ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
@Arcexey And to get the strawmen arguments at a minimum I suggest we stick to the point of contention - i.e. macroevolution and common descent. Where is the observable, repeatable and testable evidence that these things occured?
@Arcexey I initially tried to steer this discussion away from religious experiences and focus on evidence. I did this because I know how easy it is for someone, even someone who complains about "cheap shots", to construct infantile and facetious remarks in an attempt to win the debate through ridicule rather than scientific evidence. So let's discuss that instead.
@Arcexey The evidence I was given consisted of a number of concrete, observable, repeatable and testable events that I witnessed with my physical eyes in a sober and alert frame of mind. As I said, I don't usually bother going into this at all because I already know how easy it is to explain away someone else's experiences. It doesn't take much effort at all.
@Arcexey You have no idea how frustrating it feels when someone on the w w w, who knows nothing about what I have gone through, tries to suggest my beliefs are the result of some kind of psychodelic experience, when in actual fact I have been given more direct evidence that any evolutionist can produce for macro-evolution.
@Arcexey That's is why it is practically impossible to convince someone to uproot their entire worldview, or religios conviction if you like. To do such a thing you need extraordinary evidence. I changed my worldview/religious conviction in a matter of a few days, without the use of clever, convincing arguments and without any human interaction whatsoever. I did it on the grounds of overwhelming evidence.
@Arcexey Apart from that I'm not too hot and bothered about the "problems" skeptics have with theists. I used to use the same kinds of arguments with Christians as you are trying to use now, and I was actually pretty good at it. Most of them didn't know how to answer me, and I was also pretty clever at figuring out explanations. The worldview and philosophies that a person develops during his life take years and years to develop, and as time progresses it all becomes cemented in your mind.
@Arcexey However, I didn't become a Christian because of any "visions". In fact, I didn't even want to become a Christian, it was the last thing I wanted to be, but so many concrete things happened at the same time that I just could not explain them away as easily as you can do with someone else's experiences.
@Arcexey Most often there are two ways of interpreting something. You see this as evidence that religious experiences are all in someone's head. I see it as evidence of design. The Bible tells us that one way God speaks to us is through "dreams and visions". Dreams and visions are NOT REAL but rather mental constructions just as are thoughts and words. If thoughts and words can be conveyed to someone from someone else then so can dreams and visions.
@Arcexey As I said, it is not worth my effort to explain what I have experienced, just to hear some guy on the internet tell me it's got something to do with lack of oxygen. I have seen these kinds of experiments too and know what you are talking about, but it doesn't prove anything apart from the fact that there might be some part of the brain that communicates with the spiritual.
@Arcexey "This is the #1 problem skeptics have with theists."
And this is the #1 problem theists have with skeptics. You have "explanations"... and that pretty much settles it. Since you obviously have found the explanation for my "delusions" why should I bother going though the religious side of this debate? Obviously, you already know everything! That is why I explained clearly to you my reservations for things that require faith.
@Arcexey Again I have to point out to you the fact that you made demands on me which you don't seem to have any intention of meeting yourself. Just saying something does not make it so, you need to support what you say with evidence of some sort. It is blatently apparant that you haven't studied this issue in any detail, but are just throwing out googled arguments with all the rhetorical taunts and prejudiced views.
@Arcexey It also gives me the impression that you are not really listening as much as preaching. You are even repeating arguments that I had already dealt with. It would be more rewarding to me if we could have some kind of exchange, rather than just heaving out one barrel of arguments after the other. You are making way too many assertions that you have no support for as well as countless strawmen, and I find it incredibly tedious to have to wade through them all.
@Arcexey I notice you are throwing out all the typical anti-christian/creationist arguments that are usually floating around the web - Christian faith being synonymous with "feelings", creationists are uneducated cretins who don't understand evolution and so on... I can deal with these, but as I pointed out before this leads to an increadibly bloated discussion. I was hoping that we could take one or two point at a time, rather than 20 or 30.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 You betray a profound misunderstanding of what evolution is, given your statements. Try actually LEARNING ABOUT IT. Because your statements are filled with cluelessness of facepalm magnitude.
@criskity he does fundamentally misrepresents evolution about 3 times, but he doesn't care. His copy & paste material is about proselytizing, not honesty.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
@Arcexey "But, c'mon. You can't curse leprosy with bathing birds in bird blood."
C'mon???? Please, you demand things of me and yet you submit arguments that you probably have just copied off the internet without checking out the facts. Read the verse in question. It does NOT claim that bird blood cures leprosy! The context is purification, not cure. Read verse 2: "If the person HAS BEEN HEALED of his infectious skin disease". How do you cure someone who has been cured?
@updr14 First, I don't think we are in total control of our beliefs, so I wouldn't say it's your fault if you never accept evolution. It is your fault if you go around misrepresenting it and influencing others, and also making assertions in the form of pseudo-questions.
1. Feelings. "I'm not going to bother with that."
This is the #1 problem skeptics have with theists. We have so many explanations this day in age - we know that if you fiddle with just 1 little part of the brain, your
@updr14 'mind' will react accordingly. Deprive it of oxygen and you will have an OBE. Have too much of chemical x and you have visions. I had H1N1 in 2010, I experienced shit that I can never adequately explain to another human being, and while I can't say the things I experienced weren't real, I can say they most likely weren't. We have reasons for why I would've seen and felt those things, as we have evolutionary reasons for why we're a religious lot.
@updr14 Skeptics have issues with someone who knows how utterly fallible all of our senses are and yet still lives their life around thinking they legitimately had an experience. Or, in a question form, how can you 'externally validate' the difference between god telling you something, and simply just having mental condition x? Without science, you cannot. And because of this, it should be labeled as I did, 'I don't know.'
@updr14 2. Mary Schwhatsherface. So you only saw this on tv, or also in an article? Wikipedia has some links about her findings being disputed, I can't say much more about it unless you show me what the problem is. And again, if peer review isn't THE BEST way to go about determining reality, what is?
'..quite telling that scientists who once exclaimed...' I don't know anything about that, without articles it sounds like more conspiracy talk.
@updr14 and from seeing you post on other videos, it can't be said that you
haven't at least made a try to study it. Most of these are rhetorical, answer whatever you feel like: With your knowledge of evolution, what evidence would there have to be for the civic->porshe for it to be analigous to evolution?
'..changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed..'
'..Do the observed slight changes prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version..'
@updr14 This is what I think is the #2 reason for distrust of this particular science: A bias in religion that leads to unequal skepticism.
Do we 'observe' mountain building that took place millions of years ago? Did we observe how our solar system formed? We observe Microcontinental drift, where we see minute drift, but never enough to actually form new continents, 'cause that's Macrocontinental drift!
Expecting something from one science you don't expect from another is
@updr14 science is just special pleading. And despite that, evolution meets these expectations anyway, it's just your strawmans that are the ones that don't meet expectations:
"We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton." If you know evolution 'perfectly well,' it isn't obvious. And you didn't even need that wall of misinformation, you just needed
@updr14 the few key words that implied animal a /changes/ into animal b.
Accusing someone of ignorance - willing ignorance or otherwise - is not condescending, ignorance is actually the biggest factor to why this whole anti-evolution shit exists.
I'd wager 'if we came monkeys why are there still monkeys?' alone is accountable for a very large % of disbelief in evolution.
I don't challenge the type of education anti-evolutionists have, but I do challenge there's an education at all.
@updr14 Don't you think it's at least a little strange that the creationist/anti-evolutionist camp isn't made up of a whole group of evolutionary biologists? They are primary 'dr's in religious studies, or 'professors' like Ian Juby, and then Michael Behe, - a biochemist. Is it not strange that those that learn this from the internet are the opposers and those that go to school for years and immerse themselves in the study and the surrounding fields are the ones that support evolution?
@updr14 Is that not exactly what you'd expect the dichotomy to be if this wasn't a conspiracy? So why the conspiracy, anyway ?Just to reinforce the point, if you are saying evolution is wrong you are envoking the biggest conspiracy ever, and accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists from many different fields, all across the globe, of lying about the evidence. Why are they?
Is god confusing them? Why so many confused Christians? Why confuse them if evolution is compatible with god?
@updr14 Is Satan tricking people about god, even the Christians? What is the incentive? Again, isn't a small group of non-educated (relative), biased people exactly what you'd expect to be the major opponent of evolution? Isn't it about exactly the same for every other opponent and advocate of a conspiracy, like UFOs or alternative medicine?
"The evidence is *always* interpreted in favor of evolution. Our knowledge of cosmology grows fast, yet, like 80% of the mass of the universe is
@updr14 unexplainable. So we 'interpret' dark matter in favor of our current view of cosmology and we move on. There are so many examples of this in every scientific field. There are always mysteries, and if you are saying evolution is selling out to keep a paradigm, then you are crying 'epic conspiracy.'
The rabbit in the precambrian is a broad example that isn't resting just on a rabbit in a period, it's 'fossil X in place where, according to predicted evolution, it shouldn't
@updr14 belong.' And the example is about the rabbit being a mammal, none of which you'll find in the precambrian. If you're saying evolution would just change its story of what can be found where, how is that possible:
a.) it's already declared its predictions. it can't go back on something that big.
b.) where has this ever happened?
Irreducibly complex -
No, science does not go off imagination, it goes off evidence. If science could not find a functioning use for every part of a
@updr14 complex system that has a demonstrated, evidenced function someplace else, it would be irreducibly complex, and evolution would be bankrupt.
4. Illogical arguments
"Can you imagine how much logic would need...." "How does a cell know how to..." and "...we are supposed to just swallow the fact that...' This is #3 on the list of reasons for anti-evolution propaganda. I'm glad this all gets you thinking, but don't dismiss something because it's 'too complex to be real,' to you,
@updr14 as if you had a scale of what is too complex to be real someplace. All this disbelief over what can naturally be complex and yet so many accept snowflakes and the like.
5. Religious text# 423451242b: The Bible.
The original point was the oddity of creationists having no problem using any development from science until it seemingly conflicts with their text. I then mentioned the bible saying the earth is flat being one of those conflicts with reality. There is no way anyone
@updr14 can either win or lose this argument because of the Bible having an
interpretation barrier. You say the bible has obvious poetic passages, and I say it has obvious references to the world being circular and flat, where you can look down from high and see people as small as grasshoppers. There is no objective basis as to gauge what is meant to be metaphoric and what isn't. This is the basis for escaping most of the old testament, and the point is to press that issue - that the
@updr14 bible can be wrong, or be smybollic, and this doesn't go towards the existence of god. And to tie a few loose ends:
"We use the phrase "four corners of the earth" today, but no-one is calling us flat-earthers." We use that because it was said in the past, as do we use 'ends of the earth.' Try to think of a situation in which someone would use that for the first time if they didn't think the world was flat.
The 'healed' is leperosy going into remission (still visual or
@updr14 otherwise), which is rare. So they plaster the walls and then perform the cure (spiritual cleanse), i.e. 'never to return, not in remission.' ..which is bathing birds and doing all kinds of crazy shit with lambs so that the dieases will be completely gone from the household. Which is bullshit and does not work.
The passages don't offer how leperosy is healed, because it wasn't known, and the sores would sometimes physically disappear, as with other
@updr14 with other symptoms (remission). Once that happens, you 'cleanse' it to make sure it never comes back. So let's find one example, ever, where someone's dormant disease was no longer existent after this 'cleanse.' Read the next part about defiling molds and it's much the same thing. The mold hasn't been cured, it has just been plastered over. It is only cured when the ritual is done, as if to be rid of it forever; be purified; cleansed.
@updr14 'I am a good example of a person who can see things that aren't physical. I am not lying. Although I do not practice it as a Christian, I grew up with this kind of "ability".' =( I don't know where to begin with that, and not about whether that is true or not, but how you can justify you really are 'seeing' things and aren't just delusional.
-Apply your skepticism of evolution to all other sciences.
-Differentiate between god speaking to you and you just being fallible.
After all, isn't it nearly incalculably more likely that you were just mistaken than it was a supernatural reason? It's waaaaaaayyyy more likely that space aliens with technology came down and implanted memories in your head than it is a supernatural reason.
@Arcexey Some are obviously poetic, rich with symbolic language, and some are historical accounts. It is an ENORMOUS amount of text. Imagine what you could do if you compiled a huge bulk of contemporary literature written by a mixture of different authors and styles if your intention was to prove a certain point. We use the phrase "four corners of the earth" today, but no-one is calling us flat-earthers.
@Arcexey As far as the other "flat earth" arguments are concerned, I don't think anyone can escape the fact that the Bible was a compilation of various kinds of litterature. It is a collection of 66 books, witten over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors, many of them in different locales having no knowledge of each other, and writing in different styles.
@Arcexey "Or be able to see all the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain"
You are assuming that the "seeing" done here is physical. I am a good example of a person who can see things that aren't physical. I am not lying. Although I do not practice it as a Christian, I grew up with this kind of "ability".
@Arcexey Nowehre does it say that the earth IS a circle. You might as well say that it is saying that people ARE grashoppers. Isaiah was not trying to assert anything about cosmology or biology, he was just trying to describe what he envisioned.
@Arcexey It just means that we have to take certain issues into consideration and weight them up given the facts. The verse in Isaiah that speaks of the "circle of the earth" is obviously a rough description rather than a detailed scientific observation. The word "like" is used 3 times in this verse.
@Arcexey "If the bible writers thought the world is a sphereoid"
I don't think the Bible writers "thought the world was a spheroid". I think that they had visions and described what they saw in their own words as they would have done during the time that they wrote them. Does this pose a problem for creationists and bible belivere in general? Of course it does! But that does not disqualify or verify anything.
@Arcexey What biology has observed is well within the creationist model. That evolutionists call this "evolution" causes confusion, since it implies that everything observed confirms everything that we consider evolutionary theory.
@Arcexey "Practically none of biology makes sense if evolution isn't real."
Previously you claimed that I have not been on both sides of the fence because I don't understand evolution. But it seems evident that you do not understand creationism or the point of contention. Creationists do not reject anything that can be scientifically observed.
@Arcexey How does a cell know how to coordinate its processes in such a way that it knows what to do with light? It doesn't have a brain, and yet we are supposed to just swallow the fact that one bunch of cells knew it was their duty to process light, whereas others were busy doing other things. And that's only the first step!
@Arcexey It always starts of with "light-sensitive skin" as though that was such a piece of cake that it need no further explanation at all. But how does a cell know how to process light? Can you imagine how much logic would need to be in place for someting like that. I have been working as a software developer for almost 30 years and even the simplest things are incredibly complex.
@Arcexey "Or that if one example of irreducible complexity was found, none of it would work?"
One example? How do you find "one example of irreducible complexity" that cannot be refuted by demonstrating how a tie-clip can be made out of a mouse trap? All someone needs to do is have an imagination. Take the eye for example. All you have to do is break it up in steps.
@Arcexey If the fossils in different layers are a record of how animals developed througout time, then why do we find fossils that are several layers down in the record that do not appear in the layers above it, and yet are almost an exact representations of animals living today?
In any case, I doubt strongly that the precambrian rabbit would really do the trick as many claim.
@Arcexey Now I don't know how many of these are rabbit fossils but I kind of doubt you would find them in the precambrian. What rabbit fossilizes among marine invertibrates?
@Arcexey Ninety-five percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils. Ninety-five percent of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. Ninety-five percent of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone.
@Arcexey The layers do not neatly cover the earth like the layers on an onion, and you won't find the geolical column as you see it presented in textbooks. And as far as I can see, sorting of fossils generally seems to follow the altitude of the ecological environments in which animals live today. Bottom-ocean dewllers are found at the bottom of the fossil record, mid-ocean dwellers are found above them, top-ocean dwellers are found above them and so on.
@Arcexey "haven't you ever heard the expression 'it just takes one rabbit in the precambrian for evolution to be false?"
Countless times! And I find it so silly that I am really surprised that it is used at all. To start with, if a rabbit was found in a rock layer then it wouldn't be classified as "precambrian". So what you would actually need to do is find a rabbit in the same layer as you would find another "precambrian" animal. That's where things get tricky.
@Arcexey I haven't submitted any "explanation of evolution", but of course I don't think one individual of a species turns into another species. Using the phrase "turns into" is just an abstraction to save using a long tedious explanation of how evolution works every time the concept is discussed.
@Arcexey "I don't believe you've been 'on either side of the fence,' for these reasons: 1) Your explanation of evolution."
Oh please, I know perfectly well what evolution is. Proponents of evolution always use these kinds of condescending arguments in an attempt to protray creationists an uneducated. Anyone who disagrees with evolution "doesn't understand it".
@Arcexey Everything is being presented as evidence of evolution - examples of fossils supposedly showing gradual changes is evidence of evolution, sudden changes is evidence of evolution (punctuated equalibrium). Huge morpholicical changes is evidence of evolution, stasis is evidence of evolution. Diversity is evidence, similarity is evidence.
@Arcexey It is also quite telling that scientists who once exaclaimed "it isn't possible!" and "it must be a mistake!" are now saying "organic material can be preserved in fossils for millsions of years in some cases". The "evidence?" - the existance of blood cells in dino bones. The evidence is *always* interpreted in favor of evolution. Evolution is the most slippery bar of soap in the bathtub of science.
@Arcexey "Mary Schweitzer.. 'attacked?' What do you mean? Link an article please."
I don't mean physically attacked, only that she was subjected to strong peer pressure simply on the grounds that it disagreed with contemporary evolutionary ideas about when dinosaurs lived and that organic material can't possibly survive even a million years. Perhaps "attacked" is not the best word, but it was the word that Leslie Stahl used in her CBS 60 minute report.
@Arcexey Do the observed slight changes prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version of the old one? Now I know that this is not a fair analogy, but the question remains, how far can we extrapolate what is observed, repeated and tested before we exceed the boundaries of what is or isn't science? The macroevolutionary changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed, and yet they are presented a science, rather than belief.
I don't resort to cheap shots, and my point wasn't that *science* is faith-based. As you say science has to be observable, repeatable, and testable in order for it to be considered science. Here's an exaggerated example. Let's say your neighbor has a Honda Civic that he goes out and hits with a hammer every day. Each day the car is slightly "modified". You go on vacation for a couple of years and when you come back see a Porsche in his driveway.
@Arcexey "If your 'evidence' is personal, we may as well just call it feelings."
No. Personal evidence is not synonymous with "feelings". The problem is just that I have no way of externally validating the things I have experienced as a Christian. It involves what God tells me and me alone, and how he confirms it with actual events. A skeptic will simply say what God says is "all in my mind" and the confimation "a coincidence". I'm not going to bother with that.
@Arcexey Ok thanks :-) My responses will also consist of quite a lot of posts since I fell that I would like to respond to some of your posts. Hopefully, after we both understand each others positions a little better a lot of unnecessary arguments will disappear.
@updr12 A few more ways we can falsify evolution: no genetic variation in species, if non-social animals were found exhibiting a care for non-related species, adaptations that were found to harm individuals but helped that species' population as a whole, or an adaption found in one species that only suites a different species
@Arcexey Wow! that's quite a bundle to work through. And you have made quite a lot of demands. At the moment I have about 10 or so different discussions going on, (although some of them seem to have calmed down), and I am working full-time. But you seem really thoughful and someone I would like to continue this discussion with... but please try to narrow things down a little. Better to spread them out over time. Anyhow I will have to get back a little later as I'm caught up righ now.
@updr12 I'm not going anywhere, and if it takes you two 2 weeks to get to a point there isn't even a hint in my mind that this means you don't care, or that my points are more valid, or whatever.
I have a ton of things to do so, so take your time, seriously. =)
To me.. the most important part is that faith doesn't care evidence, and that the nature of science doesn't allow for bias or to selectively pick a paradigm - those are oxymoronic.
Another strawman clung on to by people who ignore context and Hebrew colloquialisms. Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is flat. It describes how the earth looks circular from a distance, which is absolutely and astoundingly true considering the time at which it was written.
@updr12 You said "God is imprinted in the hearts of every individual on the face of the planet." That is an emotional argument that isn't meant to be a claim about reality. I'm not interested in emotion. I don't tell you evolution is a real phenominon because we can feel it in our hearts, I tell you it's real because it is (more on this later).
"There IS evidence, although it is not always the kind of evidence that can be scientifically observed.
@updr12 impossible to us, A =/= A, may be possible.. somewhere, even if all current models of reality, and definitions, say it's impossible. Like miracles, or a being existing outside of time being impossible by definition. I'd never let a defintion get in the way of what's real!
Can we settle that as long as faith is involved, there is no care for evidence, by definition of 'faith?' Tell me how faith 'operates?' If you have knowledge from evidence that god exists, you would no longer
@updr12 have faith. Evidence has to be observable and testable to be called evidence at all. As does a theory, hypothesis or explanation, which is why 'god did it' is not a theory, hypothesis, or explanation. And it has to be repeatable only in a simulated sense, obviously we cannot repeat the big bang or hypothetical abiogenesis.
"At least I can admit when something is faith-based."
C'mon, no cheap shots. If you are claiming science (or ?) is faith-based, explain how and why please.
@updr12 'God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe' is a world view and is dogmatic, but I only meant that any point you, from faith, WERE to put forth would be dogma. It isn't like the bible is changing due to new info.
"History verifies that what he said he would do, he actually did."
Take the issues one-by-one, please. Preferably written.
Anybody can make a flashy video and say whatever they want.
@updr12 I'll read or watch anything you want as long as:
-The video has scientifically-verified citations for every single major claim.
-Doesn't filter comments so that the claims can be refuted, publically (no mirrors).
The article must not be on some Christian opinion website, unless it meets the same criteria for videos. Citations and references to verified claims or else I don't care.
The point of my 'I was just challenged...yesterday' comment was to point out that going around to
@updr12 people to put evidence in front of you isn't furthering the 'contention.' If the topic were some obscure mathematical proof or overly technical explanation, then googling may not help and an on-the-spot answer may be needed. Google 'evidence for evolution.' <-- Now, nothing is stopping a creationist from saying the exact same thing. So how about you can refer me to your few favorite arguments and I'll come back at you. But be prepared for me to not be happy if the question/answer
@updr12 is on every FAQ section for 'popular creationist claims' with the answers just below. We cannot really do this in reverse, as most of creationist claims are unfalsifiable and the falsifiable evidence for evolution is a google away.
Mary Schweitzer.. 'attacked?' What do you mean? Link an article please.
How does finding or not finding 70 million-year-old T-rex blood cells go against evolution? Is it because she's a devout Christian? Seems she has a bunch of other publications and
@updr12 still researches in dinosaur reproductive evolution. This kinda sounds like the Richard Sternberg case in Ben Stein's 'Expelled,' which is a case-in-point for publication bias being nonsense. Wikipedia is a place to start for that.
Also every new claim to science gets 'attacked;' that's science!
When you try to get something published, reviewers will tear it apart. Scientists across the world, from cris-crossing fields can examine a publication in every detail. They will
@updr12 all viciously try to prove it wrong and by having your work in a public place, anyone and everyone can pick it to pieces. It's a necesseity of science, and every 'fact' has gone through it. You have nothing to lose testing it and tearing it apart and trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. You will get humiliated by having holes in your hypothesis, and other scientists will, with great glee, point them out.
On the other hand you have everything to lose by lying and bullshitting by
@updr12 by putting false facts and incorrect data in your hypothesis. Once you have a hypothesis, the first thing you need to do is try to prove it wrong, ad nauseum. None of your data can be vague, none of your propositions can be vague. Everyone in the world is going to test it, and will test it forever. Evolution endured(es) this.
"Because it is the very process of peer-reviewing that filters out counter-claims."
I'd like to stop and focus here for a minute because I think this is
Without reading below the line, think in your head of a process that best excludes any new claims into the system; a process that decides reality on its own.
------------
Now let me describe a process that would best filter out real counter-claims:
Having an elite and secluded group, in just one area of the world that isn't known. The members who decide this are family-born or in a closed election, have confidential identities, and money can be sent
@updr12 to the group for bias. When this system produces a claim, it is not reviewed by anyone but the author, and how the claim is tested or came about is not released to the public, it is just told that it is true. Anyone else in the world that sends in an idea, it is processed internally and a decision is arrived at.
Science is the exact fugging opposite of this. If the peer-reviewed publications and a claim having to be testable in anyone's lab are not
@updr12 the best requirements for coming to a consensus about reality, what is? Name a better process. This stuff doesn't just happen with religious claims. Magnet-powered motors get labeled not real and science gets a lot of shit for it.
Did cold fusion get deemed pseudoscience because it was a conspiracy by scientists.. or just that cold fusion is bullshit?
"A big part of peer-reviewing is to certify that claims made in journals conform to the accepted paradigm,"
@updr12 Isn't peer-review kind of an incredibly ineffecient and ODD way of doing that??? If you want something to be accepted to the paradigm (sigh..) then just bring it to one evolutionary biologist, or one textbook and certify. An exlusionary selective filter that is peer-reviewed is an oxymoron.
I'm trying to think of a reason for the conspiracy. What do all the geologists and taxonomists and biologists gain from it? Wouldn't the vast amount of christians involved in science want to
@updr12 dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton." <-That literally has nothing to do with evolution and belongs in a dr. Seuss book. Nothing in evolution, ever, changes into anything else. Ever. That's something Ray Comfort tells people. Seriously though, (sincerely) tell me what else you learned from 'studying the issue for years and years." Really, tell me about what you think evolution is. It's a safe environment.. I'm not very insult-y.
@updr12 I think you may have built up and destroyed something that isn't even evolution.
2.) "Couple that with the fact that evolution is practically impossible to falsify."
=( haven't you ever heard the expression 'it just takes one rabbit in the precambrian for evolution to be false?' Or that if we couldn't find where our missing chromosome was, evolutionary theory would be in jeopardy? Or that if one example of irreducible complexity was found, none of it would work?
@updr12 Because of the numerous fields of science that evolution encompasses, it literally is the MOST easily falsifiable science we have.
--This is not a strawman. If you are saying claim X is real but science was prejudice toward it, you are saying it's a huge conspiracy - dwarfing watergate or the moon landing or the kennedy assassination- it would have to be, so says the nature of the scientific process. Do you truthfully understand the huge # of scientific fields involved,
@updr12 number of persons across the world involved in evolution? And the scientific discoveries we use everday that are contingent on evolution being a fact?
Practically none of biology makes sense if evolution isn't real.
Do these scientists just avoid the food and medicine that we've applied principles of evolution to better? And they ignore the medical precedures influenced and developed from our knowledge of evolution?
How exactly can the earth 'look circular from a distance?' What does that mean?
Go tell the Flat Earth Society, which was founded because of these very scripture quotes, that it's just a matter of Hebrew colloquialisms.
If the bible-writers thought the world is a sphereoid, in what colloquial sense would you ever say it had edges, or label it as having 'ends of the earth?' Or say it has foundations, or pillars? Or be able to see all the kingdoms of
@updr12 "Another strawman" How exactly can the earth 'look circular from a distance?' What does that mean?
Go tell the Flat Earth Society, which was founded because of these very scripture quotes, that it's just a matter of Hebrew colloquialisms.
If the bible writers thought the world is a sphereoid, in what colloquial sense would you ever say it had edges, or label it as having 'ends of the earth?' Or say it has foundations, or pillars? Or be able to see all the kingdoms of
@updr12 the earth from a mountain? Don't you have trouble visualizing spreading out a tent over a sphereoid? Seems more like something you'd do over a flat surface, and then live in it. How does a sphereoid have quarters, or 4 corners? Remember that when this wording is used today, it had to come from somewhere. We would never naturally say 'the 4 corners of the earth,' when we know it's a globe. That kinda talk came back when we thought it was flat, back when the bible was written.
@updr12 And if they included their view of the flat world in the bible, it has nothing to do with whether god is real. Isaiah 40:22 Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:1 Job 38:13 Jeremiah 16:19 Daniel 4:11 Matthew 4:8 Psalm 104:5 And many, many, many, many, many, many more. I don't expect you to even try to explain these. There are a million christian websites that apply their (different) apologetic responses to each of the passages. But, c'mon. You can't curse leprosy with bathing birds
@updr12 And if they included their view of the flat world in the bible, it has nothing to do with whether god is real. Isaiah 40:22 Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:1 Job 38:13 Jeremiah 16:19 Daniel 4:11 Matthew 4:8 Psalm 104:5 And many, many, many, many, many, many more. I don't expect you to even try to explain these. There are a million christian websites that apply their (different) apologetic responses to each of the passages. But, c'mon. You can't curse leprosy with bathing birds
@updr12 in bird blood. This still doesn't mean god doesn't exist and neither does thinking the earth was flat.
Lastly, I'd like to say thanks for your being direct and questioning my responses, and not having piled on assertion after assertion. If you feel I've done, so show me where, I'll provide some references!
@Arcexey Couple that with the fact that evolution is practically impossible to falsify and you have a fairly water-tight defence against creationists.
"It's just a huge conspiracy"
That's a strawman. I have never said that so don't put words in my mouth!
"any claim put up to the strict scientific method that comes up wrong is because it is wrong."
Only when the presupposition is that evolution=right and creationism=wrong.
@Arcexey "Notice how not a single counter-claim of evolution is in any published, peer-reviewed science journal. Why?"
Because it is the very process of peer-reviewing that filters out counter-claims. A big part of peer-reviewing is to certify that claims made in journals conform to the accepted paradigm, which at present is evolution.
@Arcexey And your biased opinions about faith is and how it operates is incorrect. I don't let feelings decide anything. I have studied this issure for years and years and have been on BOTH sides of the fence several times. You are trying to win a debate through prejudice rather than scientific arguments.
@Arcexey "Every scientist has everything to lose defending evolution and nothing to lose attacking it because of the nature of science."
This is utter baloney! You are living in a fantasy world, not me. Scientists are ridiculed and risk losing their jobs when they do anything that does not comply with evolution. Mary Schweitzer was attacked by her peers when she discovered soft tissues and blood cells in dinosaur bones.
@Arcexey "I was just challenged in another comment yesterday - almost verbatim - except this was about putting forth evidence that we we really landed on the moon."
@Arcexey Also, you cannot say there is "evidence against it" unless we both share the same model for what is possible or impossible. Guess what? We don't. But before going further I think it would be good if you told me exactly how you know that Jonah couldn't be in the belly of a large fish for 3 days.
@Arcexey "you are being laughed at because you believe it without evidence (or with evidence against it)."
Both of these assertions are incorrect. To start with Chistian faith is not defined as "belief without evidence". There IS evidence, although it is not always the kind of evidence that can be scientifically observed. That kind of evidence is personal and I don't submit it as being scientific.
@Arcexey "Delete god and put Zeus, or Godzilla. Notice nothing changes."
Who God is can be verified by what he claims to do, and what he actually does. The God of the Bible valides his identity by claiming to do things that no one else can or has ever claimed to do. History verifies that what he said he would do, he actually did. It's all there for anyone to see: watch?v=OWng3m7REdQ
So what did Zeus or Godzilla ever do that impressed you?
@Arcexey Here is another fairy tale from the Bible that you can mock: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a POWERFUL DELUSION so that they will believe the LIE and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
@Arcexey The words "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" indicate that God has a plan to save "the meek, the mild, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the mercifull, the pure in heart, and so on while rejecting the proud God-deniers.
@updr12 "God is imprinted in the hearts of every individual on the face of the planet" WTF are you talking about? Delete god and put Zeus, or Godzilla. Notice nothing changes.
I'd also stop you there and say that the definition of relevant evidence is what the brain can conceive, measure and test, but anyway:
Why do we care about what we cannot EVER detect, preceive or fathom?
Fairy tale-esque is inherently wrong? Nope.
Once we discovered this thing called asphyxiation and we knew
@updr12 of the environment in a whale/fish's stomach, then saying someone lived in a whale for 3 days should be laughed at.
To make clear: You are not being laughed at and rejected because the shit creationists come up with 'sounds' unreal or 'seems' like a fairy tale - you are being laughed at because you believe it without evidence (or with evidence against it). I would never tell you or anyone to stop thinking - imagining that one electron can go through 2 different slits at the
@updr12 exact same time sounds like a fairy tale, Lot's wife being a block of salt in and of itself is not laughable, parthenogenesis is conceivable. You get the 'hahaha' because, just like someone who thinks George Bush Sr. is a lizardman, you believe it without justification (and you let it run your life and others').
omg! I was just challenged in another comment yesterday - almost verbatim - except this was about putting forth evidence that we we really landed on the moon. Educating
@updr12 is great, but not when the person doesn't give a shit about even trying to learn. Case in point:
"We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton."
If you believe that strawman has anything to do with evolution, or that any scientist is saying that AT ALL, you haven't even begun to research evolution, which can be accomplished in
@updr12 in 2 mouse clicks and 23 key strokes: google 'evidence for evolution.'
In an earlier comment you had said,
"...thus silencing creationists.." That is impossible because of the very nature of religion. It's faith-based, as you said, and when you have no care for evidence, you will stick to your dogma and defend it no matter what, by definition.
Basic guide for determining what is true:
(step 2 is the most important and, as we just saw from you, least done)
@updr12 Step 1.) Contemplate systems for discovering reality. If you pick 'logic,' then: An evidenced-based tool, science. It corrects itself by being open to anyone, on their own terms, to make the same test. Scientists' biases are weeded out by science. There isn't a scientist or researcher in the world who wouldn't LOVE to show evolution to be incorrect. They would get instant praise, be rich, go down in history, be be on top of the world.
@updr12 Step 2.) Education/research to gather data to apply to your system. This is best for you because, from what you typed, you are thinking evolution is something different than we are saying it is. The talk origins result of your google search is a good place to start. Hopefully you'll see evolution as anyone in the peer-reviewed science journals cited on that website does, that there is more evidence for, and we have a greater understanding of, evolution than gravity.
@updr12 Step 3.) Compare claims and look at other views and criticisms in science. Notice how not a single counter-claim of evolution is in any published, peer-reviewed science journal. Why?
A.) It's just a huge conspiracy!!!! involving all those biologists, palentologists, physicists, geologists, of which people are of all religions from everywhere around the world.
B.) Simply that any claim put up to the strict scientific method that comes up wrong is because it is wrong.
@updr12 As it so happens you'd agree with this being the case on the thousands and thousands of other facts which just, by chance, don't happen to contradict what's written in a religious text.
Fuck disputing the science put into an airplane flying or a cheeseburger not being poisonous, I like those things and the bible doesn't say otherwise!!! So no need to oppose them!! Uh oh! Bible says the earth is flat, quick, establish the Flat Earth Society!
@updr12 "At least the Bible declares that it DELIBERATLY sounds like a fairy tale." It only took you thirteen words to delude yourself past the immense problem of interpretating what is real and what is metaphoric.
'powerful delusion'
Let's demonstrate your god exists before writing shit from the bible eh? You don't get to say god exists because of what is written in the bible, and then say what is written is true because god exists.
@Arcexey If creationists made those kinds of claims then there would be no end to the LOLs and HAHAHAs. But a "scientific" theory seems to have a big label on it saying "please swallow me because I am a gullible idiot who accepts anything as long as it is a 'scientific' theory".
@Arcexey We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton. We have the ENTIRE universe, which is so large that we don't even come close to mentally conceiving it, being something you simply unzip from a pinhead.
@Arcexey "as if you had just said there was once a man who lived in a whale for 3 days"
Oh i see, because it *sounds* like a fairy tale then it MUST be a fairy tale. A lot of evolutionists love to smirk at the Bible all the while they swallow the most ridiculous theories you could possibly imagine.
DO lay out on the table all the empirical evidence for macroevolution thus silencing creationists... oh,... there isn't any... ok let's move on to the don'ts.
DONT let anyone know that the "mountains of evidence" for macroevolution all exist in the imaginations of evolutionists... yeah, that should do the trick..
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 12 hours ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 12 hours ago
@Arcexey And to get the strawmen arguments at a minimum I suggest we stick to the point of contention - i.e. macroevolution and common descent. Where is the observable, repeatable and testable evidence that these things occured?
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey I initially tried to steer this discussion away from religious experiences and focus on evidence. I did this because I know how easy it is for someone, even someone who complains about "cheap shots", to construct infantile and facetious remarks in an attempt to win the debate through ridicule rather than scientific evidence. So let's discuss that instead.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey The evidence I was given consisted of a number of concrete, observable, repeatable and testable events that I witnessed with my physical eyes in a sober and alert frame of mind. As I said, I don't usually bother going into this at all because I already know how easy it is to explain away someone else's experiences. It doesn't take much effort at all.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey You have no idea how frustrating it feels when someone on the w w w, who knows nothing about what I have gone through, tries to suggest my beliefs are the result of some kind of psychodelic experience, when in actual fact I have been given more direct evidence that any evolutionist can produce for macro-evolution.
updr12 13 hours ago
Now I cant seem to post anything.. or can I?
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey That's is why it is practically impossible to convince someone to uproot their entire worldview, or religios conviction if you like. To do such a thing you need extraordinary evidence. I changed my worldview/religious conviction in a matter of a few days, without the use of clever, convincing arguments and without any human interaction whatsoever. I did it on the grounds of overwhelming evidence.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey Apart from that I'm not too hot and bothered about the "problems" skeptics have with theists. I used to use the same kinds of arguments with Christians as you are trying to use now, and I was actually pretty good at it. Most of them didn't know how to answer me, and I was also pretty clever at figuring out explanations. The worldview and philosophies that a person develops during his life take years and years to develop, and as time progresses it all becomes cemented in your mind.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey However, I didn't become a Christian because of any "visions". In fact, I didn't even want to become a Christian, it was the last thing I wanted to be, but so many concrete things happened at the same time that I just could not explain them away as easily as you can do with someone else's experiences.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey Most often there are two ways of interpreting something. You see this as evidence that religious experiences are all in someone's head. I see it as evidence of design. The Bible tells us that one way God speaks to us is through "dreams and visions". Dreams and visions are NOT REAL but rather mental constructions just as are thoughts and words. If thoughts and words can be conveyed to someone from someone else then so can dreams and visions.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey As I said, it is not worth my effort to explain what I have experienced, just to hear some guy on the internet tell me it's got something to do with lack of oxygen. I have seen these kinds of experiments too and know what you are talking about, but it doesn't prove anything apart from the fact that there might be some part of the brain that communicates with the spiritual.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey "This is the #1 problem skeptics have with theists."
And this is the #1 problem theists have with skeptics. You have "explanations"... and that pretty much settles it. Since you obviously have found the explanation for my "delusions" why should I bother going though the religious side of this debate? Obviously, you already know everything! That is why I explained clearly to you my reservations for things that require faith.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey Again I have to point out to you the fact that you made demands on me which you don't seem to have any intention of meeting yourself. Just saying something does not make it so, you need to support what you say with evidence of some sort. It is blatently apparant that you haven't studied this issue in any detail, but are just throwing out googled arguments with all the rhetorical taunts and prejudiced views.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey It also gives me the impression that you are not really listening as much as preaching. You are even repeating arguments that I had already dealt with. It would be more rewarding to me if we could have some kind of exchange, rather than just heaving out one barrel of arguments after the other. You are making way too many assertions that you have no support for as well as countless strawmen, and I find it incredibly tedious to have to wade through them all.
updr12 13 hours ago
@Arcexey I notice you are throwing out all the typical anti-christian/creationist arguments that are usually floating around the web - Christian faith being synonymous with "feelings", creationists are uneducated cretins who don't understand evolution and so on... I can deal with these, but as I pointed out before this leads to an increadibly bloated discussion. I was hoping that we could take one or two point at a time, rather than 20 or 30.
updr12 13 hours ago
Is it just me or is the audio really low in this video? I can barely hear anything.
TheBenEEeee 1 day ago
@TheBenEEeee Yup. I have the volume cranked up all the way, but I still need to use earphones.
criskity 21 hours ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 days ago
@Mogley52 Just need a couple more people to vote your propaganda down like it is on most of the other videos you link all that shit on.
Arcexey 2 days ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 days ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 4 days ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 4 days ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 days ago
@Mogley52 You betray a profound misunderstanding of what evolution is, given your statements. Try actually LEARNING ABOUT IT. Because your statements are filled with cluelessness of facepalm magnitude.
criskity 2 days ago
@criskity he does fundamentally misrepresents evolution about 3 times, but he doesn't care. His copy & paste material is about proselytizing, not honesty.
Arcexey 1 day ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 4 days ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 4 days ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 4 days ago
@Arcexey "But, c'mon. You can't curse leprosy with bathing birds in bird blood."
C'mon???? Please, you demand things of me and yet you submit arguments that you probably have just copied off the internet without checking out the facts. Read the verse in question. It does NOT claim that bird blood cures leprosy! The context is purification, not cure. Read verse 2: "If the person HAS BEEN HEALED of his infectious skin disease". How do you cure someone who has been cured?
updr14 1 week ago
@updr14 First, I don't think we are in total control of our beliefs, so I wouldn't say it's your fault if you never accept evolution. It is your fault if you go around misrepresenting it and influencing others, and also making assertions in the form of pseudo-questions.
1. Feelings. "I'm not going to bother with that."
This is the #1 problem skeptics have with theists. We have so many explanations this day in age - we know that if you fiddle with just 1 little part of the brain, your
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 'mind' will react accordingly. Deprive it of oxygen and you will have an OBE. Have too much of chemical x and you have visions. I had H1N1 in 2010, I experienced shit that I can never adequately explain to another human being, and while I can't say the things I experienced weren't real, I can say they most likely weren't. We have reasons for why I would've seen and felt those things, as we have evolutionary reasons for why we're a religious lot.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 Skeptics have issues with someone who knows how utterly fallible all of our senses are and yet still lives their life around thinking they legitimately had an experience. Or, in a question form, how can you 'externally validate' the difference between god telling you something, and simply just having mental condition x? Without science, you cannot. And because of this, it should be labeled as I did, 'I don't know.'
It's as simple as that.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 2. Mary Schwhatsherface. So you only saw this on tv, or also in an article? Wikipedia has some links about her findings being disputed, I can't say much more about it unless you show me what the problem is. And again, if peer review isn't THE BEST way to go about determining reality, what is?
'..quite telling that scientists who once exclaimed...' I don't know anything about that, without articles it sounds like more conspiracy talk.
3. Evolution. The information is out there,
Arcexey 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr14 and from seeing you post on other videos, it can't be said that you
haven't at least made a try to study it. Most of these are rhetorical, answer whatever you feel like: With your knowledge of evolution, what evidence would there have to be for the civic->porshe for it to be analigous to evolution?
'..changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed..'
'..Do the observed slight changes prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version..'
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 What does 'observe' mean to you, scientifically? Is it in line with what science's 'observe' is?
One of the biggest defeaters of 'lack of oberservation' is what is required in all historical science: prediction.
Do you think evolution has made current predictions in its science?
Do you think evolution made many predictions since the science began?
Now take your definition of 'observe' and your other criticisms of evolution and apply them to another field, like geology.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 This is what I think is the #2 reason for distrust of this particular science: A bias in religion that leads to unequal skepticism.
Do we 'observe' mountain building that took place millions of years ago? Did we observe how our solar system formed? We observe Microcontinental drift, where we see minute drift, but never enough to actually form new continents, 'cause that's Macrocontinental drift!
Expecting something from one science you don't expect from another is
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 science is just special pleading. And despite that, evolution meets these expectations anyway, it's just your strawmans that are the ones that don't meet expectations:
"We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton." If you know evolution 'perfectly well,' it isn't obvious. And you didn't even need that wall of misinformation, you just needed
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 the few key words that implied animal a /changes/ into animal b.
Accusing someone of ignorance - willing ignorance or otherwise - is not condescending, ignorance is actually the biggest factor to why this whole anti-evolution shit exists.
I'd wager 'if we came monkeys why are there still monkeys?' alone is accountable for a very large % of disbelief in evolution.
I don't challenge the type of education anti-evolutionists have, but I do challenge there's an education at all.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 Don't you think it's at least a little strange that the creationist/anti-evolutionist camp isn't made up of a whole group of evolutionary biologists? They are primary 'dr's in religious studies, or 'professors' like Ian Juby, and then Michael Behe, - a biochemist. Is it not strange that those that learn this from the internet are the opposers and those that go to school for years and immerse themselves in the study and the surrounding fields are the ones that support evolution?
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 Is that not exactly what you'd expect the dichotomy to be if this wasn't a conspiracy? So why the conspiracy, anyway ?Just to reinforce the point, if you are saying evolution is wrong you are envoking the biggest conspiracy ever, and accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists from many different fields, all across the globe, of lying about the evidence. Why are they?
Is god confusing them? Why so many confused Christians? Why confuse them if evolution is compatible with god?
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 Is Satan tricking people about god, even the Christians? What is the incentive? Again, isn't a small group of non-educated (relative), biased people exactly what you'd expect to be the major opponent of evolution? Isn't it about exactly the same for every other opponent and advocate of a conspiracy, like UFOs or alternative medicine?
"The evidence is *always* interpreted in favor of evolution. Our knowledge of cosmology grows fast, yet, like 80% of the mass of the universe is
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 unexplainable. So we 'interpret' dark matter in favor of our current view of cosmology and we move on. There are so many examples of this in every scientific field. There are always mysteries, and if you are saying evolution is selling out to keep a paradigm, then you are crying 'epic conspiracy.'
The rabbit in the precambrian is a broad example that isn't resting just on a rabbit in a period, it's 'fossil X in place where, according to predicted evolution, it shouldn't
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 belong.' And the example is about the rabbit being a mammal, none of which you'll find in the precambrian. If you're saying evolution would just change its story of what can be found where, how is that possible:
a.) it's already declared its predictions. it can't go back on something that big.
b.) where has this ever happened?
Irreducibly complex -
No, science does not go off imagination, it goes off evidence. If science could not find a functioning use for every part of a
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 complex system that has a demonstrated, evidenced function someplace else, it would be irreducibly complex, and evolution would be bankrupt.
4. Illogical arguments
"Can you imagine how much logic would need...." "How does a cell know how to..." and "...we are supposed to just swallow the fact that...' This is #3 on the list of reasons for anti-evolution propaganda. I'm glad this all gets you thinking, but don't dismiss something because it's 'too complex to be real,' to you,
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 as if you had a scale of what is too complex to be real someplace. All this disbelief over what can naturally be complex and yet so many accept snowflakes and the like.
5. Religious text# 423451242b: The Bible.
The original point was the oddity of creationists having no problem using any development from science until it seemingly conflicts with their text. I then mentioned the bible saying the earth is flat being one of those conflicts with reality. There is no way anyone
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 can either win or lose this argument because of the Bible having an
interpretation barrier. You say the bible has obvious poetic passages, and I say it has obvious references to the world being circular and flat, where you can look down from high and see people as small as grasshoppers. There is no objective basis as to gauge what is meant to be metaphoric and what isn't. This is the basis for escaping most of the old testament, and the point is to press that issue - that the
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 bible can be wrong, or be smybollic, and this doesn't go towards the existence of god. And to tie a few loose ends:
"We use the phrase "four corners of the earth" today, but no-one is calling us flat-earthers." We use that because it was said in the past, as do we use 'ends of the earth.' Try to think of a situation in which someone would use that for the first time if they didn't think the world was flat.
The 'healed' is leperosy going into remission (still visual or
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 otherwise), which is rare. So they plaster the walls and then perform the cure (spiritual cleanse), i.e. 'never to return, not in remission.' ..which is bathing birds and doing all kinds of crazy shit with lambs so that the dieases will be completely gone from the household. Which is bullshit and does not work.
The passages don't offer how leperosy is healed, because it wasn't known, and the sores would sometimes physically disappear, as with other
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 with other symptoms (remission). Once that happens, you 'cleanse' it to make sure it never comes back. So let's find one example, ever, where someone's dormant disease was no longer existent after this 'cleanse.' Read the next part about defiling molds and it's much the same thing. The mold hasn't been cured, it has just been plastered over. It is only cured when the ritual is done, as if to be rid of it forever; be purified; cleansed.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 'I am a good example of a person who can see things that aren't physical. I am not lying. Although I do not practice it as a Christian, I grew up with this kind of "ability".' =( I don't know where to begin with that, and not about whether that is true or not, but how you can justify you really are 'seeing' things and aren't just delusional.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@updr14 In conclusion:
-Find a reason why this huge conspiracy is so.
-Apply your skepticism of evolution to all other sciences.
-Differentiate between god speaking to you and you just being fallible.
After all, isn't it nearly incalculably more likely that you were just mistaken than it was a supernatural reason? It's waaaaaaayyyy more likely that space aliens with technology came down and implanted memories in your head than it is a supernatural reason.
Arcexey 5 days ago
@Arcexey Some are obviously poetic, rich with symbolic language, and some are historical accounts. It is an ENORMOUS amount of text. Imagine what you could do if you compiled a huge bulk of contemporary literature written by a mixture of different authors and styles if your intention was to prove a certain point. We use the phrase "four corners of the earth" today, but no-one is calling us flat-earthers.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey As far as the other "flat earth" arguments are concerned, I don't think anyone can escape the fact that the Bible was a compilation of various kinds of litterature. It is a collection of 66 books, witten over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors, many of them in different locales having no knowledge of each other, and writing in different styles.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "Or be able to see all the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain"
You are assuming that the "seeing" done here is physical. I am a good example of a person who can see things that aren't physical. I am not lying. Although I do not practice it as a Christian, I grew up with this kind of "ability".
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey Nowehre does it say that the earth IS a circle. You might as well say that it is saying that people ARE grashoppers. Isaiah was not trying to assert anything about cosmology or biology, he was just trying to describe what he envisioned.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey It just means that we have to take certain issues into consideration and weight them up given the facts. The verse in Isaiah that speaks of the "circle of the earth" is obviously a rough description rather than a detailed scientific observation. The word "like" is used 3 times in this verse.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "If the bible writers thought the world is a sphereoid"
I don't think the Bible writers "thought the world was a spheroid". I think that they had visions and described what they saw in their own words as they would have done during the time that they wrote them. Does this pose a problem for creationists and bible belivere in general? Of course it does! But that does not disqualify or verify anything.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey What biology has observed is well within the creationist model. That evolutionists call this "evolution" causes confusion, since it implies that everything observed confirms everything that we consider evolutionary theory.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "Practically none of biology makes sense if evolution isn't real."
Previously you claimed that I have not been on both sides of the fence because I don't understand evolution. But it seems evident that you do not understand creationism or the point of contention. Creationists do not reject anything that can be scientifically observed.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey How does a cell know how to coordinate its processes in such a way that it knows what to do with light? It doesn't have a brain, and yet we are supposed to just swallow the fact that one bunch of cells knew it was their duty to process light, whereas others were busy doing other things. And that's only the first step!
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey It always starts of with "light-sensitive skin" as though that was such a piece of cake that it need no further explanation at all. But how does a cell know how to process light? Can you imagine how much logic would need to be in place for someting like that. I have been working as a software developer for almost 30 years and even the simplest things are incredibly complex.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "Or that if one example of irreducible complexity was found, none of it would work?"
One example? How do you find "one example of irreducible complexity" that cannot be refuted by demonstrating how a tie-clip can be made out of a mouse trap? All someone needs to do is have an imagination. Take the eye for example. All you have to do is break it up in steps.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey If the fossils in different layers are a record of how animals developed througout time, then why do we find fossils that are several layers down in the record that do not appear in the layers above it, and yet are almost an exact representations of animals living today?
In any case, I doubt strongly that the precambrian rabbit would really do the trick as many claim.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey Now I don't know how many of these are rabbit fossils but I kind of doubt you would find them in the precambrian. What rabbit fossilizes among marine invertibrates?
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey Ninety-five percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils. Ninety-five percent of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. Ninety-five percent of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey The layers do not neatly cover the earth like the layers on an onion, and you won't find the geolical column as you see it presented in textbooks. And as far as I can see, sorting of fossils generally seems to follow the altitude of the ecological environments in which animals live today. Bottom-ocean dewllers are found at the bottom of the fossil record, mid-ocean dwellers are found above them, top-ocean dwellers are found above them and so on.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "haven't you ever heard the expression 'it just takes one rabbit in the precambrian for evolution to be false?"
Countless times! And I find it so silly that I am really surprised that it is used at all. To start with, if a rabbit was found in a rock layer then it wouldn't be classified as "precambrian". So what you would actually need to do is find a rabbit in the same layer as you would find another "precambrian" animal. That's where things get tricky.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey I haven't submitted any "explanation of evolution", but of course I don't think one individual of a species turns into another species. Using the phrase "turns into" is just an abstraction to save using a long tedious explanation of how evolution works every time the concept is discussed.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "I don't believe you've been 'on either side of the fence,' for these reasons: 1) Your explanation of evolution."
Oh please, I know perfectly well what evolution is. Proponents of evolution always use these kinds of condescending arguments in an attempt to protray creationists an uneducated. Anyone who disagrees with evolution "doesn't understand it".
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey Everything is being presented as evidence of evolution - examples of fossils supposedly showing gradual changes is evidence of evolution, sudden changes is evidence of evolution (punctuated equalibrium). Huge morpholicical changes is evidence of evolution, stasis is evidence of evolution. Diversity is evidence, similarity is evidence.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey It is also quite telling that scientists who once exaclaimed "it isn't possible!" and "it must be a mistake!" are now saying "organic material can be preserved in fossils for millsions of years in some cases". The "evidence?" - the existance of blood cells in dino bones. The evidence is *always* interpreted in favor of evolution. Evolution is the most slippery bar of soap in the bathtub of science.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "Mary Schweitzer.. 'attacked?' What do you mean? Link an article please."
I don't mean physically attacked, only that she was subjected to strong peer pressure simply on the grounds that it disagreed with contemporary evolutionary ideas about when dinosaurs lived and that organic material can't possibly survive even a million years. Perhaps "attacked" is not the best word, but it was the word that Leslie Stahl used in her CBS 60 minute report.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey Do the observed slight changes prove that your neighbor's car is a modified version of the old one? Now I know that this is not a fair analogy, but the question remains, how far can we extrapolate what is observed, repeated and tested before we exceed the boundaries of what is or isn't science? The macroevolutionary changes necessary to create complicated organs have never been observed, and yet they are presented a science, rather than belief.
updr14 1 week ago
"C'mon, no cheap shots"
I don't resort to cheap shots, and my point wasn't that *science* is faith-based. As you say science has to be observable, repeatable, and testable in order for it to be considered science. Here's an exaggerated example. Let's say your neighbor has a Honda Civic that he goes out and hits with a hammer every day. Each day the car is slightly "modified". You go on vacation for a couple of years and when you come back see a Porsche in his driveway.
updr14 1 week ago
@Arcexey "If your 'evidence' is personal, we may as well just call it feelings."
No. Personal evidence is not synonymous with "feelings". The problem is just that I have no way of externally validating the things I have experienced as a Christian. It involves what God tells me and me alone, and how he confirms it with actual events. A skeptic will simply say what God says is "all in my mind" and the confimation "a coincidence". I'm not going to bother with that.
updr12 1 week ago
@Arcexey Ok thanks :-) My responses will also consist of quite a lot of posts since I fell that I would like to respond to some of your posts. Hopefully, after we both understand each others positions a little better a lot of unnecessary arguments will disappear.
updr12 1 week ago
Creationists aren't worth debate, only mockery - right there with 9-11 truthers, moon landing hoaxers and Holocaust deniers.
SidewaysQuark 1 week ago
@updr12 A few more ways we can falsify evolution: no genetic variation in species, if non-social animals were found exhibiting a care for non-related species, adaptations that were found to harm individuals but helped that species' population as a whole, or an adaption found in one species that only suites a different species
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey Wow! that's quite a bundle to work through. And you have made quite a lot of demands. At the moment I have about 10 or so different discussions going on, (although some of them seem to have calmed down), and I am working full-time. But you seem really thoughful and someone I would like to continue this discussion with... but please try to narrow things down a little. Better to spread them out over time. Anyhow I will have to get back a little later as I'm caught up righ now.
updr12 1 week ago
@updr12 I'm not going anywhere, and if it takes you two 2 weeks to get to a point there isn't even a hint in my mind that this means you don't care, or that my points are more valid, or whatever.
I have a ton of things to do so, so take your time, seriously. =)
To me.. the most important part is that faith doesn't care evidence, and that the nature of science doesn't allow for bias or to selectively pick a paradigm - those are oxymoronic.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey "Bible says the earth is flat"
Another strawman clung on to by people who ignore context and Hebrew colloquialisms. Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is flat. It describes how the earth looks circular from a distance, which is absolutely and astoundingly true considering the time at which it was written.
updr12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 You said "God is imprinted in the hearts of every individual on the face of the planet." That is an emotional argument that isn't meant to be a claim about reality. I'm not interested in emotion. I don't tell you evolution is a real phenominon because we can feel it in our hearts, I tell you it's real because it is (more on this later).
"There IS evidence, although it is not always the kind of evidence that can be scientifically observed.
Arcexey 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 That kind of evidence is personal and I don't submit it as being scientific."
Then it is, by definition, not evidence.
The preponderance of evidence is what determines reality.
If your 'evidence' is personal, we may as well just call it feelings.
I don't really care to talk about 'personal evidence,' here. Tell me about it in a message if you want.
'..unless we both share the same model for what is possible or impossible.'
Anything is possible, in a sense. What is seemingly
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 impossible to us, A =/= A, may be possible.. somewhere, even if all current models of reality, and definitions, say it's impossible. Like miracles, or a being existing outside of time being impossible by definition. I'd never let a defintion get in the way of what's real!
Can we settle that as long as faith is involved, there is no care for evidence, by definition of 'faith?' Tell me how faith 'operates?' If you have knowledge from evidence that god exists, you would no longer
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 have faith. Evidence has to be observable and testable to be called evidence at all. As does a theory, hypothesis or explanation, which is why 'god did it' is not a theory, hypothesis, or explanation. And it has to be repeatable only in a simulated sense, obviously we cannot repeat the big bang or hypothetical abiogenesis.
"At least I can admit when something is faith-based."
C'mon, no cheap shots. If you are claiming science (or ?) is faith-based, explain how and why please.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 'God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe' is a world view and is dogmatic, but I only meant that any point you, from faith, WERE to put forth would be dogma. It isn't like the bible is changing due to new info.
"History verifies that what he said he would do, he actually did."
Take the issues one-by-one, please. Preferably written.
Anybody can make a flashy video and say whatever they want.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 I'll read or watch anything you want as long as:
-The video has scientifically-verified citations for every single major claim.
-Doesn't filter comments so that the claims can be refuted, publically (no mirrors).
The article must not be on some Christian opinion website, unless it meets the same criteria for videos. Citations and references to verified claims or else I don't care.
The point of my 'I was just challenged...yesterday' comment was to point out that going around to
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 people to put evidence in front of you isn't furthering the 'contention.' If the topic were some obscure mathematical proof or overly technical explanation, then googling may not help and an on-the-spot answer may be needed. Google 'evidence for evolution.' <-- Now, nothing is stopping a creationist from saying the exact same thing. So how about you can refer me to your few favorite arguments and I'll come back at you. But be prepared for me to not be happy if the question/answer
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 is on every FAQ section for 'popular creationist claims' with the answers just below. We cannot really do this in reverse, as most of creationist claims are unfalsifiable and the falsifiable evidence for evolution is a google away.
Mary Schweitzer.. 'attacked?' What do you mean? Link an article please.
How does finding or not finding 70 million-year-old T-rex blood cells go against evolution? Is it because she's a devout Christian? Seems she has a bunch of other publications and
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 still researches in dinosaur reproductive evolution. This kinda sounds like the Richard Sternberg case in Ben Stein's 'Expelled,' which is a case-in-point for publication bias being nonsense. Wikipedia is a place to start for that.
Also every new claim to science gets 'attacked;' that's science!
When you try to get something published, reviewers will tear it apart. Scientists across the world, from cris-crossing fields can examine a publication in every detail. They will
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 all viciously try to prove it wrong and by having your work in a public place, anyone and everyone can pick it to pieces. It's a necesseity of science, and every 'fact' has gone through it. You have nothing to lose testing it and tearing it apart and trying to prove a hypothesis wrong. You will get humiliated by having holes in your hypothesis, and other scientists will, with great glee, point them out.
On the other hand you have everything to lose by lying and bullshitting by
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 by putting false facts and incorrect data in your hypothesis. Once you have a hypothesis, the first thing you need to do is try to prove it wrong, ad nauseum. None of your data can be vague, none of your propositions can be vague. Everyone in the world is going to test it, and will test it forever. Evolution endured(es) this.
"Because it is the very process of peer-reviewing that filters out counter-claims."
I'd like to stop and focus here for a minute because I think this is
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 the crux of the discussion.
Without reading below the line, think in your head of a process that best excludes any new claims into the system; a process that decides reality on its own.
------------
Now let me describe a process that would best filter out real counter-claims:
Having an elite and secluded group, in just one area of the world that isn't known. The members who decide this are family-born or in a closed election, have confidential identities, and money can be sent
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 to the group for bias. When this system produces a claim, it is not reviewed by anyone but the author, and how the claim is tested or came about is not released to the public, it is just told that it is true. Anyone else in the world that sends in an idea, it is processed internally and a decision is arrived at.
Science is the exact fugging opposite of this. If the peer-reviewed publications and a claim having to be testable in anyone's lab are not
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 the best requirements for coming to a consensus about reality, what is? Name a better process. This stuff doesn't just happen with religious claims. Magnet-powered motors get labeled not real and science gets a lot of shit for it.
Did cold fusion get deemed pseudoscience because it was a conspiracy by scientists.. or just that cold fusion is bullshit?
"A big part of peer-reviewing is to certify that claims made in journals conform to the accepted paradigm,"
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 Isn't peer-review kind of an incredibly ineffecient and ODD way of doing that??? If you want something to be accepted to the paradigm (sigh..) then just bring it to one evolutionary biologist, or one textbook and certify. An exlusionary selective filter that is peer-reviewed is an oxymoron.
I'm trying to think of a reason for the conspiracy. What do all the geologists and taxonomists and biologists gain from it? Wouldn't the vast amount of christians involved in science want to
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 save those that don't believe in Jesus because of evolution?
Is evolution to test our faith? But why? Evolution is compatible with god.
I don't believe you've been 'on either side of the fence,' for these reasons:
1) Your explanation of evolution.
If at any point in your life you had even the most rudimentary understanding of evolution, you'd know it has nothing to do with:
"We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton." <-That literally has nothing to do with evolution and belongs in a dr. Seuss book. Nothing in evolution, ever, changes into anything else. Ever. That's something Ray Comfort tells people. Seriously though, (sincerely) tell me what else you learned from 'studying the issue for years and years." Really, tell me about what you think evolution is. It's a safe environment.. I'm not very insult-y.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 I think you may have built up and destroyed something that isn't even evolution.
2.) "Couple that with the fact that evolution is practically impossible to falsify."
=( haven't you ever heard the expression 'it just takes one rabbit in the precambrian for evolution to be false?' Or that if we couldn't find where our missing chromosome was, evolutionary theory would be in jeopardy? Or that if one example of irreducible complexity was found, none of it would work?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 Because of the numerous fields of science that evolution encompasses, it literally is the MOST easily falsifiable science we have.
--This is not a strawman. If you are saying claim X is real but science was prejudice toward it, you are saying it's a huge conspiracy - dwarfing watergate or the moon landing or the kennedy assassination- it would have to be, so says the nature of the scientific process. Do you truthfully understand the huge # of scientific fields involved,
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 number of persons across the world involved in evolution? And the scientific discoveries we use everday that are contingent on evolution being a fact?
Practically none of biology makes sense if evolution isn't real.
Do these scientists just avoid the food and medicine that we've applied principles of evolution to better? And they ignore the medical precedures influenced and developed from our knowledge of evolution?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 "Another strawman"
How exactly can the earth 'look circular from a distance?' What does that mean?
Go tell the Flat Earth Society, which was founded because of these very scripture quotes, that it's just a matter of Hebrew colloquialisms.
If the bible-writers thought the world is a sphereoid, in what colloquial sense would you ever say it had edges, or label it as having 'ends of the earth?' Or say it has foundations, or pillars? Or be able to see all the kingdoms of
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 "Another strawman" How exactly can the earth 'look circular from a distance?' What does that mean?
Go tell the Flat Earth Society, which was founded because of these very scripture quotes, that it's just a matter of Hebrew colloquialisms.
If the bible writers thought the world is a sphereoid, in what colloquial sense would you ever say it had edges, or label it as having 'ends of the earth?' Or say it has foundations, or pillars? Or be able to see all the kingdoms of
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 the earth from a mountain? Don't you have trouble visualizing spreading out a tent over a sphereoid? Seems more like something you'd do over a flat surface, and then live in it. How does a sphereoid have quarters, or 4 corners? Remember that when this wording is used today, it had to come from somewhere. We would never naturally say 'the 4 corners of the earth,' when we know it's a globe. That kinda talk came back when we thought it was flat, back when the bible was written.
Arcexey 1 week ago
Arcexey 1 week ago
Arcexey 1 week ago
@updr12 in bird blood. This still doesn't mean god doesn't exist and neither does thinking the earth was flat.
Lastly, I'd like to say thanks for your being direct and questioning my responses, and not having piled on assertion after assertion. If you feel I've done, so show me where, I'll provide some references!
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey Couple that with the fact that evolution is practically impossible to falsify and you have a fairly water-tight defence against creationists.
"It's just a huge conspiracy"
That's a strawman. I have never said that so don't put words in my mouth!
"any claim put up to the strict scientific method that comes up wrong is because it is wrong."
Only when the presupposition is that evolution=right and creationism=wrong.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "Notice how not a single counter-claim of evolution is in any published, peer-reviewed science journal. Why?"
Because it is the very process of peer-reviewing that filters out counter-claims. A big part of peer-reviewing is to certify that claims made in journals conform to the accepted paradigm, which at present is evolution.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "from what you typed, you are thinking evolution is something different than we are saying it is."
Nonsense! You have access to "what I typed", so tell me what I say about evolution that is incorrect.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey And your biased opinions about faith is and how it operates is incorrect. I don't let feelings decide anything. I have studied this issure for years and years and have been on BOTH sides of the fence several times. You are trying to win a debate through prejudice rather than scientific arguments.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "Every scientist has everything to lose defending evolution and nothing to lose attacking it because of the nature of science."
This is utter baloney! You are living in a fantasy world, not me. Scientists are ridiculed and risk losing their jobs when they do anything that does not comply with evolution. Mary Schweitzer was attacked by her peers when she discovered soft tissues and blood cells in dinosaur bones.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "you will stick to your dogma and defend it no matter what"
What dogma did I produce?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "That is impossible because of the very nature of religion. It's faith-based"
Exactly, so now you know the enormous problems creationists are facing. At least I can admit when something is faith-based.
"when you have no care for evidence"
Oh, but I DO care for evidence. Anything asserted in the name of science should have evidence that is both observable, repeatable and testable.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "I was just challenged in another comment yesterday - almost verbatim - except this was about putting forth evidence that we we really landed on the moon."
Well then, respond to HIM and not ME!
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey Also, you cannot say there is "evidence against it" unless we both share the same model for what is possible or impossible. Guess what? We don't. But before going further I think it would be good if you told me exactly how you know that Jonah couldn't be in the belly of a large fish for 3 days.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "you are being laughed at because you believe it without evidence (or with evidence against it)."
Both of these assertions are incorrect. To start with Chistian faith is not defined as "belief without evidence". There IS evidence, although it is not always the kind of evidence that can be scientifically observed. That kind of evidence is personal and I don't submit it as being scientific.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "Delete god and put Zeus, or Godzilla. Notice nothing changes."
Who God is can be verified by what he claims to do, and what he actually does. The God of the Bible valides his identity by claiming to do things that no one else can or has ever claimed to do. History verifies that what he said he would do, he actually did. It's all there for anyone to see: watch?v=OWng3m7REdQ
So what did Zeus or Godzilla ever do that impressed you?
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey Here is another fairy tale from the Bible that you can mock: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a POWERFUL DELUSION so that they will believe the LIE and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey The words "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" indicate that God has a plan to save "the meek, the mild, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the mercifull, the pure in heart, and so on while rejecting the proud God-deniers.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey At least the Bible declares that it DELIBERATLY sounds like a fairy tale in order to judge the shallow minds of the people who deny God.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@updr12 "God is imprinted in the hearts of every individual on the face of the planet" WTF are you talking about? Delete god and put Zeus, or Godzilla. Notice nothing changes.
I'd also stop you there and say that the definition of relevant evidence is what the brain can conceive, measure and test, but anyway:
Why do we care about what we cannot EVER detect, preceive or fathom?
Fairy tale-esque is inherently wrong? Nope.
Once we discovered this thing called asphyxiation and we knew
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 of the environment in a whale/fish's stomach, then saying someone lived in a whale for 3 days should be laughed at.
To make clear: You are not being laughed at and rejected because the shit creationists come up with 'sounds' unreal or 'seems' like a fairy tale - you are being laughed at because you believe it without evidence (or with evidence against it). I would never tell you or anyone to stop thinking - imagining that one electron can go through 2 different slits at the
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 exact same time sounds like a fairy tale, Lot's wife being a block of salt in and of itself is not laughable, parthenogenesis is conceivable. You get the 'hahaha' because, just like someone who thinks George Bush Sr. is a lizardman, you believe it without justification (and you let it run your life and others').
omg! I was just challenged in another comment yesterday - almost verbatim - except this was about putting forth evidence that we we really landed on the moon. Educating
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 is great, but not when the person doesn't give a shit about even trying to learn. Case in point:
"We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton."
If you believe that strawman has anything to do with evolution, or that any scientist is saying that AT ALL, you haven't even begun to research evolution, which can be accomplished in
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 in 2 mouse clicks and 23 key strokes: google 'evidence for evolution.'
In an earlier comment you had said,
"...thus silencing creationists.." That is impossible because of the very nature of religion. It's faith-based, as you said, and when you have no care for evidence, you will stick to your dogma and defend it no matter what, by definition.
Basic guide for determining what is true:
(step 2 is the most important and, as we just saw from you, least done)
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Step 1.) Contemplate systems for discovering reality. If you pick 'logic,' then: An evidenced-based tool, science. It corrects itself by being open to anyone, on their own terms, to make the same test. Scientists' biases are weeded out by science. There isn't a scientist or researcher in the world who wouldn't LOVE to show evolution to be incorrect. They would get instant praise, be rich, go down in history, be be on top of the world.
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Every scientist has everything to lose defending evolution and nothing to lose attacking it because of the nature of science.
Or illogical: Non-evidenced based tool.
Faith doesn't care about evidence; people want god to exist. Science can change, faith cannot.
If you pick 'faith' or 'feelings' to determine reality, nobody can say you are wrong. It's when you decide to be logical you are declared wrong.
As a creationist, which system seems better to determine reality?
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Step 2.) Education/research to gather data to apply to your system. This is best for you because, from what you typed, you are thinking evolution is something different than we are saying it is. The talk origins result of your google search is a good place to start. Hopefully you'll see evolution as anyone in the peer-reviewed science journals cited on that website does, that there is more evidence for, and we have a greater understanding of, evolution than gravity.
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 Step 3.) Compare claims and look at other views and criticisms in science. Notice how not a single counter-claim of evolution is in any published, peer-reviewed science journal. Why?
A.) It's just a huge conspiracy!!!! involving all those biologists, palentologists, physicists, geologists, of which people are of all religions from everywhere around the world.
B.) Simply that any claim put up to the strict scientific method that comes up wrong is because it is wrong.
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@updr12 As it so happens you'd agree with this being the case on the thousands and thousands of other facts which just, by chance, don't happen to contradict what's written in a religious text.
Fuck disputing the science put into an airplane flying or a cheeseburger not being poisonous, I like those things and the bible doesn't say otherwise!!! So no need to oppose them!! Uh oh! Bible says the earth is flat, quick, establish the Flat Earth Society!
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 "At least the Bible declares that it DELIBERATLY sounds like a fairy tale." It only took you thirteen words to delude yourself past the immense problem of interpretating what is real and what is metaphoric.
'powerful delusion'
Let's demonstrate your god exists before writing shit from the bible eh? You don't get to say god exists because of what is written in the bible, and then say what is written is true because god exists.
May Poseidon keep you safe from Harbor to Harbor.
Arcexey 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey If creationists made those kinds of claims then there would be no end to the LOLs and HAHAHAs. But a "scientific" theory seems to have a big label on it saying "please swallow me because I am a gullible idiot who accepts anything as long as it is a 'scientific' theory".
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey We have animals that start out as fish simming around in the ocean, changing into land-dwellers graising on the prairies, only to jump back into the sea munching on plankton. We have the ENTIRE universe, which is so large that we don't even come close to mentally conceiving it, being something you simply unzip from a pinhead.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@Arcexey "as if you had just said there was once a man who lived in a whale for 3 days"
Oh i see, because it *sounds* like a fairy tale then it MUST be a fairy tale. A lot of evolutionists love to smirk at the Bible all the while they swallow the most ridiculous theories you could possibly imagine.
updr12 2 weeks ago
Evolutionists DO's and DON'T's:
DO lay out on the table all the empirical evidence for macroevolution thus silencing creationists... oh,... there isn't any... ok let's move on to the don'ts.
DONT let anyone know that the "mountains of evidence" for macroevolution all exist in the imaginations of evolutionists... yeah, that should do the trick..
updr12 2 weeks ago