ALL this evidence is examined closely it either doesn't hold up or doesn't support it AT ALL.
"verything in our world supports structured, intended design, not random assortment, as evolution suggests."
1) evolution does NOT say everythign wil be a random assortment. GJ, at not understandign one of the basic aspects of whatever you're arguing against.
2) that "intended" part, is all in your head.
it's simply descent with modification (a attribute of any life form on earth) subjected whims of the enviroment, following the simple rule:
if it doesn't kill you, it stays.
" Evolution is a very well funded"
geee
i wonder why.
is it perhaps because it works and it is to thank for so many breakthroughs in medcine?
"state endorsed religious stance to explain things"
not in the slightest.
first of all, it's not a religion , period. ToE is science and only cares about explaining reality, not how to live your life or anything.
secondly, the definition of religion you're referrign to, is not at ALL the definition ANY of the theistic religions, and most other spiritual religions follow.
"But it has no proof and you equate any extent of dissent with stupidity."
*bible glasses, garanteed to block out all science.
and no, you genuinly ARE stupid if you feel qualified at talking about somehting you don't even understand the basics of.
and don't give me that "dodging the point" crap.
we've spent HOURS and HOURS linking and explaining to you what ToE is.
that you STILL choose to argue agaisnt you're home made strawman is YOUR problem, not mine.
" No one believes in evolution, it is a dead theory. "
go to your nearby scientist and say that to his face.
"Evolution is not science, it is a fine concept if someone wants to believe it."
and why WOULD we want that? because it says god wasnt neccisary and so we can live our lives in sin?
if you REALLY think this is the level of scientists, you are sorely mistaken.
we care for what is true, not what makes u feel good.
"We see the structures, laws, patterns and drives in science as a mark for design and support for intelligent design."
NO, the thing is, these patterns (im not even gonna adress the laws, as you probably have no idea what a law even is in science) do NOT nessacitate and designer, they are perfectly capable of forming on their own, via the mehcanism we HAVE described in natural selection. the fact thathuge parts of these systems are homologues to OTHER systems, strongly supports the idea that they CAN evolve via intermediate forms.
the isn't a SINGLE IRC claim that does not have a high homology indicatign natural processes.
if there is. LINK ME.
"My children won't be taught that garbage"
if you feel like denying your children a good understandign of reality, be my guest, just don't deny OTHER peoples children that.
"No more than they would be willingly taught taoism."
they wouldn;t?!
why not?
isn't it interestign to learn new things, to better understand foreing cultures and ideas.
why would anyone deny himself knowledge when it's presented to him?
but of course, you teach taoism or christianity, or buddism in a sociology, or culture class, NOT a science class.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Evolution isn't science. It is a conceptual position, based mainly on lies."
- There you go attacking science again! If you hate it so much why do you sit at a computer and write this bullshit or go to a hospital when you're sick? You only accept those parts of science that supports your BELIEFS and not what is true.
" You assume that evolution hasn't been proven wrong, which it has, several times."
- Yet you can't give anything to substanciate this claim. Meaning you pulled this out your ass of from your local priest. The ICR and discovery material does NOT hold scientific value since it is not derived from the scientific method and there are no REAL research being done.
Example:
"While basing your conclusion on an idea that was never proven in the first place."
- Darwins book was a collection of data and experiments that argued for evolution. He thought it would be so amazing since everyone believed in god that he made the arguments and extra clear. It has been proven look at this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
It's a list of example evidence for evolution from berkley univeristy. Are you calling every biology department at harvard, berkley, stanford ete. liars? That their whole field of study is a lie and no one haven't noticed it, but those who are not even capable of understanding what ToE even is.
"And, there is a flood of supporting evidence for the biblical account for the world. In addition, everything in our world supports structured, intended design, not random assortment, as evolution suggests."
- Yet you have got nothing to show that wouldn't pass a scientific peer-review or even get up to scientific standard. You claim a shitload of stuff, but no grounds for it. BACK IT UP OR STFU!
"As for the rest of your post, you are wrong. Evolution is a very well funded, state endorsed religious stance to explain things. But it has no proof and you equate any extent of dissent with stupidity. No one believes in evolution, it is a dead theory. Evolution is not science, it is a fine concept if someone wants to believe it."
- Still you claim its a religion, but you never show how or even why. You are just pulling this out your ass AGAIN! The difference between the orgigin of species and the bible is that TOOS describes natural processes that occur and why it does. The bible says "god dunnit" and leaves a shitload of questions. You could have accepted evolution as gods tool, but that wouldn't make your life special wouldn't it?
"We see the structures, laws, patterns and drives in science as a mark for design and support for intelligent design."
- As i concluded in another post, WE CAN NEVER TEST ID! It's unfalsifiable. All you are showing is that you see a pattern (that necesserily isn't a pattern) and thinks "how complex... God must have done it!".
"Evolution is state endorsed and taught in schools. My children won't be taught that garbage, No more than they would be willingly taught taoism."
- Aparently wasn't it good enough since you fail to understand exactly WHAT TOE IS!!! Go back to school!
- There you go attacking science again! If you hate it so much why do you sit at a computer and write this bullshit or go to a hospital when you're sick? You only accept those parts of science that supports your BELIEFS and not what is true.
" You assume that evolution hasn't been proven wrong, which it has, several times."
- Yet you can't give anything to substanciate this claim. Meaning you pulled this out your ass of from your local priest. The ICR and discovery material does NOT hold scientific value since it is not derived from the scientific method and there are no REAL research being done.
Example:
"While basing your conclusion on an idea that was never proven in the first place."
- Darwins book was a collection of data and experiments that argued for evolution. He thought it would be so amazing since everyone believed in god that he made the arguments and extra clear. It has been proven look at this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
It's a list of example evidence for evolution from berkley univeristy. Are you calling every biology department at harvard, berkley, stanford ete. liars? That their whole field of study is a lie and no one haven't noticed it, but those who are not even capable of understanding what ToE even is.
"And, there is a flood of supporting evidence for the biblical account for the world. In addition, everything in our world supports structured, intended design, not random assortment, as evolution suggests."
- Yet you have got nothing to show that wouldn't pass a scientific peer-review or even get up to scientific standard. You claim a shitload of stuff, but no grounds for it. BACK IT UP OR STFU!
"As for the rest of your post, you are wrong. Evolution is a very well funded, state endorsed religious stance to explain things. But it has no proof and you equate any extent of dissent with stupidity. No one believes in evolution, it is a dead theory. Evolution is not science, it is a fine concept if someone wants to believe it."
- Still you claim its a religion, but you never show how or even why. You are just pulling this out your ass AGAIN! The difference between the orgigin of species and the bible is that TOOS describes natural processes that occur and why it does. The bible says "god dunnit" and leaves a shitload of questions. You could have accepted evolution as gods tool, but that wouldn't make your life special wouldn't it?
"We see the structures, laws, patterns and drives in science as a mark for design and support for intelligent design."
- As i concluded in another post, WE CAN NEVER TEST ID! It's unfalsifiable. All you are showing is that you see a pattern (that necesserily isn't a pattern) and thinks "how complex... God must have done it!".
"Evolution is state endorsed and taught in schools. My children won't be taught that garbage, No more than they would be willingly taught taoism."
- Aparently wasn't it good enough since you fail to understand exactly WHAT TOE IS!!! Go back to school!
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"There you go attacking science again! If you hate it so much why do you
sit at a computer and write this bullshit or go to a hospital when
you're sick? You only accept those parts of science that supports your
BELIEFS and not what is true."
-HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
"Yet you can't give anything to substanciate this claim. Meaning you
pulled this out your ass of from your local priest. The ICR and
discovery material does NOT hold scientific value since it is not
derived from the scientific method and there are no REAL research being
done."
Embryos don't have gill slits.
We have no vestigal tissues.
Nothing has ever jumped baramins (changed kinds) in the 6 thousand years of earth's history.
Antibiotic resistance is not "evolution", it is immunity.
Genetic barriers exist that make common ancestry impossible.
Every "fossil" that has been put forward as a testament to the holy theory of evolution has been discredited. Sometimes it takes 40 years for the zealots to come to terms, but they always do.
We could go on, but you get the idea.
http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=71
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"We have no vestigal tissues."
o rly?
read the definition of vestigual organs.
"Nothing has ever jumped baramins (changed kinds) in the 6 thousand years of earth's history."
lawl,
first, DEFINE KIND.
second, evolution of new taxa in complex organism requires A BIT MORE THEN 6000 years (generationwise) so we never claimed that.
"Antibiotic resistance is not "evolution", it is immunity."
what?
a beneficail atribute caused by the expression of a mutated piece of DNA/ RNA, isn't evolution!?
.
oh and you might want to understand the term "immunity" BEFORE you make such a post. a virus is a simple strain of RNA/DNA ina protein mantle, IT HAS NO IMMUNE SYSTEM, and thus cannot develop true immunity. all it develops is a resistance to a particular kind of compound that
1) blocks of the destroys the protien mantle
or the expression changes the receptors so that,
-)it gets around the antibiotic blocking the receptors on the host cell,
-)or it utilizes different receptors
-) it deforms the virus own "receptor" so it's no linger blocked by an antibiotic.
any biolost plz correct me if i made a mistake here.
"Genetic barriers exist that make common ancestry impossible."
what on earht are you referrign to?
you mean the barriers that do not allow different species to produce hybrids?
well those are a RESULT of their speciation, they say NOTHING about the commen ancestor related species had, gene homology does that.
"Every "fossil" that has been put forward as a testament to the holy theory of evolution has been discredited."
o RLY?
like.....pakacetus, tiktilaak, austrolopithicus, homo neandertali and just about EVERY fossil we find in the ground.
do you REALLY think evolution doesn't explain them all?
name one and i'll see what we got on it in the scientific community.and
either Link or STFU you scientific illitarate.
and now for a little look at ur drdino source..
"
Over the years, Scientific American has published some ridiculous articles belittling creation and extolling the virtues of evolution. Of all the articles I have seen, this one (April 2005, p. 10,"Okay, We Give Up") has to be the dumbest.
There’s no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don’t mix.
Science and politics don’t mix. This is a ridiculous statement. Most scientists know full well their paychecks come because of the political system. Research and Grant Money is often rolled out only because of the politics of those moments.
They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed UnScientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there’s no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. With this statement, I would have to agree. The magazine treats evolution as if it is a part of science, when there’s nothing further from the truth. It is a religion, masquerading as science. But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago."
w8...
"But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago."
is that a creationist trying to strawman ToE (as published by Nature)?
oh , why yes it is....
"Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it."
why will you look at that...is that the same 60% of american who have no scientific background whatsoever? and wasn't that an ad populum?
"t’s also interesting here that the writers never define what they mean by "Evolution"."
that's because they publish for the scientific community, WHERE EVERY ONE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
"They need to watch my video number four where we show the six different meanings of the word "evolution". Only number six (microevolution) is actually scientific " the first five are religious"."
Uch * foregoing the scientific comuniteis use and making up their own definition of the ToE* Uch*
"A quick search of the record will show major scientific magazines, especially Scientific American, do not publish articles that even hint a favor of creation."
now i WONDER why?
and that's the part creationist start throwing around "CONSPIRICY" claims..
which, if you aks any scientist, is ridiculus.
"Even if articles were submitted, it would be a waste of time on the part of the author."
see?
"There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today. The editors of Scientific American need to watch our video number three (Dinosaurs and the Bible) for more about this topic."
you mean that vid that has been grossly debunked dozens of times already?
and you mean those winged firebreathing dragons from european folklore, OR the chineese serpent with whiskers version?
"As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don’t they explain to us why the top of the Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon?"
....are you serious....It'S CALLED PLATE TECHTONICS, ask a geologist.
". These editors need to watch our videotape number four (Lies in the Textbooks) to learn the truth about Grand Canyon."
and they should consult geologists because?
"There’s no such thing as a "fossil record"; there are simply fossils in the dirt. This is much more evidence for a worldwide flood than for a slow, gradual, evolutionary change over time."
and yet we find them in distict layers in the ground AND ina distict order...coincidence?
"often in mass graves of millions of fossils,"
WHAT? where is this PALEONTOLOGICAL GOLD MINE?! LINK ME ur GOOGLE COORDINATES AND I'll GRAB MY SHOVEL!
"The editors should see our video number seven, Questions and Answers, for more on carbon dating."
you mean the one where you cherry pick form papers who explain the reservoir effects in marine organisms? or where you flat out lie about mamoths?
"Peer-reviewed journal articles? Try to get a creationist article into a magazine like Scientific American, and see what happens"
why...here we go again.
"Ten years ago if a professor in the Soviet Union tried to submit an article to any Soviet magazine claiming that communism didn’t work, and capitalism is a better system, he would be shipped off to Siberia if he survived."
do we all know the differece between science and politics? everyone but creationists.
"Mountains of evidence? No one has ever offered any evidence to demonstrate that a dog can produce a non-dog, let alone that a dog can come from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. We’ve been offering $250,000 to see this evidence for over ten years."
you mean the strawman you made and the challange you rigged so you would NEVER lose it?
k, i'm gonna stop now. or this is might turn into one of those epic wins we "evolutionists" keep having.
intersting note to the articlke hovind was responding
"
Scientific American usually has a hoax article each April, such as the disproof of the four color theorem, and discovery of a computer made of ropes and pulleys by the ancient "Apraphulians". In an April 2005 editorial entitled "Okay, We Give Up", the magazine apologized for favoring evolution over creationism. [8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry
that's right IT WAS A JOKE.
only hovind was stupid enough to take it serious. read the original article, it's good for some laughs.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
xD HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He actually believes there where dragons? xD
Did he belive in the invisible pink unicorn as well? xD
Or maybe santa claus! :D
Immunity is a state of having sufficient biological defenses to avoid infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion.
We can't use antibiotics against viruses since they aren't really life. They miss key components for it to be called life, but then again it shares a lot with living organisms. One of my professors in cellular biology said that an hypothesis about how virus came to be is when evolution got to it's extreme. It could be a procaryot who became parasitic as a way of surviving and reproducing and the natural selection for this made them lose parts of their "body". Example would be organells and metabolism. They are just a shell and DNA/RNA trying to reproduce as much as possible. They've got rid of everything unnecessary.
about antibiotic restistance is not immunity. Genetic variability and natural selection for this gene is the factor behind this. Fungus (like penicillum) share the same energy source as bacteria. It's like 2 different animals that share the same food and they fight to gain it. Now that selection for food has made the fungus developing a "weapon" against the bacteria to kill them so they can get the food. See where i'm going? The make antibiotics because it will only make bacteria sick, but not the fungus. Now to counter this, the selection was made for those who could make an enzyme called beta-lactamase (beta-lactame is a ring in a large number of antibiotics that give it the antibiotiv effect).
We know that there are more procaryotes in our body than regular cells and we know that procaryotes can transfer DNA between different strains of bacteria. This thorugh a number of ways, viruses are a large factor to DNA and operon transfers, conjugation and uptake of free DNA via homologue recombination. This means that it only takes one bacteria with the mutations for resistance for a whole colony to have it. If there is no selection for this gene then it will be lost. Bacteria have a good system for removing resistances that they have no use of to take up other genes of more use in their chromosome and plasmide.
I made my big project when finishing high school with this. We made a strain of E. coli mulitresistante and tested how much easier they can get resistante to new antibiotics. Because of the mutational rate and the similarity in the antibiotic resistancy genes they could very easily get resistante to new antibiotics, BUT the majority of the bacteria lost their resistance to the first antibiotics after 3 antibiotic resistancy and about 7 days of growth.
"Genetic barriers exist that make common ancestry impossible."
- We can't know any genetic barriers. Those barriers we have is because of tampering of evolution. Like genetically engineer an organism and it will probably die since the rest of the organism body haven't evolved to cope with the new extreme attribute. Like makeing people extremely long would kill them because of the other genes that aren't changed to this attribute. Small mutations is the way to go or there wouldn't be any evolution. Do anyone understand why we don not think that a dog can make a non-dog? If the change is to large in one generation it could (mostly is, think of those who are so long that they can't run) be a disadvantage.
"But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago."
- nice strawman. Well the bible says adam was made from mud, what is mud made of? "Mud is a liquid or semi-liquid mixture of water and some combination of soil, silt, and clay."
"Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it."
- Try do the same survey in europe and it will be like max 5%. These people does not know how science works or the methodology.
So much fail it's hurting my brain >_<
He actually believes there where dragons? xD
Did he belive in the invisible pink unicorn as well? xD
Or maybe santa claus! :D
Immunity is a state of having sufficient biological defenses to avoid infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion.
We can't use antibiotics against viruses since they aren't really life. They miss key components for it to be called life, but then again it shares a lot with living organisms. One of my professors in cellular biology said that an hypothesis about how virus came to be is when evolution got to it's extreme. It could be a procaryot who became parasitic as a way of surviving and reproducing and the natural selection for this made them lose parts of their "body". Example would be organells and metabolism. They are just a shell and DNA/RNA trying to reproduce as much as possible. They've got rid of everything unnecessary.
about antibiotic restistance is not immunity. Genetic variability and natural selection for this gene is the factor behind this. Fungus (like penicillum) share the same energy source as bacteria. It's like 2 different animals that share the same food and they fight to gain it. Now that selection for food has made the fungus developing a "weapon" against the bacteria to kill them so they can get the food. See where i'm going? The make antibiotics because it will only make bacteria sick, but not the fungus. Now to counter this, the selection was made for those who could make an enzyme called beta-lactamase (beta-lactame is a ring in a large number of antibiotics that give it the antibiotiv effect).
We know that there are more procaryotes in our body than regular cells and we know that procaryotes can transfer DNA between different strains of bacteria. This thorugh a number of ways, viruses are a large factor to DNA and operon transfers, conjugation and uptake of free DNA via homologue recombination. This means that it only takes one bacteria with the mutations for resistance for a whole colony to have it. If there is no selection for this gene then it will be lost. Bacteria have a good system for removing resistances that they have no use of to take up other genes of more use in their chromosome and plasmide.
I made my big project when finishing high school with this. We made a strain of E. coli mulitresistante and tested how much easier they can get resistante to new antibiotics. Because of the mutational rate and the similarity in the antibiotic resistancy genes they could very easily get resistante to new antibiotics, BUT the majority of the bacteria lost their resistance to the first antibiotics after 3 antibiotic resistancy and about 7 days of growth.
"Genetic barriers exist that make common ancestry impossible."
- We can't know any genetic barriers. Those barriers we have is because of tampering of evolution. Like genetically engineer an organism and it will probably die since the rest of the organism body haven't evolved to cope with the new extreme attribute. Like makeing people extremely long would kill them because of the other genes that aren't changed to this attribute. Small mutations is the way to go or there wouldn't be any evolution. Do anyone understand why we don not think that a dog can make a non-dog? If the change is to large in one generation it could (mostly is, think of those who are so long that they can't run) be a disadvantage.
"But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago."
- nice strawman. Well the bible says adam was made from mud, what is mud made of? "Mud is a liquid or semi-liquid mixture of water and some combination of soil, silt, and clay."
"Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it."
- Try do the same survey in europe and it will be like max 5%. These people does not know how science works or the methodology.
So much fail it's hurting my brain >_<
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
" but the source of the universe and life has been called "god"."
and thus that can be ANY VAGUE THING.
"Whether god is a omnipotent old man"
which the bible claims, and you can check the logical consistancy of that. and you can come to the same consistancy of invisible gay imps who shaped the universe for the homosexual amusement.
"aliens higher beings or an unseen natural process, it is essentially "god"."
so essentially it's justifiable to call ANYTHING god and therefore believe he did all the rest the religious people claimed he/she/it did, and that there is some higher plan?
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
What I am saying, 325, is that a source for the universe and life exists. That belief that a source exists is derived from everything observable and everything scientific.
Now, the study of learning about this possibly strict metaphysical / extraphysical / supernatural source for life and the universe has been in concession for thousands of years, often called theology.
There are 2 factors to consider when learning about the source of creation:
1) Principles and laws in place to illustrate characteristics of the source.
There are principles, laws, design, patterns and founding characteristics of the universe that help to reflect on the character and traits of the source. For example, music exists on a metaphysical plain. The pleasant sounds we interpret from music tells us that the creator of music and sound is capable of understanding and enjoying it.
2) supernatural intercession with humanity.
It has been believed that in humanities history, and possibly even today, that people can invoke a metaphysical connection with the source of humanity and creation. The testimonies and accounts given to date, are compiled in theological studies and accounts of spirituality. The metaphysical connections are in place as such a source is seperate from humanity and presumably the natural world. Personal revelation and physical contact would then superceed a general concensus of conclusion drawing. For example, thinking about whether aliens existed or not would be concluded if one was abducted by aliens, for the individual. Personal account superceeds peer concensus, if the account is based on experience.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"What I am saying, 325, is that a source for the universe and life
exists. That belief that a source exists is derived from everything
observable and everything scientific."
which you just slather on ANY version of god you see fit.
do you not see the illolical nature of that reasoning?
"1) Principles and laws in place to illustrate characteristics of the source."
no they do not. they simple illustrate constants in nature.
nothing else. what ever form of god you believe the come from STILL requires evidence.
because saying god is the unversal force behind everyhtign, and god looks like an omnipotent old man ARE NOT on the same level.
no to mention the fact that if god is outside of the natural world, you can't test for him and THUS SCIENCE SAIS NOTHING ABOUT HIM.
"music exists on a metaphysical plain."
music as what? the sound or the electrical signals we transform them into in th ear?
"The pleasant sounds we interpret from music tells us that the creator
of music and sound is capable of understanding and enjoying it."
ignorign of course that taste in music is determinded by what you hear when you gorw up. AND by what sounds our ears can detect.
"2) supernatural intercession with humanity. "
aka as the "we're special" claim
why would an omnipotent god EVEN CARE for us?
"For example, thinking about whether aliens existed or not would be concluded if one was abducted by aliens,"
that OR the abduction was all in your head. your glossing over the ENTIRE possibility of our minds (they pysical nature beign what it is) playing tricks on us.
"Personal account superceeds peer concensus, if the account is based on experience."
is your experience valid?
that is a question you are ignoring.
like i said before, give me 20 grams of weed, few shrooms, soem vodka, techno music and flashy lights in a desert. and i'll experience god, or aliens.
do you get the point?
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
sound as in the waves in the air that we interpret?
:( no one even bothered to answer my questions and say ANYTHING about my anology and sharing of wisdom! >_<
:( no one even bothered to answer my questions and say ANYTHING about my anology and sharing of wisdom! >_<
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
I see others have already picked apart the details of this post - so I'm just going to make the following comment.
Your point seems to essentially be "our opponents' beliefs are just as unscientific, ignorant, and without intellectual rigour as ours." That's the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory - sort of like impaling yourself with a sword in order to hit the person standing behind you.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"sort of like impaling yourself with a sword in order to hit the person standing behind you."
to bad he missed the guy behind him....
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Saying that "god" is unfalsifiable is accurate, but the origin of the universe and/or life is unfalsifiable.
Okay, I'll bite: give us an example of how the existence of God could be falsified.
Waiting...
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
I was gonna add my 2 cents but then the browser ate my post and I'm too sleepy to rewrite it. 325 and Ellman covered it all pretty nicely anyway.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"but then the browser ate my post" that seems to hapen from tiem to time..it's rly annoying..
ah wel.. our caek is just to delicious and moist ^^
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
Unfortunately, the cake is a lie.
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
"Unfortunately, the cake is a lie."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
P{}rtal
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
PIME TARADOX!!! :O
» Reply to CommentRe: Understanding Creation
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
There's no use crying over every mistake,
You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.
Legal: none of this site's content is copyrighted unless it specifically says otherwise.
