@cdk007 Theistic evolutionists, because they view scripture as analogous, have adjusted their rationale to accept scientific understanding. Creationists primary tenet is literal belief in scripture. This gives them no room for manoeuvre, they must reject all empirical evidence & rational scientific thinking that contradicts scripture. Worse, they have to invent false science, ID, & if they can't get that taught in public schools, strive to keep evolution out of the classroom.
Evolution is probably the most important & unifying theory in science. Fields of study from bacteriology, biochemistry, botany, chemistry, genetics, geology, palaeontology, zoology & more, & chaos theory in mathematics, all support evolution.
Creationists in the US are succeeding in retarding the education of kids, & it's having serious & detrimental effects. US students are literally being taught to be ignorant.
@GuillemotWatcher Sad but true. Videos like these are helping people like me in debates with those sitting on the fence. I have hope that the rising number of non-religious Americans will turn the tide of ignorance and superstition. As a New Atheist, I have hope for a secular America.
@ndrthrdr1 America will never be truly secular, there's too much money to be made from promoting religion in The States, but my hope is that good educational videos & articulate & civilised debates will soften a proportion of this generation's reluctance to accept evolution. There is a war for the minds of children & it's spreading to the UK. I think the internet is a good battleground on which to fight.
Uh... I must say that science IS just guess work and all knowledge we have is based on faith. Though it is educated guess work, it's still based on a level of faith. If you are claiming scientific reasoning with your examples, then I assume you are familiar with probability. Even though 9,999 out of 10,000 times you are right, there will be 1 time you are wrong. Nothing is 100% probable. John Smith might be innocent. Science is not fact. Science is the conclussion based off of the data availible
@supercowmanguy you're right, according to popper, you can never verify a theory, only falsify it. the good thing about science is, thats its always open for improvement and refutation of theories. but is this supposed to be an argument against science and for religion?
@masterhans Well science is a method of understanding our surroundings. My argument was in no means against science, it was against overstepping conclussions and this idea that faith has no place in science. Science does actually require an element of faith to work. i.e. if we conduct experiments, to accept any result we percieve, we must have faith that our perception is accurate. It may seem like a small thing, but that's a pretty big leap of faith when you actually dive into it.
What is your definition of faith? I understand what you are saying, but faith as I understand it is a lot different than an educated guess. You can have faith that the skyscraper you are standing in won't fall to the ground, but that .0001% when buildings do collapse is due to human error or material defects. You calculate the live loads, dead loads, lateral forces etc right and the building stays built. It isn't faith in the science. It's faith in the humans involved.
@shadowpirate100 Well yes, faith is entirely different than an educated guess. Faith would be believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. You can calculate the skyscraper, and we have sufficent ground to expect it not to fall, key word, expect. Though, pretty much things you can calculate are not directly what I'm talking about with faith, more so as a chainlink effect from things that are undisprovable. It's faith that allows us to ignore that we may be a dreaming butterfly.
My understanding of science is that there are "Levels". Some science is very theoretical in nature while other concepts are based almost entirely on facts gained through direct observation. So you can have scientific facts, scientific hypotheses and scientific theories. All of which blur the boundaries.
As for Evolution though. It is a fact and theory. Creationists get hung up on the theory part and forget that we can directly observe genetic changes.
@shadowpirate100 Well theoretical does not nessecitate the same level of uncertainty. Yes, in the reality we seem to percieve, evolution is ridiculously probable (the new amphibious fish makes it hard to deny, seriously, it exists). The point though that is brought up in the vid though is creationists employing skepticism. They ARE right, it is a guess, faith is required to accept the theory in a way. But this skepticism just creates a stalemate which no one wins because you can't be right...
I've always stuck with the old definition of faith: belief w/o proof. Since science is a bit different than other fields proof has to be substituted w/ evidence. Now with that logic, the only real gaps are witnessing it with your own eyes. There is a video called "what creationist must deny" or something close to that and it lists about 20 different concepts made with observation that reinforce evolution. Very interesting. Homologous Structures, Atavisms, Chromosome Fusion.
Now I am a skeptic, but the denial we witness with creationist is just a combination of willful ignorance and confirmation bias. Yes there are gaps, but the overwhelming evidence in a number of scientific fields that reinforce evolution removes the gaps down to an acceptable tolerance.
@shadowpirate100 Our definitions of faith are very similar, you are speaking of emperical evidence though when you speak of proof. There are other kinds within science too. Math for example uses rational thought and logic to prove certain identities. You can't witness an infinite series converging after all. I would disagree that science is different than other fields. Science, history, and philosophy all require quite a bit of evidence to support claims. cont...
@shadowpirate100 Now as strong as science is, it is not invincible to attacks. When someone starts getting skeptic, the entire sciencetific system falls because the point of information reception is under question for it's reliability. If anyone ever does that to you, I suggest to just go along with it and see how much you can call into doubt because ultimately we don't know if we're right or not. So question if the earth exists, question if their wife/husband exists, it's all fair game!
oh and a team at harvard created the first synthetic cell.
Go ahead add your qualifiers of what does or doesn't qualify. Creationist always move the goal post because thats all they can do. But I have provided several studies of abiogensis that make it a valid theory.
Your proposal is that a hybrid ferrari always existed before a wheel.
This is why ID is losing ground. The ID crowd can't bring ANYTHING to the table. They look like dumbasses at these trials. cuz they are debunked so fast.
@shadowpirate100 --None of what you just said holds any water. Just like it was shown at that 1993 convocation and speaker Michael Ruse and the one ten years before that. That I mentioned in the longer message.
Still got to check out this Michael Ruse guy. Did you see the news about NASA? They found some of the building blocks of life that make up DNA on an Asteroid stuck in a polar ice cap.
One other thing that might help your understanding. It didn't go from chemical to bacteria. It went from simple chemicals - polymers - replicating polymers- hypercycle-protobiont-bacteria.
You never answered the question about Human Chromosome 2.
Science said. "Why do we have one less pair of chromosomes than the chimp? There has to be a reasonable explanation. And there was. One pair fused together. One extra telomere in the wrong spot and two centromeres in the wrong spot. Very convincing.
That entire list has been debunked hundreds of times. Scientists can explain all of it. What area do you have the most trouble understand? There is nothing magical about evolution and punctuated equilbirum. Think of the climate as the economy and punctuated equilbrium a result of this crappy recession. Econ. dips and businesses fire and some but not all go out of business.
Some of the larger businesses can absorb it but they have to shrink, others merge, others face little competition and grow. Then you have all the people out of jobs. starting up small businesses.
Before the recession things were gradual. During the recession a lot of businesses died out, and pulling out of the complete crash completely new businesses emerged and other business move laterally through mergers or growth through little competition.
@shadowpirate100 --no they can't nor have they. It's all blind faith faith on your part. read and re-read the long message I sent because it was to long to post here.
You keep bring up the complexity of a cell and what some scientist though 100 year ago. Did you know all the elements of the universe came from hydrogen atoms? Thats a pretty simple building block right? one electron and one proton. Hydrogen atoms fuse in stars to make every element we see. There's your Jesus. A star that died so that you could live.
@shadowpirate100 --I looked up your "abiogenesis" on wikipedia and all I saw was the word "theory" repeated over and over endlessly. When I look that word up in our unabolished dictionary it is described with words like "conjecture" "speculation" "assumption" "presumption" so much for your explanations of fact and not blind faith.
Please read and re-read thoroghly the long message I sent because it was too long to post here.
@shadowpirate100 -- More untestable and untested theory's that you accept on blind faith. Please read and re-read etc. etc. the long message that I sent because it was too long to post here. Again, to duplicate itself, it must contain 'exactly' the right acids & enzymes, each in its proper place performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of info. Statistically, this random process is astronomically remote.
How is it blind faith? They have synthesized ribonucleotides and know how phosphates and ribose is formed.
Thats the three ingredients. They just have to figure out how its assembled and they have RNA. The key ingredient for replication. Lipids form naturally and are thought to be the first cell membrane.
So what if they don't have every specific. It offers a plausible natural explanation without the need for god.
You're going to try and make some creationist argument about the probability and needing right amounts which is a bit laughable. You are trying to pick apart a fairly well understood natural process and add the need for the most complex form of life (God) to intervene to do that. Why not just say cells always existed?
In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.
when talking about probability, try imagining the how big the surface of the earth is. For sake of argument lets say a cell consists of the numbers 17, 33, 99. Lets say those numbers can only be formed out of numbers 1-9 and lets say numbers 1-9 are microscopic and cover the entire surface of the earth. Your statistically impossible just became statistically infinite.
I don't know what to say. You are incapable of objectively looking at all the evidence. If that weren't true you would have conceded that I have made at least one valid point in our week long exchange.
The fact that you haven't speaks words.
Evidence vs Excuses.
You've presented nothing but hollow reasoning and zero theories. Creationist never have evidence. They just scrutinize every concept, theory and hypothesis that don't even try to understand.
you've failed to even understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Nebraska man and titaalik are not even remotely similar. And a physical thing like a fossil doesn't require faith at all. It's the earliest example of a fish with amphibian features. The other two I posted have even more features. Its sad that ideology has corrupted your mind.
Do a google search on humans evolution lice. 5 of the concepts I discussed are brought up. EVERYTHING reinforces eachother.
How can you say we don't have evidence? We have the fossil record, the geological record, DNA sequencing, dendrochronology, slews of dating methods. the list goes on. It all shows a nested heirarchy. You map each of the above & each overlays in a nice tree-like map over each other. This IS the reason ID keeps losing in trials. The overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution vs Irreducibly complexity which has been debunked. BEHE was even forced to admit in trial that he had nada
As for abiogensis. A LOT of the parts have been figured out. Not the minute details or from step 1 - 10, but its a substantial puzzle to solve. The fact that we have a lot of the parts figured out within a reasonable model makes it plausible. Compare that to man created out of mud in god's likeness. No evidence = not plausible & all the evidence in support of evolution blows half of the creationist theories out of the water. Why would god insert ERV's or atavisms or fusing chromo 2?
@shadowpirate100 --I'm still a waitin for a microbiologists to present a plausable explanation for the emergence of DNA not to mention living cells themselves?
@shadowpirate100 too many gaps to be considered reliable. Lets have a plausable explanation for the emergence of DNA let alone living cells themselves.. Need I bring up your budding Micheal Ruse agian?
@shadowpirate100 --No it's not (laughingly) You know as well as I do they do and have been trying to do that stuff in laboratories all the time and it has never amount to anything and they have never accomplished a thing. Someone tried telling me once all they need to do is add an electric shock or current to the whenever chemicals etc. Well we both know they have done and tried doing it countless times but to no avail. Get over it.
@shadowpirate100 "No scientists has synthesized a protocell using the basic components which would have the necessary properties of life." from wikipedia on abiogenesis.
Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. They only form under the right conditions and they can be very difficult to find. Just because page 6, 26, and 60 out of a hundred page novel are missing does not mean the book doesn't exist.
Tiktaalik - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
Acanthostega - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
Ichthyostega - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
@shadowpirate100 I just watched the clip "Tiktaalik(your inner fish) it was just as imaginative as the whole "nebraska man" incident. It's almost like you are saying you haven't seen them yet you have faith, blind faith that they are there even though you'd never seen them. That Sounds kinda familiar to me.(big smile)
@shadowpirate100 -- I'm still waiting for a molecular biologist to come up with a plausible explanation for the emergence of necessary cell components such as dna, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.
And a painting is man-made - Artificial. Of course it needs a designer. Humans are natural. False equivalency.
If you are going to go that route you would have to say god had to have a father, and his father a father etc, all of which are more complex than the earliest forms of life - Mounds of bacteria that sat around for 1 billion years and were able to take in energy, convert it and reproduce cells.
@shadowpirate100 -- In order to successfully duplicate itself, it must contain exactly the right acids and enzymes, each in its proper plkace, performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of info. Statistically, the chances of such a cell coming into being as a result of the random conglomeration of acids are astronomically remote.
None of that is faith. Its all evidence that allows for reasonable interpretation. If one looks at a crime scene, sees blood, a dead body, a knife and cut wounds on the body, it isn't a leap of faith to conclude that the person was stabbed to death.
Its deductive reasoning. Ignoring radiometric dating, geology, ice cores, dendrocrhonology, varves ect, because you think the bible is 100% true is just asinine IMO. It isn't even faith, its just being irrational.
Think about it. Would all that evidence be ignored in court over the account of a few people 2 thousand years ago? Its like the crime scene analogy - we found the guy with the blood of the victim on his shirt, a receipt for the knife, foot prints in the blood that match his show and we are going to believe his mom who said the killer is a good person, but she wasn't home the day it happened so he has no alibi.
It flies in the face of logic. Which is what this video is about.
@shadowpirate100 --Nope, thats the painting proves theres a painter and the building proves theres a builder even though you didn't see thge painter paint the painting nor the builder build the building the fact that they are there proves there had to be a painter and a builder -analogy. And proves rather than disproves there is a God.
Not true. Does the uniqueness of a snowflake prove god designed each one, or does it say something about the formation of ice crystals. Does god design erosion like the grand canyon or is it a natural process that we fully understand? Evolution offers up a natural explanation for the diversification of species. Look at the moth example, the finch example etc. It makes total sense & works according to the laws of nature. Adding God's magical pixie dust to the equation is unnecessary
@shadowpirate100 --Yes it does it does prove Gods grand design. And I'm not convinced of your simply calling a tree and tree or recognizing that there are differents types of trees, fish, flowers, dogs, pig, cats, etc. and assigning each one a different name as something scientific or cleaver.
@MrOphachew It is scientific. There is a distinct order to life. Their are variants of the maple tree for example. Classifying life into phylums, genuses, orders etc is necessary and scientific. It isn't being clever. It would be stupid to just say god did it and classify a red maple and japanese maple just a maple and call it a day.
You are scrutinizing subjects you don't understand and then saying your beliefs = proof. It's illogical.
What about human chromosome 2 is unbelievable for you?
@shadowpirate100 "If my duty to my parents is asuperstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the puristsof scientific knowledge is of real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new a new sun & a new sky for it to move in."
What does the quote mean? Is he saying there is an innate oneness in mankind? An encoded morality?
There's an interesting video on youtube about culture being our operating system. Very interesting, deep and it gives a new perspective. If your interested and can't find it I can look for it. He does another one talking about energy fields and how everything is part of a bigger energy field and how matter is really just energy vibrating at a super high frequency.
I think from what I read that Einstein's god was a metaphor for the unknown. If everything is solved, you remove the mystery.
In the name of science seems like a book of cautionary tales about science experiments gone wrong. The history channel had an hour long special on a few of those topics. The LSD experiments are pretty snafu.
I think there is an ethics to every field and that each field should stay objective and free from the political clout. - impossible though.
@shadowpirate100 --"Everyone seriously interested in the persuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe --a spirit vastly superior to man--and one in the face of which, our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstien
This sentence was at the end of the quote you posted:
". In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. "
@shadowpirate100 -- I guess he didn't bother reading Dueteronomy ch. 28. Scientists such as Stavros Plakides & Demetrios Kotasakis, have written important books on using the scientific method of observation and experimentation and have arrived at the same conclusions that the writers & prophets of Old & New Testaments who recorded the august presence of God in the creation & in defence of the Biblical account.
@MrOphachew The problem is that a lot of people are incapable of being objective. So of course they are going to be biased. Look at the 911 Hijackers. Do their beliefs make their actions right? None of the creationist stuff is ever peer reviewed and accepted by science. They don't care how science works. Their followers pay them and they sell snake oil to you. Hovind's in prison. That says a lot to me.
@shadowpirate100 -- "evo is not necessarily antagonistic to faith. Saint Basil implies a proces of evo in the creation of the world. The world was not created in time but with time. It is not necesary to believe God made man as he is today but rather that He created the universe & man, which are the handiwork or overflowing of the inner attriburtes of God. God created all things "in heaven & on earth, visible and invisible...He is therefore all things, & in him all things hold together Col 1:16
@MrOphachew I could entertain those ideas. But a God that only talks to a select few and has no problem killing children, creating plagues and global floods to wipe out man is just ridiculous in my opinion. Mankind personified its fear in an attempt to appease and control nature. That's why we have 10,000 gods for 10,000 groups of people, each with someone from those groups claiming to have talked with God.
@shadowpirate100 --Thats all revealed in Deuterotomy 28. "Christ has no parallel in other religions." CS Lewis. Our Lord and savior Christ himself is the Son of God, him and, him alone. No other; not mohammad, socrates, confucius, buddha, etc. ever claimed such that they where the Son of God. Matt 26:63, Matt 27:40
Thats about as worthless as democrats trying to say republicans suck. Its almost the same as the Koran instructing people to kill infidels. IMO no god with the omnipotence you proclaim is going to be as petty, selfish and vain as a human is. He doesn't intervene with man for about 250,000 years and then one day talks to moses, has him write the tablets and tells him to spread the faith. He ignores, Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas.... Its b.s. makes no sense.
Thats about as worthless as democrats trying to say republicans suck. Its almost the same as the Koran instructing people to kill infidels. IMO no god with the omnipotence you proclaim is going to be as petty, selfish and vain as a human is. He doesn't intervene with man for about 250,000 years and then one day talks to moses, has him write the tablets and tells him to spread the faith. He ignores, Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas.... Its b.s. makes no sense.
@MrOphachew - Yeah says the hebrews that wrote the old testament. You don't see a bit of a conflict of interest. Cigarette manufactures used to say smoking wasn't bad for you.
I don't know. So far you have given me some quotes & passages, a few books to check out and a mysterious geological layer that you don't know the name of.
Your not really in a position to shoot down tried and tested science thats 90 years old, accepted by 99.9 percent of the worlds population.
@shadowpirate100 Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, pigs don't produce birds. Fish produce fish. Each species brings forth after its own kind. Thats no theory. thats fact. Why should then should we believe man originates from another species? The whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory-tale of evolution.
This just proves you don't understand the theory of evolution. So how can you dismiss something you don't understand and say you aren't being biased?
Look up- 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (for schools) at 2:35. He talks about 7 species of a salamander that encircle the rocky mountains. The immediate offshoots can mate with eachother, say species 1 and 2 and 3, but species 1 can not mate with species 7 because the dna is too different. Look at horses and zebras.
Likewise? Nope. Sorry. Of course dogs don't produce kittens. They don't have the DNA. Think of a tree with branches. Thats a visual map for evolution. Its like arguing that roots don't grow leaves...
You don't understand evolution.
Watch the videos from potholer54 or Don Exodus. They explain it well. But Saying Dogs don't have lambs = evolution isn't true makes you look ignorant. IF anything watch the videos to protect your reputation.
What proof do yo have to back up this nonsense? A single flood? Flood geology is just another coined term like intelligent design. Why is it that ID got shot down in Dover, PA? Was the entire jury and judge in on this global conspiracy?
Creationist Moments is BIASED. Why is it that people can debunk EVERY SINGLE thing creationist throw out their as science? Every claim is debunked on Youtube, in addition to scientific articles.
you've given few answers and no real proof or evidence.
Creationist moments is b.s. I want real science not some crap from Casey Luskin or what ever his name is.
I posted like 25 concepts that have substance, 3 links to plausible theories that have a lot of evidence, made several thought out points & all you have is weak science from snake oil salesman all of which beilieve the bible is 100% true.
How can anyone in their right mind think the bible doesn't have errors? A lot of it was rewritten decades later to erase contradictions.
@shadowpirate100 --Yeah the same science that gave us parapsycology, cryptozoology, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java man, Heidelburg man and no doubt they pinpointed their birthdays with good ole carbon dating. Reliable truth? Not according to Time Magazine June 11, 1990. Neanderthal man is no evidence for evo. Recent DNA test have shown he is well within the range of normal humans see Bureied Alive by Jack Cuuzzo he deals with this in depth.
@MrOphachew Cryptids do exist. Parascyc. - I'm skeptical of, but if someone wants to study it I have no qualms. The rest of what you said has been debunked. Go to talkorigins . Besides hoaxes exist. It hardly blows the theory out of the water. People are dishonest - freewill. Saying the entire theory of evolution is garbage because some 25 year old wanted fame for finding piltdown is leap, don't you think? Its like attributing all the wrong in the world to eve for eating an apple.
@shadowpirate100 Faith the Facts. U can't prove Evo. It is something you have to accept by faith. U have believed what you heard. U have seen and had faith in evo drawings of reversed osteoporosis. "I was a young man w/ unformed ideas. I threw out queries, sugg.estions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" People still do.......................
@shadowpirate100 .... Their language is a language of faith. They use words like "believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probably, possibly..." Evo can only be accepted on blind faith ..because it cannot be proven. Oh, the old man that talked about what he did as a young man. His name was chuck darwin.
@shadowpirate100 what does science say? "Evo is a Fairy tale for grownups, this theory has helped nothing in the progress of science" Prof Louis Bounoure.Dir. Research Nat. Center of Sci. research. "Evo is unproven and unprovable." Sir Arthur Kieth foreward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species. "Scientist who go about teaching evo is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they tell may be the greatist hoax ever." Dr. TN Tahmisian, atomic energy commission.
@MrOphachew That wasn't said by L. Bounoure. It was said by another french scientist and as usual, the creationists quote mined it to take it out of context. He was talking about transformation. The fact that a creationist has to take it out of context and lie on top of it says a lot, don't you think?
Why do they constantly attack valid science, while contributing nothing? Everything they put on the table is meant for lay people to say evo is a fairytale. It isn't meant for real scientists.
Creation science - oxymoron, is just meant to keep creationist ignorant. Real scientist constantly debunk it.. I've only ever seen one instance of a creationist actually trying to correct the work of another creationist. The real scientific community does this on a daily basis. That's fundamental to science. It can't be one global conspiracy, because there is tons of competition in science. They pick each other apart, just like every other industry.
no evidence for the great flood. no evidence for exodus egyptian plague has been explained with very plausible science no evidence for the leprosy cure no evidence of a man living in a whale no evidence of snakes with vocal cords no evidence for virgin births lots of evidence for stolen mythology of cultures that predate christianity. tons of evidence for a hateful jealous god that kills innocent children. The bible can't prove the bible. Thats like lord of the rings proving middle earth.
@shadowpirate100 --check "In the Name of Science" by Andrew Goliszek Theres tons of evidence right there in the Bible. flood? science has shown that there is layer that covers the entire earth no matter where they dig its always at the same level. Sorry, but even I know the old testment is full of spiritual and religious metaphores that are not ment to be taken litterally.
You're being way too biased and dismissing hundreds of concepts that took scientists years to flesh out, document and get reviewed. Scientists from all sorts of backgrounds and religions - 99.9% of the sci. community. Not only that, but these concepts and theories you dismiss have been very accurate in predicting future findings. Its glaringly obvious if you understand the concepts and evidence.
@shadowpirate100 Your being too biased again 2 to 4 thousand years of theology. Saints, Martors and Theologians. You dismiss their very accurate prophesizes.
@MrOphachew What are these accurate prophecies that you are speaking about. The rapture prophecy that was supposed to happen this May was real accurate.
In the name of science reads more as a history novel than a scientific journal. Most of its about medical experimements and it isn't even cited work.
What proof do you have for the flood? Where did all the water come from? you do know what the hydrologic cycle is right? Show me one scientific peer reviewed journal for the flood.
@shadowpirate100 --Sorry wrong again. The bible warns us about false prophets with false prophesy. I never bought it. Ever hear of the prophesies of St. Teresa of Avilia? In the name of science is accurate and he didn't need to cite anything if its not common knowledge it can still be looked up. Unlike you I don't claim to have all the answers. Show me a basic religious truth that science has ever undermined. Feel free to look up the layer.
You might be thinking of the ash layer from the bombardment period. Theres 5 instances of mass extinctions throughout the geological column. None of them support any notion of a global flood. The dispersion of fossils throughout the column does not support this idea either.
I can't find much on St. Teresa. One page said she saw hell. The account of one person hardly holds up to a global community of scientists consisting of millions of people. Any more convinceing prohpecies?
@shadowpirate100 -Nope, everyone knows that the fossil record is evidence of a single catclysmic flood and not a record of slow changes accumulating over millions of years because fossilization can only occure quickly due to the fact the fossils must be buried quickly to protect the remains from scavengers and decomposition. check out the catholic encyclopedia. What global community of millions of people? you mean like the whole global warming non-sense?
"Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology, and the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience."
Ever see a building? ever admire a painting? Did you see the archtect design the building or the builder build the building or the painter paint the painting? The fact that the building and painting are there is proof of a builder, designer and the fact that the painting is there is proof that the painter exists. You didn't have to see the painter paint the painting to know that the painter exists. Same goes with the tree's the grass the air.
the problem with that is it would mean that God is the "tree" without the "seed" - It doesn't make sense. I don't see why its so hard to believe things started out very simple billions of years ago and gradually became more and more advanced. It makes much more sense and science is almost at a point where it could demonstrate all the necessary steps.
Comparing Man-made objects to natural objects is a false equivalency. Not to be rude, but are you bad at math?
@shadowpirate100 --No it doesn't mean that. It simply means the seed was designed, It's hard to beleive becuse its not true. I don't see why its so hard to believe in a designer since there is a design. 1+1=2 design+designer=God.
Take the w w w . t h e a t h i e i s t t e s t . c o m
@MrOphachew - no it means you are starting something with full maturity before it was ever a seed. God - omnipotence - always was = full maturity before a seed. its illogical. Comparing a car to a human doesn't work. sorry you are starting off with a premise and conveniently ignoring hundreds of years of science. Another hole in intellgent design is that animals have a lot of flaws. humans alone get bad vision, wisdom teeth come in and wreck havoc, wrists are week etc. vestigial organs...
@shadowpirate100 --God is uncreated. God has always been there just like space. Comparing a car to a human is the perfect example you are starting off with a premise and convieniently ignoring thousands of years of theology.Also, just like a car can get old worn out a rusted so can humans.....
@MrOphachew Space has always been there? Then what's the necessity of god? I thought God made space.
Cars can't be compared to humans, because humans can replicate, and diverge, we have properties about us that are incomparable to a nonliving thing like a car. Essentially, you're making a bare assertion that "god is uncreated" simply because, well that's how you define god. Nobody should ever accept such a silly argument. What's our premise that ignores theology?
@BigLundi I was talking to shadow pirate100. What is the neccessity of Space? Sorry but supposedly someone made a machine that replicated itself. We have properties that are comparable to a car. We both need fuel, we both have separate components that with out one or more we could not operate nor operate properly. Robert A. Millikan who won a Nobel prize for isolating the electron said "there is not one shred of evidence that science has ever undermined a basic religous truth."
@MrOphachew And we have parts that are specific to people that cars can never have. A biological creature can never be adequately compared to a nonbiological one. It's not just that we can replicate, but we replicate on a level machines can't ever hope to reach. Genetically, we replicate, dna replicates, chromosomes replicate. Machines don't do that.
Also, 72.2% of scientists as of 1998 disbelieve in God. As opposed to 52.7% in 1914. A couple Nobel Prize winners don't impress me.
@BigLundi --A couple of misrepresented quotes by "Einstien don't impress me. And all your so called realizations make me marvel all the more at how great and grand the designer is.
@MrOphachew Ahh, so when the quotes literally say that Einstein believes that belief in a personal god is childlike, that one can develop their own morality without religion, and that the bible is just a bunch of ancient stories, and that he can't take the idea of a personal god seriously, then obviously they're just being misrepresented. This is what we in the psychiatrics field call "denialism". It's represented by "Subject A sees B. And denies that B is B." That's exactly what you're doing.
@BigLundi --Not at all and I'n still unimpressed and unconvinced. Anyway the book I recommend the most is "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. And as far as I'm conserned you've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Religion is not conscerned with the "how" of creation but with the "who," who is the author of creation. The "how" of creation is the perrogative of science. Faith the Bible answers the Whence? Where? Why? These constitute faith's inquirey.
@MrOphachew Exactly what have I been denying? CS Lewis presents an interesting case for christianity, but he even states, IN HIS BOOK, before he makes ANY of his arguemtns, "Let us presume for a moment, before thinking about the subject, that God exists." Essentially, the whole argument is reliant on God existing in the FIRST place. I showed you Einstein literally insulting your beliefs and you said, "Nope. Misrepresented." Denialism.
@MrOphachew There's plenty of evidence you're ignoring. Transitional fossils are a huge deal, but even if there were NO transitional fossils(and there's a huge list of them) the DNA evidence, the fact that we can literally connect all living things using their DNA is irrefutable evidence of Common Descent that convinced ANY fair minded skeptic. If you don't believe it, you're not being fair minded.
@MrOphachew As far as the bible answering Whence Where and Why, yes, it does do that, with absoltuely no evidence to support its position, which makes it just as likely as the premise that the giant pink unicorn in the sky farted everything into existence. Both are on equal grounds of validity and soundness. Also, you're presupposing a 'who' with creation. That's not the question, the question is "WHAT created the universe?"
@BigLundi --Nah the question is "How" big bang or designer. Can't think of any explosians that produced order. Terrorists bombs don't create harmony. big bangs cause chaos. No evidence to back up evo nothing at all to back up the premise that we evo from monkeys. Deuteronomy 28 explains why theres so much cancer and natural disasters etc.
@MrOphachew No, it's not "big bang" or "designer". And the big bang wasn't an explosion like a bomb. You don't even know what the big bang was.
And yes, there's immense amounts of evidence to back up the big bang happened. Cosmic backround radiation, the xpanding universe, the gradual cooling of the unigerse, the immense is massive. And yes, theres immense evidence for evolution as well. The bible doesn't explain anything any better then me simply saying, "The pink unicorn did it."
@BigLundi Nope not one shred of evidence whatsoever. Still over 130 years later Evo is just an unproven and unprovable theory. Where does it say that in the Bible?(pink unicorns) Modern science assumes the world is explained soley in terms of itself. Yet Scientists can't explain how random amino acids accidently formed cells or how amphibians evoed into mammals, but they have no choice but to accept evo as truth because modern scientific method needs it to be true.
@MrOphachew Yes, there is. You either A. Aren't looking. Or B. Ignore the evidence that's there.
I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me what Atavisms are if evolution isn't true?
Also, you're talking about abiogenesis, which, btw, is a possibility as proven by numerous expirments. You don't understand a SHRED of the evidence you claim has no evidence behind it.
You have no proof to back your statement up that God always was. We do however have tons and tons of proof to prove evolution. Scientist just developed a new tecnhique to scan fossils and analyze their chemical makeup up to parts per million. This technique has now proved the evolution of birds to dinosaurs. In addition to that we have homologous structures, Retroviral DNA, Biogeography, natural selection, artificial selections, summation, chromosomal fusion, the list goes on.
@shadowpirate100 --No there is no evidence. Even though hundreds of thousands of fossils have been discovered in the last 130 years the same gaps in the fossil record remain today that so troubled Darwin when he wrote "Origin: Even Stephen gould w2ith his "punctuated Equilibrium"theory is nithing but an admission the gaps exist and won't be filled in. In other words there are no missing links.
There is tons of evidence. We have a fossil record that goes from fish all the way up to humans. We have a record that goes from dinosaurs to birds and from land mammals to whales. It shows little details like the nostrils moving to become blowholes. It explains Atavisms. Your demanding 100 percent proof for evolution and ignoring the .000001 proof for creationism. Its sad.
@shadowpirate100 Wrong again as usual I might add. You might want to put down the sci-fi. Your demanding 100 persent proof for creation and ignoring the .000001 proof for Evo. Sad.
"Your demanding 100 persent proof for creation and ignoring the .000001 proof for Evo. Sad. "
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you haven't offered any proof or evidence whatsoever for creationism. All you've said is look how complex life is. that isn't proof for creationism.
You skipped my point I made yesterday about the tree anaology. You say its ridiculous that life started out simple 3.5 billion years ago, but you think its possible that the most complex form of life always existed? As far as the big bang theory, scientist think now that there might be multiverses and M-theory is gaining a lot of credibility it works out mathematically and according to physics. There is just way too much science that has been tested and works that says otherwise.
@shadowpirate100 You had no point. Molecular bio ihas shown us living cells are far more complex than Darwin or anyone at that time imagined. As for DNA. No scientist has been able to come up with a plausable explalnation for the emergence of neccesssary cell components such as dna, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.
Who cares if cells were more complex than first realized 150 years ago. 500 years ago Catholics were boiling people in tar for thinking the earth revolved around the sun. We now know the earth revolves around the sun.
There's a lot of plausible explanations for Abiogenesis. Scientists just reexamined the vials after the Miller-urey experiment and found 22 amino acids and 5 amines. There is also evidence to support the RNA world and iron-sulfur-world theory. plus 9 more theories.
@MrOphachew 've rad it. Not impressed. The fact is, you're using an argument that's been debunked for centuries. This silly little Watchmaker Argument was even debunked pretty much exactly when it was presented.
Let's try a different approach, you think design is evidence of a creator. Great, what would constitute as something that's not designed. I'll just skip over all the aparently bad design, if there was any design at all and go striaght to falsifiability.
@MrOphachew I've also read that ne, as well as "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. It's all very unimpressive, though Kenneth is a FAR better scientist.
The fact that our galaxy is on a crash course for the Andromeda galaxy, the fact that our planet has an asteroid headed straight for its trajectory path, the fact that out of the entire universe, as far as we know, we only exist on this one dingy planet fillled with diseases that kill millions of children at birth,
@MrOphachew Try "Why I'm not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. And yes, I'm familiar with CS Lewis' book as well. Go ahead and read off the ist of books you have, I probably have more. None of them are sound and valid.
Also, try a quote from Einstein where makes it clear he believes that belief in a personal god that cares about humans is not only silly, but grossly arrogant.
@BigLundi Nah, ole Russel was just a anti-moralists who went around trying to unconvincingly self-justify his own immorality. OK lets start with The New Annotated Oxford Bible, then "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson then "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton Please cite that quote. Looking at the quote i cited I think Einstein was too smart to have actually said anything like that.
@MrOphachew Yup yup yup, read all of them. Denton and Philip are both hacks that don't understand evolutionary theory, and show it in their writings.
Here's Einstein on Christianity.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this - Einstein's Letter to Philosopher Erik Gutkind
@MrOphachew When asked if he believes in a personal god, Einstein responded
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
@MrOphachew And finally. Personal god beliefs are childlike.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
@MrOphachew Oh, here's one more, addressing your point about Russell just trying to justify his self morality. Well, Einstein had one too. It's a big quote, gimme a second, seperate comment.
@MrOphachew It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Even Einstein says religious morality is unnecessary. And calls your belief childlike.
By continuing to argue about an imaginary event, the sudden creation of the universe, creationists are digging their own grave. If they had any brains they would find a means to reconcile the Bi-bull with modern day science, Thus saving their religion from a total and ultimate collapse. But, unfortuntely for themselves, they haven't the brain.
There is a strong correlation between lack of education and religion. The bible belt for example consists of some of the worst performing states educationally. Whats ironic is that evolution strengthens our strong suits. Eagles have the best eyes, bears - good noses, humans - best brains. Humans will evolve beyond religion, its already happening. Creationist will be the next Amish. They will either have to withdrawal from society or watch their religion drown in a sea of logic.
I don't know why creationists spend all their time trying to disprove evolution(scientist would have done that 100 yrs ago if they could, but they haven't succeeded) , 1000 times evolution fails would never automaticly make creationism the truth.Cuz not to mention E&C is not the only 2 models, but:sth is true not only because evry other counterparts are false, yet solely because itself is true. Even if E collapses, they would have to prove C 2b right afterall, so why not focus on proving C?
@uyenst I think this is one [of a gazillion] key things that the religious nuts just don't get. Science throws up a theory and any credible scientists makes damn sure it's as water tight as possible because s/he knows sure as eggs is what the original Jesus came out of, that as soon as s/he publishes it in a peer review journal any errors in observation, reason or logic will have an enormous spotlight shone on them.
xians are idiots.
vinegarthomas 5 months ago
@cdk007 Theistic evolutionists, because they view scripture as analogous, have adjusted their rationale to accept scientific understanding. Creationists primary tenet is literal belief in scripture. This gives them no room for manoeuvre, they must reject all empirical evidence & rational scientific thinking that contradicts scripture. Worse, they have to invent false science, ID, & if they can't get that taught in public schools, strive to keep evolution out of the classroom.
Next Post.
GuillemotWatcher 3 months ago
Evolution is probably the most important & unifying theory in science. Fields of study from bacteriology, biochemistry, botany, chemistry, genetics, geology, palaeontology, zoology & more, & chaos theory in mathematics, all support evolution.
Creationists in the US are succeeding in retarding the education of kids, & it's having serious & detrimental effects. US students are literally being taught to be ignorant.
GuillemotWatcher 3 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Sad but true. Videos like these are helping people like me in debates with those sitting on the fence. I have hope that the rising number of non-religious Americans will turn the tide of ignorance and superstition. As a New Atheist, I have hope for a secular America.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 America will never be truly secular, there's too much money to be made from promoting religion in The States, but my hope is that good educational videos & articulate & civilised debates will soften a proportion of this generation's reluctance to accept evolution. There is a war for the minds of children & it's spreading to the UK. I think the internet is a good battleground on which to fight.
GuillemotWatcher 3 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher I agree. Thankfully the internet is, for many, the place where religious superstition comes to die.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Uh... I must say that science IS just guess work and all knowledge we have is based on faith. Though it is educated guess work, it's still based on a level of faith. If you are claiming scientific reasoning with your examples, then I assume you are familiar with probability. Even though 9,999 out of 10,000 times you are right, there will be 1 time you are wrong. Nothing is 100% probable. John Smith might be innocent. Science is not fact. Science is the conclussion based off of the data availible
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@supercowmanguy you're right, according to popper, you can never verify a theory, only falsify it. the good thing about science is, thats its always open for improvement and refutation of theories. but is this supposed to be an argument against science and for religion?
masterhans 5 months ago
@masterhans Well science is a method of understanding our surroundings. My argument was in no means against science, it was against overstepping conclussions and this idea that faith has no place in science. Science does actually require an element of faith to work. i.e. if we conduct experiments, to accept any result we percieve, we must have faith that our perception is accurate. It may seem like a small thing, but that's a pretty big leap of faith when you actually dive into it.
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@supercowmanguy
What is your definition of faith? I understand what you are saying, but faith as I understand it is a lot different than an educated guess. You can have faith that the skyscraper you are standing in won't fall to the ground, but that .0001% when buildings do collapse is due to human error or material defects. You calculate the live loads, dead loads, lateral forces etc right and the building stays built. It isn't faith in the science. It's faith in the humans involved.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Well yes, faith is entirely different than an educated guess. Faith would be believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. You can calculate the skyscraper, and we have sufficent ground to expect it not to fall, key word, expect. Though, pretty much things you can calculate are not directly what I'm talking about with faith, more so as a chainlink effect from things that are undisprovable. It's faith that allows us to ignore that we may be a dreaming butterfly.
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@supercowmanguy
My understanding of science is that there are "Levels". Some science is very theoretical in nature while other concepts are based almost entirely on facts gained through direct observation. So you can have scientific facts, scientific hypotheses and scientific theories. All of which blur the boundaries.
As for Evolution though. It is a fact and theory. Creationists get hung up on the theory part and forget that we can directly observe genetic changes.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Well theoretical does not nessecitate the same level of uncertainty. Yes, in the reality we seem to percieve, evolution is ridiculously probable (the new amphibious fish makes it hard to deny, seriously, it exists). The point though that is brought up in the vid though is creationists employing skepticism. They ARE right, it is a guess, faith is required to accept the theory in a way. But this skepticism just creates a stalemate which no one wins because you can't be right...
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@supercowmanguy
I've always stuck with the old definition of faith: belief w/o proof. Since science is a bit different than other fields proof has to be substituted w/ evidence. Now with that logic, the only real gaps are witnessing it with your own eyes. There is a video called "what creationist must deny" or something close to that and it lists about 20 different concepts made with observation that reinforce evolution. Very interesting. Homologous Structures, Atavisms, Chromosome Fusion.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Now I am a skeptic, but the denial we witness with creationist is just a combination of willful ignorance and confirmation bias. Yes there are gaps, but the overwhelming evidence in a number of scientific fields that reinforce evolution removes the gaps down to an acceptable tolerance.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Our definitions of faith are very similar, you are speaking of emperical evidence though when you speak of proof. There are other kinds within science too. Math for example uses rational thought and logic to prove certain identities. You can't witness an infinite series converging after all. I would disagree that science is different than other fields. Science, history, and philosophy all require quite a bit of evidence to support claims. cont...
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Now as strong as science is, it is not invincible to attacks. When someone starts getting skeptic, the entire sciencetific system falls because the point of information reception is under question for it's reliability. If anyone ever does that to you, I suggest to just go along with it and see how much you can call into doubt because ultimately we don't know if we're right or not. So question if the earth exists, question if their wife/husband exists, it's all fair game!
supercowmanguy 5 months ago
@supercowmanguy True.
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
Hey CDK007! I like these classical pieces that you use in your videos. They fit nicely.
Akira625 5 months ago
oh and a team at harvard created the first synthetic cell.
Go ahead add your qualifiers of what does or doesn't qualify. Creationist always move the goal post because thats all they can do. But I have provided several studies of abiogensis that make it a valid theory.
Your proposal is that a hybrid ferrari always existed before a wheel.
This is why ID is losing ground. The ID crowd can't bring ANYTHING to the table. They look like dumbasses at these trials. cuz they are debunked so fast.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --None of what you just said holds any water. Just like it was shown at that 1993 convocation and speaker Michael Ruse and the one ten years before that. That I mentioned in the longer message.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
Still got to check out this Michael Ruse guy. Did you see the news about NASA? They found some of the building blocks of life that make up DNA on an Asteroid stuck in a polar ice cap.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Another unproven Theory.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
One other thing that might help your understanding. It didn't go from chemical to bacteria. It went from simple chemicals - polymers - replicating polymers- hypercycle-protobiont-bacteria.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
You never answered the question about Human Chromosome 2.
Science said. "Why do we have one less pair of chromosomes than the chimp? There has to be a reasonable explanation. And there was. One pair fused together. One extra telomere in the wrong spot and two centromeres in the wrong spot. Very convincing.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Of course I already did.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Had to block shadowpirate100 because he was trying to do Colossians 2:8 So I to to do Matthew 16:14
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
That entire list has been debunked hundreds of times. Scientists can explain all of it. What area do you have the most trouble understand? There is nothing magical about evolution and punctuated equilbirum. Think of the climate as the economy and punctuated equilbrium a result of this crappy recession. Econ. dips and businesses fire and some but not all go out of business.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Some of the larger businesses can absorb it but they have to shrink, others merge, others face little competition and grow. Then you have all the people out of jobs. starting up small businesses.
Before the recession things were gradual. During the recession a lot of businesses died out, and pulling out of the complete crash completely new businesses emerged and other business move laterally through mergers or growth through little competition.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --no they can't nor have they. It's all blind faith faith on your part. read and re-read the long message I sent because it was to long to post here.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
You keep bring up the complexity of a cell and what some scientist though 100 year ago. Did you know all the elements of the universe came from hydrogen atoms? Thats a pretty simple building block right? one electron and one proton. Hydrogen atoms fuse in stars to make every element we see. There's your Jesus. A star that died so that you could live.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Seriously though, Abiogenesis is thoroughly explained in several videos her on youtube.
I dare you to give this a shot...
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --I looked up your "abiogenesis" on wikipedia and all I saw was the word "theory" repeated over and over endlessly. When I look that word up in our unabolished dictionary it is described with words like "conjecture" "speculation" "assumption" "presumption" so much for your explanations of fact and not blind faith.
Please read and re-read thoroghly the long message I sent because it was too long to post here.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- More untestable and untested theory's that you accept on blind faith. Please read and re-read etc. etc. the long message that I sent because it was too long to post here. Again, to duplicate itself, it must contain 'exactly' the right acids & enzymes, each in its proper place performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of info. Statistically, this random process is astronomically remote.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
How is it blind faith? They have synthesized ribonucleotides and know how phosphates and ribose is formed.
Thats the three ingredients. They just have to figure out how its assembled and they have RNA. The key ingredient for replication. Lipids form naturally and are thought to be the first cell membrane.
So what if they don't have every specific. It offers a plausible natural explanation without the need for god.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
You're going to try and make some creationist argument about the probability and needing right amounts which is a bit laughable. You are trying to pick apart a fairly well understood natural process and add the need for the most complex form of life (God) to intervene to do that. Why not just say cells always existed?
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100
scientific theory on wiki
In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
Also,
when talking about probability, try imagining the how big the surface of the earth is. For sake of argument lets say a cell consists of the numbers 17, 33, 99. Lets say those numbers can only be formed out of numbers 1-9 and lets say numbers 1-9 are microscopic and cover the entire surface of the earth. Your statistically impossible just became statistically infinite.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Yeah, just like God.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
I don't know what to say. You are incapable of objectively looking at all the evidence. If that weren't true you would have conceded that I have made at least one valid point in our week long exchange.
The fact that you haven't speaks words.
Evidence vs Excuses.
You've presented nothing but hollow reasoning and zero theories. Creationist never have evidence. They just scrutinize every concept, theory and hypothesis that don't even try to understand.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
you've failed to even understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Nebraska man and titaalik are not even remotely similar. And a physical thing like a fossil doesn't require faith at all. It's the earliest example of a fish with amphibian features. The other two I posted have even more features. Its sad that ideology has corrupted your mind.
Do a google search on humans evolution lice. 5 of the concepts I discussed are brought up. EVERYTHING reinforces eachother.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- hmmm....thats the exact same thing creationists say about you.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Seriously I can say the exact same thing about you and thats exactly how I feel and what I think about atheistic evolutionists.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
How can you say we don't have evidence? We have the fossil record, the geological record, DNA sequencing, dendrochronology, slews of dating methods. the list goes on. It all shows a nested heirarchy. You map each of the above & each overlays in a nice tree-like map over each other. This IS the reason ID keeps losing in trials. The overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution vs Irreducibly complexity which has been debunked. BEHE was even forced to admit in trial that he had nada
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
As for abiogensis. A LOT of the parts have been figured out. Not the minute details or from step 1 - 10, but its a substantial puzzle to solve. The fact that we have a lot of the parts figured out within a reasonable model makes it plausible. Compare that to man created out of mud in god's likeness. No evidence = not plausible & all the evidence in support of evolution blows half of the creationist theories out of the water. Why would god insert ERV's or atavisms or fusing chromo 2?
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --I'm still a waitin for a microbiologists to present a plausable explanation for the emergence of DNA not to mention living cells themselves?
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 too many gaps to be considered reliable. Lets have a plausable explanation for the emergence of DNA let alone living cells themselves.. Need I bring up your budding Micheal Ruse agian?
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Why not say God always existed?
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --No it's not (laughingly) You know as well as I do they do and have been trying to do that stuff in laboratories all the time and it has never amount to anything and they have never accomplished a thing. Someone tried telling me once all they need to do is add an electric shock or current to the whenever chemicals etc. Well we both know they have done and tried doing it countless times but to no avail. Get over it.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- naw its simply "assumption" "presumption" "conjecture" "speculation" without God.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 "No scientists has synthesized a protocell using the basic components which would have the necessary properties of life." from wikipedia on abiogenesis.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. They only form under the right conditions and they can be very difficult to find. Just because page 6, 26, and 60 out of a hundred page novel are missing does not mean the book doesn't exist.
Tiktaalik - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
Acanthostega - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
Ichthyostega - does this look like a fish or amphibian?
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 I just watched the clip "Tiktaalik(your inner fish) it was just as imaginative as the whole "nebraska man" incident. It's almost like you are saying you haven't seen them yet you have faith, blind faith that they are there even though you'd never seen them. That Sounds kinda familiar to me.(big smile)
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- I'm still waiting for a molecular biologist to come up with a plausible explanation for the emergence of necessary cell components such as dna, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Oh, found another good book for you "Fingerprints of God: the search for the Science of Spirituality" by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
MrOphachew 5 months ago
And a painting is man-made - Artificial. Of course it needs a designer. Humans are natural. False equivalency.
If you are going to go that route you would have to say god had to have a father, and his father a father etc, all of which are more complex than the earliest forms of life - Mounds of bacteria that sat around for 1 billion years and were able to take in energy, convert it and reproduce cells.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- In order to successfully duplicate itself, it must contain exactly the right acids and enzymes, each in its proper plkace, performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of info. Statistically, the chances of such a cell coming into being as a result of the random conglomeration of acids are astronomically remote.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
None of that is faith. Its all evidence that allows for reasonable interpretation. If one looks at a crime scene, sees blood, a dead body, a knife and cut wounds on the body, it isn't a leap of faith to conclude that the person was stabbed to death.
Its deductive reasoning. Ignoring radiometric dating, geology, ice cores, dendrocrhonology, varves ect, because you think the bible is 100% true is just asinine IMO. It isn't even faith, its just being irrational.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Think about it. Would all that evidence be ignored in court over the account of a few people 2 thousand years ago? Its like the crime scene analogy - we found the guy with the blood of the victim on his shirt, a receipt for the knife, foot prints in the blood that match his show and we are going to believe his mom who said the killer is a good person, but she wasn't home the day it happened so he has no alibi.
It flies in the face of logic. Which is what this video is about.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Nope, thats the painting proves theres a painter and the building proves theres a builder even though you didn't see thge painter paint the painting nor the builder build the building the fact that they are there proves there had to be a painter and a builder -analogy. And proves rather than disproves there is a God.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
Not true. Does the uniqueness of a snowflake prove god designed each one, or does it say something about the formation of ice crystals. Does god design erosion like the grand canyon or is it a natural process that we fully understand? Evolution offers up a natural explanation for the diversification of species. Look at the moth example, the finch example etc. It makes total sense & works according to the laws of nature. Adding God's magical pixie dust to the equation is unnecessary
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Yes it does it does prove Gods grand design. And I'm not convinced of your simply calling a tree and tree or recognizing that there are differents types of trees, fish, flowers, dogs, pig, cats, etc. and assigning each one a different name as something scientific or cleaver.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew It is scientific. There is a distinct order to life. Their are variants of the maple tree for example. Classifying life into phylums, genuses, orders etc is necessary and scientific. It isn't being clever. It would be stupid to just say god did it and classify a red maple and japanese maple just a maple and call it a day.
You are scrutinizing subjects you don't understand and then saying your beliefs = proof. It's illogical.
What about human chromosome 2 is unbelievable for you?
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 "If my duty to my parents is asuperstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the puristsof scientific knowledge is of real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new a new sun & a new sky for it to move in."
cs Lewis
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
What does the quote mean? Is he saying there is an innate oneness in mankind? An encoded morality?
There's an interesting video on youtube about culture being our operating system. Very interesting, deep and it gives a new perspective. If your interested and can't find it I can look for it. He does another one talking about energy fields and how everything is part of a bigger energy field and how matter is really just energy vibrating at a super high frequency.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Terence Mckenna - Culture is your operating system
Having trouble locating the energy video. Its pretty profound though. I will have to track it down and add it to my favorites.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100--Oops, "if puristsof scientific knowledge is" should have read "if the pursuit of scientific knowledge is" sorry about that.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --It means just as Einstien said "religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind."
Which is another reason "In the name of science." by Andrew Goliszek is so important
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
I think from what I read that Einstein's god was a metaphor for the unknown. If everything is solved, you remove the mystery.
In the name of science seems like a book of cautionary tales about science experiments gone wrong. The history channel had an hour long special on a few of those topics. The LSD experiments are pretty snafu.
I think there is an ethics to every field and that each field should stay objective and free from the political clout. - impossible though.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --"Everyone seriously interested in the persuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe --a spirit vastly superior to man--and one in the face of which, our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstien
MrOphachew 5 months ago
This sentence was at the end of the quote you posted:
". In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100
one more Einstein quote
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. "
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- I guess he didn't bother reading Dueteronomy ch. 28. Scientists such as Stavros Plakides & Demetrios Kotasakis, have written important books on using the scientific method of observation and experimentation and have arrived at the same conclusions that the writers & prophets of Old & New Testaments who recorded the august presence of God in the creation & in defence of the Biblical account.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew The problem is that a lot of people are incapable of being objective. So of course they are going to be biased. Look at the 911 Hijackers. Do their beliefs make their actions right? None of the creationist stuff is ever peer reviewed and accepted by science. They don't care how science works. Their followers pay them and they sell snake oil to you. Hovind's in prison. That says a lot to me.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- "evo is not necessarily antagonistic to faith. Saint Basil implies a proces of evo in the creation of the world. The world was not created in time but with time. It is not necesary to believe God made man as he is today but rather that He created the universe & man, which are the handiwork or overflowing of the inner attriburtes of God. God created all things "in heaven & on earth, visible and invisible...He is therefore all things, & in him all things hold together Col 1:16
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew I could entertain those ideas. But a God that only talks to a select few and has no problem killing children, creating plagues and global floods to wipe out man is just ridiculous in my opinion. Mankind personified its fear in an attempt to appease and control nature. That's why we have 10,000 gods for 10,000 groups of people, each with someone from those groups claiming to have talked with God.
ID just lost in TEXAS btw.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Thats all revealed in Deuterotomy 28. "Christ has no parallel in other religions." CS Lewis. Our Lord and savior Christ himself is the Son of God, him and, him alone. No other; not mohammad, socrates, confucius, buddha, etc. ever claimed such that they where the Son of God. Matt 26:63, Matt 27:40
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
Thats about as worthless as democrats trying to say republicans suck. Its almost the same as the Koran instructing people to kill infidels. IMO no god with the omnipotence you proclaim is going to be as petty, selfish and vain as a human is. He doesn't intervene with man for about 250,000 years and then one day talks to moses, has him write the tablets and tells him to spread the faith. He ignores, Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas.... Its b.s. makes no sense.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@MrOphachew
Thats about as worthless as democrats trying to say republicans suck. Its almost the same as the Koran instructing people to kill infidels. IMO no god with the omnipotence you proclaim is going to be as petty, selfish and vain as a human is. He doesn't intervene with man for about 250,000 years and then one day talks to moses, has him write the tablets and tells him to spread the faith. He ignores, Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas.... Its b.s. makes no sense.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -- I don't think so. The Hebrews where the chosen people in the OT but now we have the NT. Psalm 14 & Psalm 53
MrOphachew 5 months ago
@MrOphachew - Yeah says the hebrews that wrote the old testament. You don't see a bit of a conflict of interest. Cigarette manufactures used to say smoking wasn't bad for you.
I don't know. So far you have given me some quotes & passages, a few books to check out and a mysterious geological layer that you don't know the name of.
Your not really in a position to shoot down tried and tested science thats 90 years old, accepted by 99.9 percent of the worlds population.
shadowpirate100 5 months ago
So why do you think atavisms why would god make animals with unnecessary genes and then turn them on to give a baby a tail or a whale legs?
What about Endogenous retroviruses? Why would god insert old traces of viruses in the genomes of every primate? It does nothing.
What about the Human Chromosome 2 - Why do we have one less pair? Why was it fused? The creationists had no answer at the Dover trial which they lost.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, pigs don't produce birds. Fish produce fish. Each species brings forth after its own kind. Thats no theory. thats fact. Why should then should we believe man originates from another species? The whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory-tale of evolution.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
This just proves you don't understand the theory of evolution. So how can you dismiss something you don't understand and say you aren't being biased?
Look up- 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (for schools) at 2:35. He talks about 7 species of a salamander that encircle the rocky mountains. The immediate offshoots can mate with eachother, say species 1 and 2 and 3, but species 1 can not mate with species 7 because the dna is too different. Look at horses and zebras.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Likewise
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
Likewise? Nope. Sorry. Of course dogs don't produce kittens. They don't have the DNA. Think of a tree with branches. Thats a visual map for evolution. Its like arguing that roots don't grow leaves...
You don't understand evolution.
Watch the videos from potholer54 or Don Exodus. They explain it well. But Saying Dogs don't have lambs = evolution isn't true makes you look ignorant. IF anything watch the videos to protect your reputation.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
What proof do yo have to back up this nonsense? A single flood? Flood geology is just another coined term like intelligent design. Why is it that ID got shot down in Dover, PA? Was the entire jury and judge in on this global conspiracy?
Creationist Moments is BIASED. Why is it that people can debunk EVERY SINGLE thing creationist throw out their as science? Every claim is debunked on Youtube, in addition to scientific articles.
you've given few answers and no real proof or evidence.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
Creationist moments is b.s. I want real science not some crap from Casey Luskin or what ever his name is.
I posted like 25 concepts that have substance, 3 links to plausible theories that have a lot of evidence, made several thought out points & all you have is weak science from snake oil salesman all of which beilieve the bible is 100% true.
How can anyone in their right mind think the bible doesn't have errors? A lot of it was rewritten decades later to erase contradictions.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Yeah the same science that gave us parapsycology, cryptozoology, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java man, Heidelburg man and no doubt they pinpointed their birthdays with good ole carbon dating. Reliable truth? Not according to Time Magazine June 11, 1990. Neanderthal man is no evidence for evo. Recent DNA test have shown he is well within the range of normal humans see Bureied Alive by Jack Cuuzzo he deals with this in depth.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Cryptids do exist. Parascyc. - I'm skeptical of, but if someone wants to study it I have no qualms. The rest of what you said has been debunked. Go to talkorigins . Besides hoaxes exist. It hardly blows the theory out of the water. People are dishonest - freewill. Saying the entire theory of evolution is garbage because some 25 year old wanted fame for finding piltdown is leap, don't you think? Its like attributing all the wrong in the world to eve for eating an apple.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Faith the Facts. U can't prove Evo. It is something you have to accept by faith. U have believed what you heard. U have seen and had faith in evo drawings of reversed osteoporosis. "I was a young man w/ unformed ideas. I threw out queries, sugg.estions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" People still do.......................
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
I would hardly call it faith. Look at ERV's, Atavisms, Geology, Dendrochronology, Human Chromosome 2, Gene Order, Genome Synteny, Vestigial organs, Human Chromosome 2, Retroviral DNA, Wobble Position Sequence, Intron Sequence, Pseudogene Sequence , Transposons, Beneficial Mutations
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 .... Their language is a language of faith. They use words like "believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probably, possibly..." Evo can only be accepted on blind faith ..because it cannot be proven. Oh, the old man that talked about what he did as a young man. His name was chuck darwin.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Likewise
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 what does science say? "Evo is a Fairy tale for grownups, this theory has helped nothing in the progress of science" Prof Louis Bounoure.Dir. Research Nat. Center of Sci. research. "Evo is unproven and unprovable." Sir Arthur Kieth foreward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species. "Scientist who go about teaching evo is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they tell may be the greatist hoax ever." Dr. TN Tahmisian, atomic energy commission.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew That wasn't said by L. Bounoure. It was said by another french scientist and as usual, the creationists quote mined it to take it out of context. He was talking about transformation. The fact that a creationist has to take it out of context and lie on top of it says a lot, don't you think?
Why do they constantly attack valid science, while contributing nothing? Everything they put on the table is meant for lay people to say evo is a fairytale. It isn't meant for real scientists.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100
Creation science - oxymoron, is just meant to keep creationist ignorant. Real scientist constantly debunk it.. I've only ever seen one instance of a creationist actually trying to correct the work of another creationist. The real scientific community does this on a daily basis. That's fundamental to science. It can't be one global conspiracy, because there is tons of competition in science. They pick each other apart, just like every other industry.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --check "In the Name of Science" by Andrew Goliszek Theres tons of evidence right there in the Bible. flood? science has shown that there is layer that covers the entire earth no matter where they dig its always at the same level. Sorry, but even I know the old testment is full of spiritual and religious metaphores that are not ment to be taken litterally.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrOphachew 6 months ago
I have to agree with biglundi.
You're being way too biased and dismissing hundreds of concepts that took scientists years to flesh out, document and get reviewed. Scientists from all sorts of backgrounds and religions - 99.9% of the sci. community. Not only that, but these concepts and theories you dismiss have been very accurate in predicting future findings. Its glaringly obvious if you understand the concepts and evidence.
contrast that with evidence for the bible.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Your being too biased again 2 to 4 thousand years of theology. Saints, Martors and Theologians. You dismiss their very accurate prophesizes.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew What are these accurate prophecies that you are speaking about. The rapture prophecy that was supposed to happen this May was real accurate.
In the name of science reads more as a history novel than a scientific journal. Most of its about medical experimements and it isn't even cited work.
What proof do you have for the flood? Where did all the water come from? you do know what the hydrologic cycle is right? Show me one scientific peer reviewed journal for the flood.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Sorry wrong again. The bible warns us about false prophets with false prophesy. I never bought it. Ever hear of the prophesies of St. Teresa of Avilia? In the name of science is accurate and he didn't need to cite anything if its not common knowledge it can still be looked up. Unlike you I don't claim to have all the answers. Show me a basic religious truth that science has ever undermined. Feel free to look up the layer.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
You might be thinking of the ash layer from the bombardment period. Theres 5 instances of mass extinctions throughout the geological column. None of them support any notion of a global flood. The dispersion of fossils throughout the column does not support this idea either.
I can't find much on St. Teresa. One page said she saw hell. The account of one person hardly holds up to a global community of scientists consisting of millions of people. Any more convinceing prohpecies?
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 -Nope, everyone knows that the fossil record is evidence of a single catclysmic flood and not a record of slow changes accumulating over millions of years because fossilization can only occure quickly due to the fact the fossils must be buried quickly to protect the remains from scavengers and decomposition. check out the catholic encyclopedia. What global community of millions of people? you mean like the whole global warming non-sense?
MrOphachew 6 months ago
"Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology, and the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience."
ouch.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowpirate100 --Sorry wrong again. Scientifically speaking the layer is there. Look it up.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
Do you have a name for the layer? Its hard to look up with out a name.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --who said that? some God denying athiest scientists?
MrOphachew 6 months ago
Ever see a building? ever admire a painting? Did you see the archtect design the building or the builder build the building or the painter paint the painting? The fact that the building and painting are there is proof of a builder, designer and the fact that the painting is there is proof that the painter exists. You didn't have to see the painter paint the painting to know that the painter exists. Same goes with the tree's the grass the air.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew No it's not the same. Because we see trees develop on their own with no intelligence source...acorns.
Grass also grows on its own with no intelligence source...seeds.
And air? You be trollin.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --So....the tree came from the seed? Where did the seed come from? Where did the air come from? God like space has always been there.
"Answers for Atheists" by E. Calvin Beisner
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
the problem with that is it would mean that God is the "tree" without the "seed" - It doesn't make sense. I don't see why its so hard to believe things started out very simple billions of years ago and gradually became more and more advanced. It makes much more sense and science is almost at a point where it could demonstrate all the necessary steps.
Comparing Man-made objects to natural objects is a false equivalency. Not to be rude, but are you bad at math?
Just curious.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --No it doesn't mean that. It simply means the seed was designed, It's hard to beleive becuse its not true. I don't see why its so hard to believe in a designer since there is a design. 1+1=2 design+designer=God.
Take the w w w . t h e a t h i e i s t t e s t . c o m
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew - no it means you are starting something with full maturity before it was ever a seed. God - omnipotence - always was = full maturity before a seed. its illogical. Comparing a car to a human doesn't work. sorry you are starting off with a premise and conveniently ignoring hundreds of years of science. Another hole in intellgent design is that animals have a lot of flaws. humans alone get bad vision, wisdom teeth come in and wreck havoc, wrists are week etc. vestigial organs...
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --God is uncreated. God has always been there just like space. Comparing a car to a human is the perfect example you are starting off with a premise and convieniently ignoring thousands of years of theology.Also, just like a car can get old worn out a rusted so can humans.....
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Space has always been there? Then what's the necessity of god? I thought God made space.
Cars can't be compared to humans, because humans can replicate, and diverge, we have properties about us that are incomparable to a nonliving thing like a car. Essentially, you're making a bare assertion that "god is uncreated" simply because, well that's how you define god. Nobody should ever accept such a silly argument. What's our premise that ignores theology?
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi I was talking to shadow pirate100. What is the neccessity of Space? Sorry but supposedly someone made a machine that replicated itself. We have properties that are comparable to a car. We both need fuel, we both have separate components that with out one or more we could not operate nor operate properly. Robert A. Millikan who won a Nobel prize for isolating the electron said "there is not one shred of evidence that science has ever undermined a basic religous truth."
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew And we have parts that are specific to people that cars can never have. A biological creature can never be adequately compared to a nonbiological one. It's not just that we can replicate, but we replicate on a level machines can't ever hope to reach. Genetically, we replicate, dna replicates, chromosomes replicate. Machines don't do that.
Also, 72.2% of scientists as of 1998 disbelieve in God. As opposed to 52.7% in 1914. A couple Nobel Prize winners don't impress me.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --A couple of misrepresented quotes by "Einstien don't impress me. And all your so called realizations make me marvel all the more at how great and grand the designer is.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Ahh, so when the quotes literally say that Einstein believes that belief in a personal god is childlike, that one can develop their own morality without religion, and that the bible is just a bunch of ancient stories, and that he can't take the idea of a personal god seriously, then obviously they're just being misrepresented. This is what we in the psychiatrics field call "denialism". It's represented by "Subject A sees B. And denies that B is B." That's exactly what you're doing.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --Not at all and I'n still unimpressed and unconvinced. Anyway the book I recommend the most is "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. And as far as I'm conserned you've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Religion is not conscerned with the "how" of creation but with the "who," who is the author of creation. The "how" of creation is the perrogative of science. Faith the Bible answers the Whence? Where? Why? These constitute faith's inquirey.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Exactly what have I been denying? CS Lewis presents an interesting case for christianity, but he even states, IN HIS BOOK, before he makes ANY of his arguemtns, "Let us presume for a moment, before thinking about the subject, that God exists." Essentially, the whole argument is reliant on God existing in the FIRST place. I showed you Einstein literally insulting your beliefs and you said, "Nope. Misrepresented." Denialism.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi -Theres no proof for evo but it is beleived simply because modern scientific method needs it to be true .
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew There's plenty of evidence you're ignoring. Transitional fossils are a huge deal, but even if there were NO transitional fossils(and there's a huge list of them) the DNA evidence, the fact that we can literally connect all living things using their DNA is irrefutable evidence of Common Descent that convinced ANY fair minded skeptic. If you don't believe it, you're not being fair minded.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew As far as the bible answering Whence Where and Why, yes, it does do that, with absoltuely no evidence to support its position, which makes it just as likely as the premise that the giant pink unicorn in the sky farted everything into existence. Both are on equal grounds of validity and soundness. Also, you're presupposing a 'who' with creation. That's not the question, the question is "WHAT created the universe?"
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --Nah the question is "How" big bang or designer. Can't think of any explosians that produced order. Terrorists bombs don't create harmony. big bangs cause chaos. No evidence to back up evo nothing at all to back up the premise that we evo from monkeys. Deuteronomy 28 explains why theres so much cancer and natural disasters etc.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew No, it's not "big bang" or "designer". And the big bang wasn't an explosion like a bomb. You don't even know what the big bang was.
And yes, there's immense amounts of evidence to back up the big bang happened. Cosmic backround radiation, the xpanding universe, the gradual cooling of the unigerse, the immense is massive. And yes, theres immense evidence for evolution as well. The bible doesn't explain anything any better then me simply saying, "The pink unicorn did it."
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi Nope not one shred of evidence whatsoever. Still over 130 years later Evo is just an unproven and unprovable theory. Where does it say that in the Bible?(pink unicorns) Modern science assumes the world is explained soley in terms of itself. Yet Scientists can't explain how random amino acids accidently formed cells or how amphibians evoed into mammals, but they have no choice but to accept evo as truth because modern scientific method needs it to be true.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Yes, there is. You either A. Aren't looking. Or B. Ignore the evidence that's there.
I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me what Atavisms are if evolution isn't true?
Also, you're talking about abiogenesis, which, btw, is a possibility as proven by numerous expirments. You don't understand a SHRED of the evidence you claim has no evidence behind it.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
You have no proof to back your statement up that God always was. We do however have tons and tons of proof to prove evolution. Scientist just developed a new tecnhique to scan fossils and analyze their chemical makeup up to parts per million. This technique has now proved the evolution of birds to dinosaurs. In addition to that we have homologous structures, Retroviral DNA, Biogeography, natural selection, artificial selections, summation, chromosomal fusion, the list goes on.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --No there is no evidence. Even though hundreds of thousands of fossils have been discovered in the last 130 years the same gaps in the fossil record remain today that so troubled Darwin when he wrote "Origin: Even Stephen gould w2ith his "punctuated Equilibrium"theory is nithing but an admission the gaps exist and won't be filled in. In other words there are no missing links.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
There is tons of evidence. We have a fossil record that goes from fish all the way up to humans. We have a record that goes from dinosaurs to birds and from land mammals to whales. It shows little details like the nostrils moving to become blowholes. It explains Atavisms. Your demanding 100 percent proof for evolution and ignoring the .000001 proof for creationism. Its sad.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 Wrong again as usual I might add. You might want to put down the sci-fi. Your demanding 100 persent proof for creation and ignoring the .000001 proof for Evo. Sad.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
"Your demanding 100 persent proof for creation and ignoring the .000001 proof for Evo. Sad. "
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you haven't offered any proof or evidence whatsoever for creationism. All you've said is look how complex life is. that isn't proof for creationism.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --Likewise, and thats all you're being. Of course it is.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
You skipped my point I made yesterday about the tree anaology. You say its ridiculous that life started out simple 3.5 billion years ago, but you think its possible that the most complex form of life always existed? As far as the big bang theory, scientist think now that there might be multiverses and M-theory is gaining a lot of credibility it works out mathematically and according to physics. There is just way too much science that has been tested and works that says otherwise.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 You had no point. Molecular bio ihas shown us living cells are far more complex than Darwin or anyone at that time imagined. As for DNA. No scientist has been able to come up with a plausable explalnation for the emergence of neccesssary cell components such as dna, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
Who cares if cells were more complex than first realized 150 years ago. 500 years ago Catholics were boiling people in tar for thinking the earth revolved around the sun. We now know the earth revolves around the sun.
There's a lot of plausible explanations for Abiogenesis. Scientists just reexamined the vials after the Miller-urey experiment and found 22 amino acids and 5 amines. There is also evidence to support the RNA world and iron-sulfur-world theory. plus 9 more theories.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --so what 700 or 800 years ago scientists where telling everyone the earth revolved around the sun and the world was flat.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew
Here's a plausible explanation for the emergence of life that's easy to understand. Search for this on youtube:
3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy (for schools) - by potholer54
I dare you to give these a chance too:
7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy (for schools)
I would love to hear what parts you think aren't plausible.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
@shadowpirate100 --check out w w w . c r e a t i o n m o m e n t s . c om and there's plenty of other sites on the subject.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew 've rad it. Not impressed. The fact is, you're using an argument that's been debunked for centuries. This silly little Watchmaker Argument was even debunked pretty much exactly when it was presented.
Let's try a different approach, you think design is evidence of a creator. Great, what would constitute as something that's not designed. I'll just skip over all the aparently bad design, if there was any design at all and go striaght to falsifiability.
Read the book, not impress.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --Why not? What bad design?
"Darwin God" by Cornelius G. Hunter
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew I've also read that ne, as well as "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. It's all very unimpressive, though Kenneth is a FAR better scientist.
The fact that our galaxy is on a crash course for the Andromeda galaxy, the fact that our planet has an asteroid headed straight for its trajectory path, the fact that out of the entire universe, as far as we know, we only exist on this one dingy planet fillled with diseases that kill millions of children at birth,
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi --"Religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind." Albert Einstien
In the Bible God never promises us rose garden at least not in this life.
Try "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Try "Why I'm not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. And yes, I'm familiar with CS Lewis' book as well. Go ahead and read off the ist of books you have, I probably have more. None of them are sound and valid.
Also, try a quote from Einstein where makes it clear he believes that belief in a personal god that cares about humans is not only silly, but grossly arrogant.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@BigLundi
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@BigLundi Nah, ole Russel was just a anti-moralists who went around trying to unconvincingly self-justify his own immorality. OK lets start with The New Annotated Oxford Bible, then "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson then "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton Please cite that quote. Looking at the quote i cited I think Einstein was too smart to have actually said anything like that.
MrOphachew 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Yup yup yup, read all of them. Denton and Philip are both hacks that don't understand evolutionary theory, and show it in their writings.
Here's Einstein on Christianity.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this - Einstein's Letter to Philosopher Erik Gutkind
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew When asked if he believes in a personal god, Einstein responded
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew And finally. Personal god beliefs are childlike.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew Oh, here's one more, addressing your point about Russell just trying to justify his self morality. Well, Einstein had one too. It's a big quote, gimme a second, seperate comment.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@MrOphachew It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Even Einstein says religious morality is unnecessary. And calls your belief childlike.
BigLundi 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w . r a y c o m f o r t . c o m
MrOphachew 6 months ago
By continuing to argue about an imaginary event, the sudden creation of the universe, creationists are digging their own grave. If they had any brains they would find a means to reconcile the Bi-bull with modern day science, Thus saving their religion from a total and ultimate collapse. But, unfortuntely for themselves, they haven't the brain.
azzy314159 6 months ago
@azzy314159
There is a strong correlation between lack of education and religion. The bible belt for example consists of some of the worst performing states educationally. Whats ironic is that evolution strengthens our strong suits. Eagles have the best eyes, bears - good noses, humans - best brains. Humans will evolve beyond religion, its already happening. Creationist will be the next Amish. They will either have to withdrawal from society or watch their religion drown in a sea of logic.
shadowpirate100 6 months ago
Holy books are the perfect brainwashing tools. All of the books say to be a good person. Damn! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
darklizardbattle 6 months ago
Logic and Religion = Oxymoron
Atheist18505 7 months ago
I was eating when you showed the bullet hole.
Craydon 7 months ago
@Craydon ??????????
PIERRE12371 7 months ago
I don't know why creationists spend all their time trying to disprove evolution(scientist would have done that 100 yrs ago if they could, but they haven't succeeded) , 1000 times evolution fails would never automaticly make creationism the truth.Cuz not to mention E&C is not the only 2 models, but:sth is true not only because evry other counterparts are false, yet solely because itself is true. Even if E collapses, they would have to prove C 2b right afterall, so why not focus on proving C?
uyenst 8 months ago
@uyenst I think this is one [of a gazillion] key things that the religious nuts just don't get. Science throws up a theory and any credible scientists makes damn sure it's as water tight as possible because s/he knows sure as eggs is what the original Jesus came out of, that as soon as s/he publishes it in a peer review journal any errors in observation, reason or logic will have an enormous spotlight shone on them.
That is a good thing - in science.
But it destroys all religion.
Huttate1 7 months ago