|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... Farming has the guiding hand of man. Evolution OTOH despite what Dawkins and Muz would have us believe, is *ultimately* left to chance through genetic mutations. Yes its a long time but the mechanism of evolution is left to very low proabality chance. This article lists 4 mechanisms, but ultimately all 4 are entirely dependent on chance varitions in genetic code that by chance result in competitively advantageous characteristics. Muz quoted earlier:
From the article you linked. To their surprise, the researchers found that 75.9% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious, while 1.3% were significantly beneficial.
In other word 98.7% of the time mutations are not beneficial. 
So if you look at the extreme and highly organized, highly regulated, interdependet complexity of the all the neccesary process within a single eukaryotic cell, let alone an organ or complete human body, this is supposed to have evolved from basic elements, water and energy and a long series of unlikely random events with each step having a failure to improve rate of 98.7% I just don't believe God plays dice.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh and to be accurate not just an extremely high failure rate of beneficial success, but actually 75% of the time the mutations send the organism backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
When I read of emerging evidence of how so many Israeli army commanders, prior to the Hamas attacks, were warned ... and dismissed the warnings as nonsense. I thought of you guys, Muz and tsf in particular. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/israel-was-warned-oct-7-terror-attack-senior/It is human nature for people to dismiss as nonsense things that contradict their assumptions. Crucially. How do you test if it really is nonsense, OR that the person is acting biased? The way to test is in the reasons for dismissing it. 1) If the person dismisses it as nonsense, and then gives his bias for his rejection, then it is bias. 2) If the person dismisses it as nonsense, and then gives his analysis of the evidence showing it is false, then he has done due diligence. Accordingly, it is clear to me that Muz and tsf are acting on their bias, because, for them, anything that establishes the existence of God must be nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh and to be accurate not just an extremely high failure rate of beneficial success, but actually 75% of the time the mutations send the organism backwards. But don't you see, that's even better for the beneficial mutations because now it's easier to outcompete their retarded brethren. Did you watch that little e-coli antibiotic video? That's a perfect example of how beneficial mutations lead to a stronger organism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mEAnyway whatever, don't believe it. I can't change your mind. God did it. All the scientists can go home now and we can forget about studying mitochondrial DNA, DNA, RNA and genes because what's the point? Went to a BBQ on Saturday and was surrounded by chemtrail, moon landing was a hoax, 9-11 was an inside job, the MSM is a plague, Blackrock and Vanguard run the world, you name it people. After about 15 minutes of trying to explain how they landed on the moon I gave up. Nothing, NOTHING you say will convince these people. Same goes for people like JS and to a lesser (but similar too I guess) degree you with regards evolution and JS's belief in the age of the earth.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. That is exactly what it is not. It's the very opposite. You should read 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Since you've read it and I haven't, in a few sentences what do you think the fundemental mechanism of evolution is? I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I've read quite a bit on it but I'm no expert. These dictionary definitions would be close to what I think. - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
- descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... I just don't believe God plays dice. And that's also why this conversation / debate is pointless. You believe in God. God must have made it therefore no other explanation is possible. It's exactly the same as (lowercase) johnsmith. He believes in God. The bible said the earth is 6000 years old. No other explanation is possible.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
answersingenesis incoming. They say that ice layers are laid down far quicker then you can imagine. You're wasting your time. (As are all scientists for that matter.) About 5 minutes here of Sam Harris excoriating religion. Always worth a watch. He is quality. https://www.facebook.com/reel/314040618227963
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xanswersingenesis incoming. They say that ice layers are laid down far quicker then you can imagine. You're wasting your time. (And all scientists for that matter.) As you requested, Muz, here it is: Not requested. Predicted.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Are you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from....
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... I'll explain my repeated stance -- that the Creation-v-Evolution question cannot be the issue that convinces us about God. The reason is that, for any given issue in the Creation-v-Evolution debate, there are scientific explanation on both sides. e.g. Evolutionists say the soil layers were laid down over millions/billions of years // The Creationist points to evidence at Mount St. Helens catastrophic mud slides where such soil layers were created within a few hours i.e. catastrophic water movement during global flood massively bigger than mere tsunami. Given scientific explanation both ways ... the Evolutionist sticks to his guns, the Creationist sticks to his guns. e.g. Common sense tells you that when a fish dies, it is eaten immediately by other fish, or at least rots very fast. Yet the atheist-scientists claim that fish fossils are the result of fish dying, sitting at the bottom of lakes, and eventually getting covered by mud. //// the Creationist points to fish fossils where the fish are caught in act of eating other fish, pointing to catastrophic, instant burial. .... So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=587840656&q=fossil+fish+eatinge.g. scientists now acknowledge soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old. The Creationists points to this as evidence of dinosaurs not being millions of years old /// the Evolutionist comes up with unproven theories of how soft tissue can survive millions of years. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. Therefore, I see there can be no resolution on the God issue by beating around the bush on the Creation-v-Evolution issue, We have to proceed to the next step of examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as his stated proof of divinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFAAnd also the message of the apostles that uses basic legal principles, that we all know are true, to show how the Christian true-gospel, stands apart from other religious claims and even false-Christian claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... I'll explain my repeated stance -- that the Creation-v-Evolution question cannot be the issue that convinces us about God. The reason is that, for any given issue in the Creation-v-Evolution debate, there are scientific explanation on both sides. e.g. Evolutionists say the soil layers were laid down over millions/billions of years // The Creationist points to evidence at Mount St. Helens catastrophic mud slides where such soil layers were created within a few hours i.e. catastrophic water movement during global flood massively bigger than mere tsunami. Given scientific explanation both ways ... the Evolutionist sticks to his guns, the Creationist sticks to his guns. e.g. Common sense tells you that when a fish dies, it is eaten immediately by other fish, or at least rots very fast. Yet the atheist-scientists claim that fish fossils are the result of fish dying, sitting at the bottom of lakes, and eventually getting covered by mud. //// the Creationist points to fish fossils where the fish are caught in act of eating other fish, pointing to catastrophic, instant burial. .... So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=587840656&q=fossil+fish+eatinge.g. scientists now acknowledge soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old. The Creationists points to this as evidence of dinosaurs not being millions of years old /// the Evolutionist comes up with unproven theories of how soft tissue can survive millions of years. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. Therefore, I see there can be no resolution on the God issue by beating around the bush on the Creation-v-Evolution issue, We have to proceed to the next step of examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as his stated proof of divinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFAAnd also the message of the apostles that uses basic legal principles, that we all know are true, to show how the Christian true-gospel, stands apart from other religious claims and even false-Christian claims. And who decides who the false Christian in this debate is? Just asking for a friend. Your interpretation of one of the versions of the Bible is certainly amusing to me but your INSISTENCE that your INTERPRETATION is the one universal truth is both ethically and logically flawed.... certainly emotionally regressive at best... Again my condolences to whatever led you down this path of "seeking the truth" its both fascinating and terrifying.... I hope your faith brings you some sort of peace.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... I just don't believe God plays dice. And that's also why this conversation / debate is pointless. You believe in God. God must have made it therefore no other explanation is possible.It's exactly the same as (lowercase) johnsmith. He believes in God. The bible said the earth is 6000 years old. No other explanation is possible. That's actually not true. I've considered other explanations. I've gone from believing it was God in my childhood, to evolution in my young adulthood, to I don't know in the present Neither explanation- God or evolution-are particularly convincing explanations. God because that depends on a handful of texts written thousands of years ag. Evolution which at its most fundamental says that complexity of life is the result of an incredible series of unlikely flukes nearly all of which do nothing or in fact send life backwards. Yes I know about the "nearly"...
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOh and to be accurate not just an extremely high failure rate of beneficial success, but actually 75% of the time the mutations send the organism backwards. But don't you see, that's even better for the beneficial mutations because now it's easier to outcompete their retarded brethren. Did you watch that little e-coli antibiotic video? That's a perfect example of how beneficial mutations lead to a stronger organism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mEAnyway whatever, don't believe it. I can't change your mind. God did it. All the scientists can go home now and we can forget about studying mitochondrial DNA, DNA, RNA and genes because what's the point? Went to a BBQ on Saturday and was surrounded by chemtrail, moon landing was a hoax, 9-11 was an inside job, the MSM is a plague, Blackrock and Vanguard run the world, you name it people. After about 15 minutes of trying to explain how they landed on the moon I gave up. Nothing, NOTHING you say will convince these people. Same goes for people like JS and to a lesser (but similar too I guess) degree you with regards evolution and JS's belief in the age of the earth. Its one thing to talk genetic mutations in a simple single celled organism that reproduces rapidly by fission. Its another thing altogether to apply that to complex multi-organ eukaryotic life. The other interesting about DNA replication and mutation is that there are built error-correction systems whose job is to actually correct mutations. Complex life is designed to not evolve! Well I happen to agree the MSM is worse than the plague, and as for Vangard and Blackrock, when you control the money that business requires, you control a lot of other things. There's some logic there.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. You love this. You've brought it up a dozen times. Find me a secular scientist or in fact a scientist of any other religion that is not christian that has published a paper backing this claim and I might give some credence to it. You can't because there aren't any. It's amazing that in those links you provide the amount of scientific references that are made in relation to all manner of things not related to the age of the earth. Things like DNA, ice cores, anatomical morphology etc etc. You (YECs) are more than happy to quote and reference vast swathes of scientific knowledge which YEC believe to be correct EXCEPT except anything to do with the age of the earth. (Which you (YEC) believe to be wrong.) And also you ignored all of this which I posted 2 pages ago. (It's OK I know why you do it. It's because you're wrong.) Earth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.html
https://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarity
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... I just don't believe God plays dice. And that's also why this conversation / debate is pointless. You believe in God. God must have made it therefore no other explanation is possible.It's exactly the same as (lowercase) johnsmith. He believes in God. The bible said the earth is 6000 years old. No other explanation is possible. That's actually not true. I've considered other explanations. I've gone from believing it was God in my childhood, to evolution in my young adulthood, to I don't know in the present. Neither explanation- God or evolution-are particularly convincing explanations. God because that depends on a handful of texts written thousands of years ag. Evolution which at its most fundamental says that complexity of life is the result of an incredible series of unlikely flukes nearly all of which do nothing or in fact send life backwards. Repeating myself here. That is exactly what it's not. I don't believe for one minute you don't think god is responsible. You can pretend but deep down you know what you believe.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOh and to be accurate not just an extremely high failure rate of beneficial success, but actually 75% of the time the mutations send the organism backwards. But don't you see, that's even better for the beneficial mutations because now it's easier to outcompete their retarded brethren. Did you watch that little e-coli antibiotic video? That's a perfect example of how beneficial mutations lead to a stronger organism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mEAnyway whatever, don't believe it. I can't change your mind. God did it. All the scientists can go home now and we can forget about studying mitochondrial DNA, DNA, RNA and genes because what's the point? Went to a BBQ on Saturday and was surrounded by chemtrail, moon landing was a hoax, 9-11 was an inside job, the MSM is a plague, Blackrock and Vanguard run the world, you name it people. After about 15 minutes of trying to explain how they landed on the moon I gave up. Nothing, NOTHING you say will convince these people. Same goes for people like JS and to a lesser (but similar too I guess) degree you with regards evolution and JS's belief in the age of the earth. Its one thing to talk genetic mutations in a simple single celled organism that reproduces rapidly by fission. Its another thing altogether to apply that to complex multi-organ eukaryotic life. The other interesting about DNA replication and mutation is that there are built error-correction systems whose job is to actually correct mutations. Complex life is designed to not evolve!Well I happen to agree the MSM is worse than the plague, and as for Vangard and Blackrock, when you control the money that business requires, you control a lot of other things. There's some logic there. I think I'm done here. (May get sucked back in.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... I just don't believe God plays dice. And that's also why this conversation / debate is pointless. You believe in God. God must have made it therefore no other explanation is possible.It's exactly the same as (lowercase) johnsmith. He believes in God. The bible said the earth is 6000 years old. No other explanation is possible. That's actually not true. I've considered other explanations. I've gone from believing it was God in my childhood, to evolution in my young adulthood, to I don't know in the present. Neither explanation- God or evolution-are particularly convincing explanations. God because that depends on a handful of texts written thousands of years ag. Evolution which at its most fundamental says that complexity of life is the result of an incredible series of unlikely flukes nearly all of which do nothing or in fact send life backwards. Repeating myself here. That is exactly what it's not. Yeah, at the fundamental level, it is.I don't believe for one minute you don't think god is responsible. You can pretend but deep down you know what you believe. Now you can read minds too?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... I'll explain my repeated stance -- that the Creation-v-Evolution question cannot be the issue that convinces us about God. The reason is that, for any given issue in the Creation-v-Evolution debate, there are scientific explanation on both sides. e.g. Evolutionists say the soil layers were laid down over millions/billions of years // The Creationist points to evidence at Mount St. Helens catastrophic mud slides where such soil layers were created within a few hours i.e. catastrophic water movement during global flood massively bigger than mere tsunami. Given scientific explanation both ways ... the Evolutionist sticks to his guns, the Creationist sticks to his guns. e.g. Common sense tells you that when a fish dies, it is eaten immediately by other fish, or at least rots very fast. Yet the atheist-scientists claim that fish fossils are the result of fish dying, sitting at the bottom of lakes, and eventually getting covered by mud. //// the Creationist points to fish fossils where the fish are caught in act of eating other fish, pointing to catastrophic, instant burial. .... So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=587840656&q=fossil+fish+eatinge.g. scientists now acknowledge soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old. The Creationists points to this as evidence of dinosaurs not being millions of years old /// the Evolutionist comes up with unproven theories of how soft tissue can survive millions of years. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. Therefore, I see there can be no resolution on the God issue by beating around the bush on the Creation-v-Evolution issue, We have to proceed to the next step of examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as his stated proof of divinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFAAnd also the message of the apostles that uses basic legal principles, that we all know are true, to show how the Christian true-gospel, stands apart from other religious claims and even false-Christian claims. And who decides who the false Christian in this debate is? Just asking for a friend. I would naturally want to answer your question -- but I pause hesitatingly because, I can predict that if you utilise the same flawed-thinking you've used on the Covid mega-thread and regarding the 6,000 year issue -- if you use the same way of thinking on this other question -- it's a given you'll toss it said without giving it a chance. The reason is as follows: Let's say that someone you trust is, just an example, is Hugh Jackman -- and Hugh says: "The planet earth is roughly spherical". And when Hugh Jackman says that, you nod your head in agreement because you trust Hugh Jackman. But if the Bible stated: "The planet earth is roughly spherical" -- and because the Bible said it, you say, "You cannot quote the Bible. The Bible is biased. I'm not going to consider anything the Bible says". then there is no possibility of a sensible dialogue, because you're operating in the same flawed-thinking that you used for the Covid megathread and the 6,000 years thread. You're not operating from facts/evidence -- but you're just going on who you trust. And because you totally mistrust the Bible, you shut your ears. Therefore, if a person does not operate based on facts/evidence -- and is proven to be the type of person that shuts their ears, and insults anything source that they do not trust --- there is no basis for having a sensible dialogue based on facts/evidence. Can you fault what I've said above? Summary: if person A and person B say exactly the same thing. But because you trust Person A you listen to them. But for person A, you insult, jeer, mock and refuse to even look at what they're saying because you intensely ridicule Person B --- then you are not a truth-seeker. That's because, a truth-seeker values the truth, irrespective of who says it. So until you become a truth-seeker, there is no basis for any sensible dialogue.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... I'll explain my repeated stance -- that the Creation-v-Evolution question cannot be the issue that convinces us about God. The reason is that, for any given issue in the Creation-v-Evolution debate, there are scientific explanation on both sides. e.g. Evolutionists say the soil layers were laid down over millions/billions of years // The Creationist points to evidence at Mount St. Helens catastrophic mud slides where such soil layers were created within a few hours i.e. catastrophic water movement during global flood massively bigger than mere tsunami. Given scientific explanation both ways ... the Evolutionist sticks to his guns, the Creationist sticks to his guns. e.g. Common sense tells you that when a fish dies, it is eaten immediately by other fish, or at least rots very fast. Yet the atheist-scientists claim that fish fossils are the result of fish dying, sitting at the bottom of lakes, and eventually getting covered by mud. //// the Creationist points to fish fossils where the fish are caught in act of eating other fish, pointing to catastrophic, instant burial. .... So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=587840656&q=fossil+fish+eatinge.g. scientists now acknowledge soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old. The Creationists points to this as evidence of dinosaurs not being millions of years old /// the Evolutionist comes up with unproven theories of how soft tissue can survive millions of years. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. Therefore, I see there can be no resolution on the God issue by beating around the bush on the Creation-v-Evolution issue, We have to proceed to the next step of examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as his stated proof of divinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFAAnd also the message of the apostles that uses basic legal principles, that we all know are true, to show how the Christian true-gospel, stands apart from other religious claims and even false-Christian claims. And who decides who the false Christian in this debate is? Just asking for a friend. I would naturally want to answer your question -- but I pause hesitatingly because, I can predict that if you utilise the same flawed-thinking you've used on the Covid mega-thread and regarding the 6,000 year issue -- if you use the same way of thinking on this other question -- it's a given you'll toss it said without giving it a chance. The reason is as follows: Let's say that someone you trust is, just an example, is Hugh Jackman -- and Hugh says: "The planet earth is roughly spherical". And when Hugh Jackman says that, you nod your head in agreement because you trust Hugh Jackman. But if the Bible stated: "The planet earth is roughly spherical" -- and because the Bible said it, you say, "You cannot quote the Bible. The Bible is biased. I'm not going to consider anything the Bible says". then there is no possibility of a sensible dialogue, because you're operating in the same flawed-thinking that you used for the Covid megathread and the 6,000 years thread. You're not operating from facts/evidence -- but you're just going on who you trust. And because you totally mistrust the Bible, you shut your ears. Therefore, if a person does not operate based on facts/evidence -- and is proven to be the type of person that shuts their ears, and insults anything source that they do not trust --- there is no basis for having a sensible dialogue based on facts/evidence. Can you fault what I've said above? Summary: if person A and person B say exactly the same thing. But because you trust Person A you listen to them. But for person A, you insult, jeer, mock and refuse to even look at what they're saying because you intensely ridicule Person B --- then you are not a truth-seeker. That's because, a truth-seeker values the truth, irrespective of who says it. So until you become a truth-seeker, there is no basis for any sensible dialogue. Can I fault what you have said above? Absolutely I can. When you postulate that me (in this bizarre example) trusting Hugh Jackman is NOT the same as you trusting a book written by an unknown source I really dont know what to tell you... As for you answering my question, I dont really want your answer to be honest as I consider all post reformation Christianity to be a flawed construct of individualism guided by Northern barbarian thinking. MY God sent his son to Earth to talk about the brotherhood of man, NOT our individual understanding of what he is.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAre you not doing EXACTLY the same thing to plausible scientific explanations that DON'T begin with the premise of there being a God? Your trying ever so hard to intellectualise a questioning of your faith.... In your zealousness however you are skating on the borders of the very uncharitable, sinful, non-Christian ideals you profess to wanting to save us all from.... I'll explain my repeated stance -- that the Creation-v-Evolution question cannot be the issue that convinces us about God. The reason is that, for any given issue in the Creation-v-Evolution debate, there are scientific explanation on both sides. e.g. Evolutionists say the soil layers were laid down over millions/billions of years // The Creationist points to evidence at Mount St. Helens catastrophic mud slides where such soil layers were created within a few hours i.e. catastrophic water movement during global flood massively bigger than mere tsunami. Given scientific explanation both ways ... the Evolutionist sticks to his guns, the Creationist sticks to his guns. e.g. Common sense tells you that when a fish dies, it is eaten immediately by other fish, or at least rots very fast. Yet the atheist-scientists claim that fish fossils are the result of fish dying, sitting at the bottom of lakes, and eventually getting covered by mud. //// the Creationist points to fish fossils where the fish are caught in act of eating other fish, pointing to catastrophic, instant burial. .... So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=587840656&q=fossil+fish+eatinge.g. scientists now acknowledge soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old. The Creationists points to this as evidence of dinosaurs not being millions of years old /// the Evolutionist comes up with unproven theories of how soft tissue can survive millions of years. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. e.g. Astrophysicists, who are Christians, point to calcuations of the solar system magnetism of exactly 6,000 years (see my earlier post) /// Evolutionists assert - without evidence -- that the planet's magnetism cycles. So, given scientists explaining both sides, each side sticks to its guns. Therefore, I see there can be no resolution on the God issue by beating around the bush on the Creation-v-Evolution issue, We have to proceed to the next step of examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as his stated proof of divinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFAAnd also the message of the apostles that uses basic legal principles, that we all know are true, to show how the Christian true-gospel, stands apart from other religious claims and even false-Christian claims. And who decides who the false Christian in this debate is? Just asking for a friend. I would naturally want to answer your question -- but I pause hesitatingly because, I can predict that if you utilise the same flawed-thinking you've used on the Covid mega-thread and regarding the 6,000 year issue -- if you use the same way of thinking on this other question -- it's a given you'll toss it said without giving it a chance. The reason is as follows: Let's say that someone you trust is, just an example, is Hugh Jackman -- and Hugh says: "The planet earth is roughly spherical". And when Hugh Jackman says that, you nod your head in agreement because you trust Hugh Jackman. But if the Bible stated: "The planet earth is roughly spherical" -- and because the Bible said it, you say, "You cannot quote the Bible. The Bible is biased. I'm not going to consider anything the Bible says". then there is no possibility of a sensible dialogue, because you're operating in the same flawed-thinking that you used for the Covid megathread and the 6,000 years thread. You're not operating from facts/evidence -- but you're just going on who you trust. And because you totally mistrust the Bible, you shut your ears. Therefore, if a person does not operate based on facts/evidence -- and is proven to be the type of person that shuts their ears, and insults anything source that they do not trust --- there is no basis for having a sensible dialogue based on facts/evidence. Can you fault what I've said above? Summary: if person A and person B say exactly the same thing. But because you trust Person A you listen to them. But for person A, you insult, jeer, mock and refuse to even look at what they're saying because you intensely ridicule Person B --- then you are not a truth-seeker. That's because, a truth-seeker values the truth, irrespective of who says it. So until you become a truth-seeker, there is no basis for any sensible dialogue. Can I fault what you have said above? Absolutely I can. When you postulate that me (in this bizarre example) trusting Hugh Jackman is NOT the same as you trusting a book written by an unknown source I really dont know what to tell you... As for you answering my question, I dont really want your answer to be honest as I consider all post reformation Christianity to be a flawed construct of individualism guided by Northern barbarian thinking. MY God sent his son to Earth to talk about the brotherhood of man, NOT our individual understanding of what he is. Is there miscommunication between you and me? Isn't it common sense that when Person A presents data and evidence to me, it is possible to test and evaluate that data/evidence -- irrespective of whether I trust Person A. Sure, if I don't know Person A's reputation, then I have to be on higher alert, and take greater precautions. But it is possible that Person A, whom I don't know, is still giving me useful data/evidence. The huge problem is, when we refuse to listen to evidence/data from the other side -- preferring to slander, insult the other side. This applies to issues of God, and issues about vaccines and politics. The same thoroughness of rational thinking ought to be applied to all areas of life.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]Oh and to be accurate not just an extremely high failure rate of beneficial success, but actually 75% of the time the mutations send the organism backwards. But don't you see, that's even better for the beneficial mutations because now it's easier to outcompete their retarded brethren. Did you watch that little e-coli antibiotic video? That's a perfect example of how beneficial mutations lead to a stronger organism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mEAnyway whatever, don't believe it. I can't change your mind. God did it. All the scientists can go home now and we can forget about studying mitochondrial DNA, DNA, RNA and genes because what's the point? Went to a BBQ on Saturday and was surrounded by chemtrail, moon landing was a hoax, 9-11 was an inside job, the MSM is a plague, Blackrock and Vanguard run the world, you name it people. After about 15 minutes of trying to explain how they landed on the moon I gave up. Nothing, NOTHING you say will convince these people. Same goes for people like JS and to a lesser (but similar too I guess) degree you with regards evolution and JS's belief in the age of the earth. (May get sucked back in.) :D:D:D
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Here is a report of someone who has visited the archeological site in Turkey - where archeologists are more and more voicing the view that these are indeed the remains of Noah's Ark. The interview tells of lots of pieces of information all converging to form a solid conclusion. https://youtu.be/FXbbJ3amMOQ?si=eVGKvKRwO5ixqiPH&t=95
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
saw a funny comment
scientists in the 90's: cloning sheep
scientists today: the earth is a globe
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. Last year, you said that you'll only listen to peer-reviewed papers. This video recounts the court case that spanned years that it took to fight the system, fighting the bias in the academic community, to get fairness to operate in science. https://youtu.be/dESkfaURR38?As has been said, Muz and tsf live in a world where there is no bias in opinions, every person is objective and heeds scientific principles, where governments never make mistakes, where people are not corrupted to do wrong for financial gain. The same bias you see in every day life ... that does not change just because the person has a university degree in science. People are the same everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. Last year, you said that you'll only listen to peer-reviewed papers. This video recounts the court case that spanned years that it took to fight the system, fighting the bias in the academic community, to get fairness to operate in science. https://youtu.be/dESkfaURR38?As has been said, Muz and tsf live in a world where there is no bias in opinions, every person is objective and heeds scientific principles, where governments never make mistakes, where people are not corrupted to do wrong for financial gain. The same bias you see in every day life ... that does not change just because the person has a university degree in science. People are the same everywhere. Link to a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal? I'll wait.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. Last year, you said that you'll only listen to peer-reviewed papers. This video recounts the court case that spanned years that it took to fight the system, fighting the bias in the academic community, to get fairness to operate in science. https://youtu.be/dESkfaURR38?As has been said, Muz and tsf live in a world where there is no bias in opinions, every person is objective and heeds scientific principles, where governments never make mistakes, where people are not corrupted to do wrong for financial gain. The same bias you see in every day life ... that does not change just because the person has a university degree in science. People are the same everywhere. Link to a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal? I'll wait. So you don't care that scientific-publishing ... like every area of life where human beings are involved ... is biased against ideas that are not the majority? Not that you don't care, but you don't factor that in. To be part of the sheep herd, it is very comfortable. All you have to do is knock back any ideas that the majority flock doesn't accept. No one can force, or train or teach you to be a truth-seeker. It has to come from the heart. And not everyone seeks truth.
|
|
|
|