The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Alexandra1973 on October 18, 2015, 12:45:56 PM
-
I was reading about the Titanic sinking. I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away. Quite a distance. One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.
(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)
-
I saw a documentary suggesting that extreme refraction due to dramatic temperature changes as they entered the Labrador Current may have been why the lookouts weren't able to see the iceberg until it was too late.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/?no-ist)
This is one of the reasons that I generally don't trust water convexity observations as evidence for or against the shape of the earth.
-
My understanding is that the currents were so still it was hard to see anything.
I also believe that it was sunk on purpose, which would be why Smith was going like a bat out of hell through the ice field. I might post what I've read in another section here, it's rather interesting.
I was just focusing on the distance. That jumped out at me, as I never heard of someone being able to see 10-12 miles ahead.
-
I've seen shoreline structures 12 miles away while viewing from less than a foot above the water. Those structures had a flattened appearance though, and the higher features of the ridge, etc, were not distorted, but noticeably sunken toward the waterline/horizon. The structures were not as flattened and the ridge not as sunken when viewed from higher up. Superior mirage (refraction) conditions.
The lights of the two ships were much higher than my viewing elevation and the shoreline structure's elevations.
-
I remember seeing Toronto from Skylon Tower at Niagara Falls. :) That's about 75 miles if I remember right.
-
I was just focusing on the distance. That jumped out at me, as I never heard of someone being able to see 10-12 miles ahead.
That's why boats have a crow's nest - if the world were flat they wouldn't need one.
Just being 80 feet up means you can see 12 miles - the Titanic's crow's nest was 90 feet high, so it could potentially have been spotted.
A story came out a while ago however, that the binoculars that should have been used in the nest were still locked up....adding to the fact that the 'berg was composed of dark ice, and the sea was very calm probably made it very difficult to see.
-
But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature? If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?
Just a question I have.
-
Apparently, it was a combination of darkness, the binoculars were locked up and it was cold, so the lookout's eyes couldn't focus well.
If you are infinitely high up (and could see an infinite distance, zoom an infinite amount etc.) you can see a little more than half the surface of the planet (thanks to refraction). The math gets more complicated the higher up you are. There are a few online calculators that works well with not too large distances, like this one:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/ (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/)
They are not 100% accurate, but good enough as long as you don't go overboard with the numbers.
-
I was reading about the Titanic sinking. I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away. Quite a distance. One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.
(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)
The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from. Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away. If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from. The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.
I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things. Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.
But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature? If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?
Just a question I have.
How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing. Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing. If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.
-
It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.
Why?
Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.
However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.
The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun over the dome.
It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.
-
Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.
What are you babbling on about now?
higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun over the dome.
- what? Moving away sun?
Why don't you draw us a diagram of how sunsets occur under your ice dome? No, thought not. Just more excuses.
-
It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
and
It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.
From ANYWHERE on Flat Earth disk, you can not see the South Celestial Pole (the center of southern star trails) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/)). Looking south, the arcs would get bigger and bigger (the biggest on stars above Antarctica - 40,000+ mi in diameter). The SCP is directly above the TRUE S. Pole (not Antarctica on a disk - but under the disk - UNDER the N. Pole). This picture is IMPOSSIBLE on any form of disk. The apparent 54 deg angle of the SCP in the photo coincides precisely where it should be on a sphere (S. Georgia Island latitude is 54.25 deg south). This directly disproves ANY flat disk and therefore the Flat Earth fantasy (love WeissEdel's word).
Easiest direct proof/disproof of ANY Flat Earth model/map:
- Get a rotating disk (merry-go-round, Lazy Susan, bicycle wheel, etc.)
- Get a movie camera (cellphone on movie mode)
- Place it directly above the "N. Pole" and take a 10 sec exposure.
- You will see star trails with the NCP in the middle.
- Place it ANYWHERE on the disk facing south and take an exposure.
- You will see ARCs. NO star trails with the SCP in the middle.
- The star trails and the SCP can ONLY be seen UNDER the disk.
BTW, if you did this on a globe, you would see the sky exactly as photographed from EARTH.
Your Sun argument, doesn't matter then... so...
FE'ers, I am curious, if the Earth isn't flat nor spherical (as you keep trying to prove) then what is it?
-
It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.
Why?
Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.
However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.
The angle is minor. It will take equipment other than simply 'thinking you're line of sight is level and looking'. Sunrise and sunset (and moonrise and moonset) are proof of RE because on FE they would appear to change size and never get close to the horizon.
The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun over the dome.
It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.
Did you ever even come up with a working model of how these dome reflections work in order to match reality?
-
It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
Then why havn't you won my $250 challenge? You seemed to give up on that pretty quickly.
-
My understanding is that the currents were so still it was hard to see anything.
I also believe that it was sunk on purpose, which would be why Smith was going like a bat out of hell through the ice field. I might post what I've read in another section here, it's rather interesting.
You are close. You are starting to peek deeper down the rabbit hole.
Just wait until you discover that the "Titanic" did not sink at all.
-
I was reading about the Titanic sinking. I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away. Quite a distance. One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.
(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)
The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from. Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away. If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from. The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.
I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things. Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.
But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature? If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?
Just a question I have.
How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing. Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing. If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.
My calculator also works for objects above sea level, as long as you know the distance the object is at above sea level. "Hidden height" means how much of the bottom of an object is being covered. If the top of the object is lower than the hidden height, it is completely obstructed.
-
Generally speaking you cannot see farther than 300 miles. The air is refracting the light. Depending on temperature, currents etc. you might be able to see 350 miles, you might see fewer than 200 miles.
-
It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.
The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.
Why?
Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.
However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.
The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun over the dome.
It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.
Might want to revisit trigonometry class.....
-
For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all. Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that. The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not. Yep, I'm a geocentrist. ;D
-
I was reading about the Titanic sinking. I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away. Quite a distance. One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.
(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)
The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from. Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away. If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from. The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.
I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things. Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.
But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature? If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?
Just a question I have.
How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing. Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing. If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.
Iceberg my ass , the Titanic never sunk .it was the already damaged & patched up Olympic deliberately scuttled for insurance money . The cover story used was the book the futility , the wreck of the titan.written 14 years earlier .
-
For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all. Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that. The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not. Yep, I'm a geocentrist. ;D
How do you figure?
According to Einstein no experiment can determine if you are moving or how fast you are moving simply because "stationary" doesn't exist. It seems crazy at first glance, but consider this:
Imagine you woke up in an enclosed box with no windows or doors and you want to know if the box is stationary or inside a moving vehicle. You might try to feel any road bumps or terbulemce, but for all you know you are stationary and the box is being bounced around a bit to simulate turbulence or road bumps. Reguardless of weather the box is moving all experiments you do in the box will yield the same results including throwing things, measuring the speed of light, and any other experiment that's possible.
The distinction between things moving and being stationary is just a construct of our minds, and as such it's rather easy into tricking our minds to prove this. Yesterday I was in a car with my dad driving and the car just pulled into a parking lot. I saw the car next to us pulling out of the parking lot and for a moment I could have sworn that we were the ones who were moving, but then I figured out that we were stationary and it was a real mind trip. Even though by your definition I was stationary I felt like I was moving, and if you are on a movong plane you can often feel like you are stationary. The distinction is as much an illusion of the mind as the concept of up and down.
-
Geocentricity: http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html (http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html)
No question the earth stands still. I'm just questioning the shape of it.
-
Geocentricity: http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html (http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html)
No question the earth stands still. I'm just questioning the shape of it.
If Earth stood still then Lunar tides would be only a single bulge rather then two bulges on opposite sides of the Earth. I happen to know a YouTube chanel that thouroughly debunks geocentrism and another that debunks flat Earth.
One thing you have to remember about the Bible is that it has been translated many times and that has messed up a few things. Languages differ a lot, it's not just a matter of replacing one word with another. A great example of this is the Bible discribing the Earth as a circle in one place and yet also mentions the "corners of the Earth". I actually looked into the verse that called Earth a circle and the word used to discribe Earth's shape in the original Hebrew Bible is a word that apears to discribe roundless in general, other possible English translations given were orb, sphere, and ring. You cannot interpret the Bible so literally because it was mataphorical to begin with and then it got translated by imperfect humans who make mistakes.
When the Bible was first translated into English, two translations were independently made. These trnslations differed in many ways because they were imperfectly translated by imperfect people. Two religions formed around these Bibles and they were constantly fighting with each other. Eventually to solve the conflict a bunch of linguists compared individual verses from both Bibles to the original and picked out the most correct translation, and they compiled the King James version of the Bible that most Christians use today. Copies of the original Hebrew bible still exist, and by learning the meaning of the individual words you can rather slowly decode the original meaning with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
-
For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all. Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that. The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not. Yep, I'm a geocentrist. ;D
Umm... Motion is Relative (MoR) so you can be a geocentrist and heliocentrist at the same time depending on your point of view. A person can walk at 3 mph around the equator and see the Sun rise and set (apparent geocentric effects). From the N. Pole, the person is moving 1003 mph and the Sun goes around at 1000 mph. From the Sun, the Earth is rotating and moving slowly across the sky (24.5 Earth days per solar day) and the person is moving 1003 mph around the Earth. All these describe the same events just from different points of view (frames of reference).
First, there are at least 2 geocentric models:
- The old style where everything went around the Earth - with crazy explanations of heavenly bodies moving.
- The EXACT heliocentric model we have as viewed from Earth (being stationary) - MoR
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
-
Geocentricity: http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html (http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html)
No question the earth stands still. I'm just questioning the shape of it.
If you love creation, you might be interested in checking out creation.com. They do not compromise the Bible but they would also disagree with geocentrism. You can read many articles on the subject and similar ones. =)
-
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.
-
Geocentricity: http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html (http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html)
No question the earth stands still. I'm just questioning the shape of it.
If you love creation, you might be interested in checking out creation.com. They do not compromise the Bible but they would also disagree with geocentrism. You can read many articles on the subject and similar ones. =)
A) At least you believe the Earth is a sphere. That gets rid of 99% of the complications the Flat Earth believers have to content with (viewing the South Celestial Pole and boat travel time/distances).
B) There are still problems with the Earth being stationary.
- Ocean currents and hurricanes come to mind. What causes MILLIONS of tons of water to circulate in opposite directions in different hemispheres.
- Foucault's Pendulum. Why does it move?
- Possible weight differences between an object at the N. Pole and equator (I don't know if this has been done).
These would be some indicators that the Earth is moving.
-
Geocentricity: http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html (http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html)
I also believe in the Bible. I believe the Theory of Evolution is false. But people try to put a spin on things that are not necessarily true.
If the universe IS huge, that does not diminish our importance in the slightest. We are the ONLY thing alive in the whole universe. Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life". This has not been shown anywhere in nature or in laboratory. THE Biological Law is that everything came from a previous living thing - without exception. Biblically, we come from a LIVING God - life is the breath of God.
If God did not create the heavens on the 4th day, nothing would change. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" - Shakespeare. The heavens are a fancy backdrop.
So, I have no problem with heliocentric models.
-
We are the ONLY thing alive in the whole universe.
(https://assets.rbl.ms/1557379/980x.jpg)
Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".
That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
There are still problems with the Earth being stationary.
Ocean currents and hurricanes come to mind. What causes MILLIONS of tons of water to circulate in opposite directions in different hemispheres.
Foucault's Pendulum. Why does it move?
Possible weight differences between an object at the N. Pole and equator (I don't know if this has been done).
The first two don't require the Earth to move, so long as something around the Earth moves. The details of this in a working model will take a lot to get into (possible but there's a lot of framework to build up before it can be explained, which'll bore anyone reading the thread: I have an open invitation to readers to PM me if they want the details of the only working FE model) but if viewed purely hypothetically it's clear. Scientifically there is no difference whether we take the Earth as stationary, or take some other source as stationary, so long as there is an explanation for the force.
Weight differences are answerable too. On a FE it's simpler, as the force you call gravity would be different. I can only wish luck to geocentric REers.
This is a rare post of mine, you can probably find a lot of REers who'll agree with at least a couple of points. That never happens, savor it.
-
A few formulas of interest.
CURVATURE
C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians
R = 6378,164 km
s = distance
VISUAL OBSTACLE
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)
BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R
BD = visual obstacle
h = altitude of observer
To obtain the formula for the maximum difference of level between two points, we simply modify the first equation:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20090901193137im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/diferenceoflevel.gif)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20090901193137im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/topographer.gif)
As an example, let us use the distance in the Columbus' journal, 90 km:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20090901193137/http://geocities.com/levelwater/colonarc.gif)
-
Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".
That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Absolutely wrong. It is the foundation of the theory of evolution.
Actually, if life can't come from non-life, there is no biological evolution (i.e. where did life come from? God? Aliens?) - just religion that people "hope"/"wish" is true. There is no life on other planets unless God or aliens put it there. Scientifically (i.e. measurably, repeatably, verifiably - I know it is scary), it has to be proved to be able to happen, even once... (and disprove, in the process, the Biological Law that "Life comes from previous living things" - without exception). Actually, I am VERY surprised any scientist would even consider a theory that blows off a scientific LAW without any scientific proof.
It is just another hand-waving theory like the Flat Earth theory.
The first two don't require the Earth to move, so long as something around the Earth moves. The details of this in a working model will take a lot to get into (possible but there's a lot of framework to build up before it can be explained, which'll bore anyone reading the thread: I have an open invitation to readers to PM me if they want the details of the only working FE model) but if viewed purely hypothetically it's clear. Scientifically there is no difference whether we take the Earth as stationary, or take some other source as stationary, so long as there is an explanation for the force.
Weight differences are answerable too. On a FE it's simpler, as the force you call gravity would be different. I can only wish luck to geocentric REers.
We need to know what that something is (I am 100% sure every FEer would like at least something to explain their stationary "model"). Unless those can be demonstrated, it implies the Earth is moving.
-
Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".
That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Absolutely wrong. It is the foundation of the theory of evolution.
No, it is not. Evolution is about the development of existing life. Even REers know this.
Evolution couldn't happen without abiogenesis. And computer programming couldn't happen without the existence of a microchip, or for that matter the creation of the universe. Does that mean the creation of the universe is the foundation of computer programming?
There is no law that says life can only come from life. Evolution is about the complexity of life. It has nothing to do with the ultimate origin. Abiogenesis is a different topic. Feel free to read about it. There is no forerunner among the theories, but there are theories. Feel free to believe God created life, or whatever you want. Evolution is still a completely different topic.
We need to know what that something is (I am 100% sure every FEer would like at least something to explain their stationary "model"). Unless those can be demonstrated, it implies the Earth is moving.
My DE model knows and well defines what the 'something' is.
-
sandokhan, most calculations, like the one you are presenting, are in an ideal world.
The biggest problem I have with "line of sight" arguments concerning the horizon is there are lots of factors involved when people observe things.
- Density of atmosphere.
- Temperature of air (inversions).
- Water evaporating.
- Waves.
Some combination of effects can do extraordinary things (super refraction) (or radios hearing broadcasts from the other side of the Earth under the right conditions).
Unfortunately, we use water to prove something is horizontal. This leads to the factors above. This can muddy things in real life. So you get statements like "well I saw this or that from the top of something" - many times which can't be duplicated.
The Rectilinear experiment, that has never been refuted, actually shows the Earth is beyond flat but concave (I am still looking into it).
-
No, it is not. Evolution is about the development of existing life. Even REers know this.
Evolution couldn't happen without abiogenesis. And computer programming couldn't happen without the existence of a microchip, or for that matter the creation of the universe. Does that mean the creation of the universe is the foundation of computer programming?
There is no law that says life can only come from life. Evolution is about the complexity of life. It has nothing to do with the ultimate origin. Abiogenesis is a different topic. Feel free to read about it. There is no forerunner among the theories, but there are theories. Feel free to believe God created life, or whatever you want. Evolution is still a completely different topic.
Actually, you are correct, my misuse of the word evolution. I meant abiogenesis. But, evolution does depend on it. If God created life some 6000 years ago, there would not be time for anything to evolve. BTW, there is micro-evolution (adaption - 100% true) and macro-evolution (one thing turning into another - cat to dog - 100% false). Without proof of abiogenesis, macro-evolution becomes meaningless.
The difference between a fact and a law is that a fact is a one-off event. A law is universal in scope. Facts are used in courts of law to find people innocent or guilt and so should not be ignored. Laws apply universally to everything (e.g. Laws of Thermodynamics) so definitely should not be ignored. Unless you can provide an exception, "Life comes from previous living things" IS a LAW (universal).
-
Actually, you are correct, my misuse of the word evolution. I meant abiogenesis. But, evolution does depend on it. If God created life some 6000 years ago, there would not be time for anything to evolve. BTW, there is micro-evolution (adaption - 100% true) and macro-evolution (one thing turning into another - cat to dog - 100% false). Without proof of abiogenesis, macro-evolution becomes meaningless.
There's no difference. Macroevolution is microevolution, only on a larger scale. There's no reason changes wouldn't add up. God did not create life 6000 years ago, recorded human history predates that.
The difference between a fact and a law is that a fact is a one-off event. A law is universal in scope. Facts are used in courts of law to find people innocent or guilt and so should not be ignored. Laws apply universally to everything (e.g. Laws of Thermodynamics) so definitely should not be ignored. Unless you can provide an exception, "Life comes from previous living things" IS a LAW (universal).
I can happily provide an exception: the natural origin of single-celled life on Earth millenia ago.
This is not circular. We know life has developed: I could just as easily say "God does not create life," is a law. Otherwise, I would question your definition of law. it seems to be "We have not osberved something, therefore it cannot happen." I've never observed a turtle dunked in liquid nitrogen and then thrown in a baseball game and smashed, that doesn't mean the laws of the universe conspire to make it impossible. It's just a rare event.
However, this seems to be getting off topic.
-
Actually, you are correct, my misuse of the word evolution. I meant abiogenesis. But, evolution does depend on it. If God created life some 6000 years ago, there would not be time for anything to evolve. BTW, there is micro-evolution (adaption - 100% true) and macro-evolution (one thing turning into another - cat to dog - 100% false). Without proof of abiogenesis, macro-evolution becomes meaningless.
There's no difference. Macroevolution is microevolution, only on a larger scale. There's no reason changes wouldn't add up. God did not create life 6000 years ago, recorded human history predates that.
The difference between a fact and a law is that a fact is a one-off event. A law is universal in scope. Facts are used in courts of law to find people innocent or guilt and so should not be ignored. Laws apply universally to everything (e.g. Laws of Thermodynamics) so definitely should not be ignored. Unless you can provide an exception, "Life comes from previous living things" IS a LAW (universal).
I can happily provide an exception: the natural origin of single-celled life on Earth millenia ago.
This is not circular. We know life has developed: I could just as easily say "God does not create life," is a law. Otherwise, I would question your definition of law. it seems to be "We have not osberved something, therefore it cannot happen." I've never observed a turtle dunked in liquid nitrogen and then thrown in a baseball game and smashed, that doesn't mean the laws of the universe conspire to make it impossible. It's just a rare event.
However, this seems to be getting off topic.
Like turtles? :) It's okay, I do too.
You're right, this is getting off-topic, and I'm sure evolution has been tired out in other subjects around here. I've done my best to avoid them because it's such a loaded topic and I'm a busy mamma of a baby and little girl. But I do feel a certain sense of duty to point you in an informative direction, if you aren't completely closed-minded about creation. Some people have an emotional aversion to God, and I don't know you, so I can't know where you're at. But this is a subject I am incredibly passionate about, especially because most people really don't know that much about evolution or creation.
I actually don't like the word micro-evolution, because it's confusing--it's really not the same as macro-evolution at all. Speciation does not require the same kind of information as kinds changing into other kinds.
Secondly, do you know how we have "recorded history" that "predates that?" You might be interested in reading about dating methods and how they really work on creation.com. You may laugh at the suggestion, but these are real scientists--biologists, cosmologists, geologists, etc., and they aren't afraid to share what they know. The most interesting recent article is about the find of dino bones that were not fossilized. That simply cannot happen if they went extinct millions of years ago.
So what happens if man's measurements of recorded history are faulty and contradict what we find, as shown on creation.com? We have written recorded history that seems to explain our world much better. If you would like to carry on this conversation further, perhaps a PM so as not to bother others who don't wish to see this subject. =)
-
I actually don't like the word micro-evolution, because it's confusing--it's really not the same as macro-evolution at all. Speciation does not require the same kind of information as kinds changing into other kinds.
If you believe that, it isn't me who needs to learn. It's all a question of degree. Species is a human label, with grey areas, not a naturally developed definition.
Secondly, do you know how we have "recorded history" that "predates that?" You might be interested in reading about dating methods and how they really work on creation.com.
It's more than dating. I distrust scientists, I don't distrust directly recorded history.
My only aversion to God is logical. As you say, however, it's off topic.
-
There's no difference. Macroevolution is microevolution, only on a larger scale.
There is a HUGE difference. They are not the same. But I will stop too cause this is off topic.
-
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.
In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.
In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?
-
I actually don't like the word micro-evolution, because it's confusing--it's really not the same as macro-evolution at all. Speciation does not require the same kind of information as kinds changing into other kinds.
If you believe that, it isn't me who needs to learn. It's all a question of degree. Species is a human label, with grey areas, not a naturally developed definition.
Secondly, do you know how we have "recorded history" that "predates that?" You might be interested in reading about dating methods and how they really work on creation.com.
It's more than dating. I distrust scientists, I don't distrust directly recorded history.
My only aversion to God is logical. As you say, however, it's off topic.
You distrust scientists, but you trust what they say when they measure things and the methods of dating? Or are you saying that you measure things yourself? Are you a FE'er? Because I'm curious what your definition of "logic" is. And I mean that with respect, but I do believe it's a relative term depending on who you are and what your presuppositions and worldview are. I know I keep mentioning it, but creation.com is a great place for people who love logic. They are able to explain the problem of macro-evolution in a very logical, satisfactory way. And this world doesn't make sense without God. It's not logical. There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all. Oh well I could go on and on I guess lol. I just don't get how one can really dismiss God based on logic. It makes no sense to me.
-
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.
In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.
In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?
So in the northern hemiplain summer the sun would have to move slower so the day would still be 24 hours. How come it still moves at the same speed when viewed from down under.
-
Come to think about it, there is no way a shadow could move 1/4 deg/ min down here either. You people are full of it!!!.
-
sandokhan, most calculations, like the one you are presenting, are in an ideal world.
The biggest problem I have with "line of sight" arguments concerning the horizon is there are lots of factors involved when people observe things.
- Density of atmosphere.
- Temperature of air (inversions).
- Water evaporating.
- Waves.
Those calculations are a basic introduction to curvature measurement, and they are correct.
In most cases, this is as far as one needs to investigate (no need to bring refraction into question), as I refer to the photographs/videos taken from Tarifa (Strait of Gibraltar), from Cap Gris Nez (across the English Channel), or lake Ontario (Toronto seen from top to bottom from Grimsby), which can be found in my Advanced FET thread.
For special cases, where terrestrial refraction/looming/ducting questions need to be addressed, I have also posted the following formulas, as they apply to two very important cases: Oshawa (as seen from Grimsby) and Milwaukee/Racine (as seen from across the lake, Holland).
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61856.msg1624868#msg1624868 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61856.msg1624868#msg1624868)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587)
-
In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?
I refer you to what you said earlier. The mechanism is intricately related to many other aspects of DET, and cannot be explained without explaining the rest: you'd need to understand aether and the Earth's shape. With no background in the theory, I can't teach you the details of what follows. I refer you to my sig.
-
You distrust scientists, but you trust what they say when they measure things and the methods of dating?
That's not what I said. I referred specifically to recorded history, not dating.
They are able to explain the problem of macro-evolution in a very logical, satisfactory way.
They don't understand the theory then, it's that simple. Just because something is tricky to visualize doesn't mean it's wrong.
And this world doesn't make sense without God. It's not logical. There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all. Oh well I could go on and on I guess lol. I just don't get how one can really dismiss God based on logic. It makes no sense to me.
There's a lot to say, but I'll limit my response to just what you brought up. Can you explain why God gives moral value, purpose and a difference between right and wrong: and does so in a way which no other standard can match?
-
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.
In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.
In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?
So in the northern hemiplain summer the sun would have to move slower so the day would still be 24 hours. How come it still moves at the same speed when viewed from down under.
True only in the uniplanar model. I refe ryou to my sig. You're asking after elements of DET which can't be explained until you have a firm understanding of an underlying principle, and the shape of the Earth.
-
As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?
Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.
In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.
In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?
So in the northern hemiplain summer the sun would have to move slower so the day would still be 24 hours. How come it still moves at the same speed when viewed from down under.
True only in the uniplanar model. I refe ryou to my sig. You're asking after elements of DET which can't be explained until you have a firm understanding of an underlying principle, and the shape of the Earth.
With regards to the RE model, do you agree that the earth's rotation on its axis once every 24 hours accounts for the sun's movement, resulting in periods of light and dark? We see this 'axial rotation' phenomenon in other celestial bodies within our solar system, so why would it be a big leap to accept that this 'theory' is actually what is causing the sun's movement on earth?
-
With regards to the RE model, do you agree that the earth's rotation on its axis once every 24 hours accounts for the sun's movement, resulting in periods of light and dark? We see this 'axial rotation' phenomenon in other celestial bodies within our solar system, so why would it be a big leap to accept that this 'theory' is actually what is causing the sun's movement on earth?
In the RE model, that is true. In the DE and FE, it is not.
-
You distrust scientists, but you trust what they say when they measure things and the methods of dating?
That's not what I said. I referred specifically to recorded history, not dating.
They are able to explain the problem of macro-evolution in a very logical, satisfactory way.
They don't understand the theory then, it's that simple. Just because something is tricky to visualize doesn't mean it's wrong.
And this world doesn't make sense without God. It's not logical. There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all. Oh well I could go on and on I guess lol. I just don't get how one can really dismiss God based on logic. It makes no sense to me.
There's a lot to say, but I'll limit my response to just what you brought up. Can you explain why God gives moral value, purpose and a difference between right and wrong: and does so in a way which no other standard can match?
I must not be understanding what "recorded history" you're referring to.
If you go to creation.com, I'm sure you'll find that they understand macro evolution very well, and may in fact teach you something you didn't know. As I said before, these are biologists and the like. They have to know this stuff. It's their job.
Can you explain a little more by what you meant when you said "no other standard can match"? If you mean that God is perfect and demands perfection, this goes back to the beginning, when God created man to be perfect, without the inclination for doing wrong. However, he gave them a choice whether or not to trust him or give in to temptation. Their choice to disobey was the beginning of death, but God sent a sacrifice to conquer death, God in flesh, Jesus. So now even when we sin, if we accept his sacrifice and believe in it, we're covered as if we had never sinned. This is why we have eternal life. Does this answer that question?
-
With regards to the RE model, do you agree that the earth's rotation on its axis once every 24 hours accounts for the sun's movement, resulting in periods of light and dark? We see this 'axial rotation' phenomenon in other celestial bodies within our solar system, so why would it be a big leap to accept that this 'theory' is actually what is causing the sun's movement on earth?
In the RE model, that is true. In the DE and FE, it is not.
Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.
Look at my comment on "PM me" in the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" thread. You will see why he won't post it or discuss it here. It can be posted - a picture is worth a 1000 words - especially a 2D one.
-
I must not be understanding what "recorded history" you're referring to.
Recorded history. What else does it mean? Humans have been making records sicne we first evolved.
Can you explain a little more by what you meant when you said "no other standard can match"?
You said only God could provide such things. if this is so, there must be something special about the purpose, moral value, moral system... God sets down. I fail to see why the rest of your answer is relevant.
Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.
I've given you the means to hear it. I'm choosing not to try and explain a lengthy model in every single thread when I'm asked. To explain the Sun, you'll need to understand a fundamental principle, the set-up of the Earth, and then I can answer the question. That's a lot of text, and you'll likely need to ask questions for clarification throughout. A forum post will just confuse matters, especially with the perpetual trolling that goes on here.
Science is taught this way. If you refuse to learn the model, it is entirely your fault, I will take none of the blame. You claim there is no model, why do you refuse to find out?
-
I must not be understanding what "recorded history" you're referring to.
Recorded history. What else does it mean? Humans have been making records sicne we first evolved.
Can you explain a little more by what you meant when you said "no other standard can match"?
You said only God could provide such things. if this is so, there must be something special about the purpose, moral value, moral system... God sets down. I fail to see why the rest of your answer is relevant.
Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.
I've given you the means to hear it. I'm choosing not to try and explain a lengthy model in every single thread when I'm asked. To explain the Sun, you'll need to understand a fundamental principle, the set-up of the Earth, and then I can answer the question. That's a lot of text, and you'll likely need to ask questions for clarification throughout. A forum post will just confuse matters, especially with the perpetual trolling that goes on here.
Science is taught this way. If you refuse to learn the model, it is entirely your fault, I will take none of the blame. You claim there is no model, why do you refuse to find out?
So what is it in human recorded history that makes you believe in evolution?
So what you're asking is why God set up a moral code in the first place? It was the way we would've been, naturally, without any evil. Evil is selfishness. Perfect morality is basically the absence of selfishness and the presence of pure love of others and of God. Now am I closer to what you were asking?
-
So what is it in human recorded history that makes you believe in evolution?
Changing the topic? Human recorded history was relating to the age of the Earth, not evolution. Evolution is accepted because we directly observe species altering over generations, and it is trivial to conclude those changes would add up over large tiemscales.
So what you're asking is why God set up a moral code in the first place? It was the way we would've been, naturally, without any evil. Evil is selfishness. Perfect morality is basically the absence of selfishness and the presence of pure love of others and of God. Now am I closer to what you were asking?
No, that is not even close to what I was asking. Are you intentionally doing this?
Why are the moral values/standards and purpose given by God different to the standards, purpose etc given by anything else? Why can only God provide then, as you claimed?
You said "There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all."
I quoted this, and asked you why. You completely ignored it. I asked the same thing again, you seem to take completely inexplicable routes of understanding. I am asking you to justify this claim of yours.
-
So what is it in human recorded history that makes you believe in evolution?
Changing the topic? Human recorded history was relating to the age of the Earth, not evolution. Evolution is accepted because we directly observe species altering over generations, and it is trivial to conclude those changes would add up over large tiemscales.
So what you're asking is why God set up a moral code in the first place? It was the way we would've been, naturally, without any evil. Evil is selfishness. Perfect morality is basically the absence of selfishness and the presence of pure love of others and of God. Now am I closer to what you were asking?
No, that is not even close to what I was asking. Are you intentionally doing this?
Why are the moral values/standards and purpose given by God different to the standards, purpose etc given by anything else? Why can only God provide then, as you claimed?
You said "There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all."
I quoted this, and asked you why. You completely ignored it. I asked the same thing again, you seem to take completely inexplicable routes of understanding. I am asking you to justify this claim of yours.
You said that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old because we have "recorded history" that "predates that" which is how we got into the subject of dating methods. I would like to know what records you are referring to, and how you know how old they are.
I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your morality question. I'll give it another shot. You are asking why we would have no morality or purpose to life without God? Because if we are merely animals, the idea of right and wrong is an illusion. Without God, morality is nothing more than chemicals fizzing around in our heads, because how can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are no oughts in chemistry. What is, is, that's all. Evolutionary materialism means no logical basis for objective meaning, morals, or purpose.
-
You said that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old because we have "recorded history" that "predates that" which is how we got into the subject of dating methods. I would like to know what records you are referring to, and how you know how old they are.
Human history. Events are recorded, relative dates are specified, it's not hard to piece together a decent age.
I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your morality question. I'll give it another shot. You are asking why we would have no morality or purpose to life without God? Because if we are merely animals, the idea of right and wrong is an illusion. Without God, morality is nothing more than chemicals fizzing around in our heads, because how can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are no oughts in chemistry. What is, is, that's all. Evolutionary materialism means no logical basis for objective meaning, morals, or purpose.
That's closer, but that's not an answer. I am asked what the difference is. If we have some standard A of morality/purpose derived without God, and some standard B derived from or with God, what is the meaningful difference? Is it just 'because God said it' and if so, why? What traits does God have/what traits does God give to the standard to make it special?
(Also, the is-ought problem is outdated. It's trivial to derive an ought from an is. if 'is' gives us the end goal, it's easy to determine what we 'ought' to do to reach it).
-
You said that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old because we have "recorded history" that "predates that" which is how we got into the subject of dating methods. I would like to know what records you are referring to, and how you know how old they are.
Human history. Events are recorded, relative dates are specified, it's not hard to piece together a decent age.
If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.
I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your morality question. I'll give it another shot. You are asking why we would have no morality or purpose to life without God? Because if we are merely animals, the idea of right and wrong is an illusion. Without God, morality is nothing more than chemicals fizzing around in our heads, because how can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are no oughts in chemistry. What is, is, that's all. Evolutionary materialism means no logical basis for objective meaning, morals, or purpose.
That's closer, but that's not an answer. I am asked what the difference is. If we have some standard A of morality/purpose derived without God, and some standard B derived from or with God, what is the meaningful difference? Is it just 'because God said it' and if so, why? What traits does God have/what traits does God give to the standard to make it special?
(Also, the is-ought problem is outdated. It's trivial to derive an ought from an is. if 'is' gives us the end goal, it's easy to determine what we 'ought' to do to reach it).
But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.
-
If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.
Why are you claiming millions, now? I was specifically referring to the 6000 year claim.
Millions of years is justified by the genetic similarities between humans and the great apes, proving we shared a common ancestor. The best example is a fused chromosome, showing either God is a liar, or we evolved.
But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.
That seems like an attempt at an answer, though you seemed to focus more on my is-ought aside: but why would God's morality be objective rather than subjective? Someone could very easily choose to disregard it. Or if the fact it still exists even if someone chooses to disregard it renders it transcendent, then the same is true of every single moral statement: the rule will not alter just because you wish to ignore it.
If it stands out because of the end result of the code, then that doesn't require God.
If you want me to go in-depth on morality, I'm happy to, but you may want to start a thread in PR&S.
-
If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.
Why are you claiming millions, now? I was specifically referring to the 6000 year claim.
Millions of years is justified by the genetic similarities between humans and the great apes, proving we shared a common ancestor. The best example is a fused chromosome, showing either God is a liar, or we evolved.
Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated (http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated) and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry.) In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm)
But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.
That seems like an attempt at an answer, though you seemed to focus more on my is-ought aside: but why would God's morality be objective rather than subjective? Someone could very easily choose to disregard it. Or if the fact it still exists even if someone chooses to disregard it renders it transcendent, then the same is true of every single moral statement: the rule will not alter just because you wish to ignore it.
If it stands out because of the end result of the code, then that doesn't require God.
If you want me to go in-depth on morality, I'm happy to, but you may want to start a thread in PR&S.
God's morality would be objective because it's the only true morality. We disregard it every day. We lose our temper, we are rude, we wish ill of each other, etc. Even minorly, we go against what we know is right every day. We know and understand morality, but we still choose not to follow it every day. This makes sense if you know that there is an objective morality. But an objective morality requires a moral law-giver. Otherwise, morality is merely subjective and chemicals fizzing around in our heads. If you wish to start a new thread with me to go deeper, that is fine with me, if there's indeed more to be said.
-
Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated (http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated) and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry.) In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm)
There's no dating involved in judging a common ancestor: just look at the speed of evolution.
As for thos elinks, the first has paranoia, and the explanation for the fused chromosome is completely inexplicable. It does not explain a thing. If anything, it seems to claim God designed humans and apes to deliberately mislead us into thinking evolution occurred. If that's what you want to believe...
God's morality would be objective because it's the only true morality. We disregard it every day. We lose our temper, we are rude, we wish ill of each other, etc. Even minorly, we go against what we know is right every day. We know and understand morality, but we still choose not to follow it every day. This makes sense if you know that there is an objective morality. But an objective morality requires a moral law-giver. Otherwise, morality is merely subjective and chemicals fizzing around in our heads. If you wish to start a new thread with me to go deeper, that is fine with me, if there's indeed more to be said.
Why does a moral law-giver make it special? Anyone can give a law: anyone cand efine "This is good," or "This is bad," with or without God. All that would alter, presumably, is how justified you think the claim is. But why would God be special? Claiming "It's the only true morality," is circular: that's your conclusion, but why is it the only true morality?
-
Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated (http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated) and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry.) In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm)
There's no dating involved in judging a common ancestor: just look at the speed of evolution.
As for thos elinks, the first has paranoia, and the explanation for the fused chromosome is completely inexplicable. It does not explain a thing. If anything, it seems to claim God designed humans and apes to deliberately mislead us into thinking evolution occurred. If that's what you want to believe...
Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated (http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated) and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry.) In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm)
There's no dating involved in judging a common ancestor: just look at the speed of evolution.
As for thos elinks, the first has paranoia, and the explanation for the fused chromosome is completely inexplicable. It does not explain a thing. If anything, it seems to claim God designed humans and apes to deliberately mislead us into thinking evolution occurred. If that's what you want to believe...
Why does a moral law-giver make it special? Anyone can give a law: anyone cand efine "This is good," or "This is bad," with or without God. All that would alter, presumably, is how justified you think the claim is. But why would God be special? Claiming "It's the only true morality," is circular: that's your conclusion, but why is it the only true morality?
We can't "look at the speed of evolution" because we cannot look at evolution. Speciation, however, happens quite rapidly.
Facts, even though they may make a different viewpoint look bad from time to time, does not mean someone is paranoid. If you believe NASA is lying to us about the shape of our planet, I dare say you haven't the right to point at other's alleged paranoia. Speaking of which, how can you pick and choose what scientists lie to you about? Either you believe what they say or you don't. It can't just be what feels good and sounds good or is fun to believe. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Hope I haven't misjudged you. The third article was very short, and didn't explain much, I agree. Here is a rebuttal to an argument that was similar to yours in the comments:
"Humans having 23 chromosome pairs rather than 24 is neither evidence for or against evolution, nor for or against creation, as my article makes clear. Miller just assumed it was evidence for evolution, as he was driven by a paradigm.
There are millions of differences between human and chimpanzee DNA, making it clear that we are not related. In the Y chromosome alone, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa. According to Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)
Natural selection could not possibly have fixed so many mutations into an evolving human population in the five to ten million years during which apes allegedly evolved into humans. (See Haldane’s dilemma has not been solved.) Evolutionists tried to get round this problem by arguing that much of our DNA is junk and was therefore not fixed in the population by natural selection. However, this argument, too, is falling apart as more and more functions of ‘junk DNA’ are discovered (see More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’.) This is certainly ‘a thumb in the eye of evolutionists’.
The scientific problems with evolutionary theory are enormous and fundamental. Most people have no idea that this is true because these kinds of facts are not communicated to the general public in the media or educational institutions."
This article may satisfy you better: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1) and then there's a sequel to that one: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2)
What I tried to say earlier is that it's God's morality because it's based on who he is. It defines his character because he IS love. Love defines the morality. Good defines the morality. Not the other way around. Is that more clear? The only way anyone can define a law is by deciding what is good and bad based on how it suits them and gets them where they want to go. It would be based on the chemical reactions in their brains, but there would be no objective good or bad for any logical reason. Yet we will continue to give to charities, and firemen will continue to save babies. Because we know that good goes beyond feelings in our brains, don't we? But if morality is subjective, it has no authority over us. We can't rightly say that the murderer or rapist is wrong, because ultimately, there is no wrong.
-
We can't "look at the speed of evolution" because we cannot look at evolution. Speciation, however, happens quite rapidly.
Facts, even though they may make a different viewpoint look bad from time to time, does not mean someone is paranoid. If you believe NASA is lying to us about the shape of our planet, I dare say you haven't the right to point at other's alleged paranoia. Speaking of which, how can you pick and choose what scientists lie to you about? Either you believe what they say or you don't. It can't just be what feels good and sounds good or is fun to believe.
I believe when tehre is a motive for a conspiracy. It's just blind paranoia to do anything different. NASA would lie if space travel was impossible: no one would lie, especially abotu readily verifiable things like evolution. We can look at evolution just fine: Mendel did, famously.
This article may satisfy you better: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1) and then there's a sequel to that one: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2)
You linked to those before. Simply put, they misrepresent several fundamentals of evolution, as well as the argument itself. As for Haldane's dilemma, he admitted his calculations were nonsense, so you've got all you need to know about the honesty of anyone who uses that arguemtn already.
What I tried to say earlier is that it's God's morality because it's based on who he is. It defines his character because he IS love. Love defines the morality. Good defines the morality. Not the other way around. Is that more clear? The only way anyone can define a law is by deciding what is good and bad based on how it suits them and gets them where they want to go. It would be based on the chemical reactions in their brains, but there would be no objective good or bad for any logical reason. Yet we will continue to give to charities, and firemen will continue to save babies. Because we know that good goes beyond feelings in our brains, don't we? But if morality is subjective, it has no authority over us. We can't rightly say that the murderer or rapist is wrong, because ultimately, there is no wrong.
It sounds like you're just using the fact God is separate to humans: but of course, humans can easily disregard him. Social morality is well understood (Doing good because to do otherwise would wreck everything we've built), and even beyond that our morality is notably different to God's. It's easy to disbelieve than steal, or murder, or lie... And there's no prohibition against fornication and other more esoteric sins.
Beyond that though, the most important this is: how do you define objective? Without mentioning God (otherwise what you say is circular), what is it that's required for a system of morality to be objective?
-
We can't "look at the speed of evolution" because we cannot look at evolution. Speciation, however, happens quite rapidly.
Facts, even though they may make a different viewpoint look bad from time to time, does not mean someone is paranoid. If you believe NASA is lying to us about the shape of our planet, I dare say you haven't the right to point at other's alleged paranoia. Speaking of which, how can you pick and choose what scientists lie to you about? Either you believe what they say or you don't. It can't just be what feels good and sounds good or is fun to believe.
I believe when tehre is a motive for a conspiracy. It's just blind paranoia to do anything different. NASA would lie if space travel was impossible: no one would lie, especially abotu readily verifiable things like evolution. We can look at evolution just fine: Mendel did, famously.
This article may satisfy you better: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1) and then there's a sequel to that one: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2)
You linked to those before. Simply put, they misrepresent several fundamentals of evolution, as well as the argument itself. As for Haldane's dilemma, he admitted his calculations were nonsense, so you've got all you need to know about the honesty of anyone who uses that arguemtn already.
What I tried to say earlier is that it's God's morality because it's based on who he is. It defines his character because he IS love. Love defines the morality. Good defines the morality. Not the other way around. Is that more clear? The only way anyone can define a law is by deciding what is good and bad based on how it suits them and gets them where they want to go. It would be based on the chemical reactions in their brains, but there would be no objective good or bad for any logical reason. Yet we will continue to give to charities, and firemen will continue to save babies. Because we know that good goes beyond feelings in our brains, don't we? But if morality is subjective, it has no authority over us. We can't rightly say that the murderer or rapist is wrong, because ultimately, there is no wrong.
It sounds like you're just using the fact God is separate to humans: but of course, humans can easily disregard him. Social morality is well understood (Doing good because to do otherwise would wreck everything we've built), and even beyond that our morality is notably different to God's. It's easy to disbelieve than steal, or murder, or lie... And there's no prohibition against fornication and other more esoteric sins.
Beyond that though, the most important this is: how do you define objective? Without mentioning God (otherwise what you say is circular), what is it that's required for a system of morality to be objective?
The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Mendel did not see a kind shift to a different kind. Again, there is a difference between changes within a species and changes across species, changing a kind into a different kind. But if you refuse to see my point there, we should probably agree to disagree, as it's clearly not getting anywhere useful.
Can you give me an example of how they misrepresent evolution? I'd be happy to clarify any confusion in detail, if you wish.
All I'm really trying to say regarding objective morality is that for morality to be objective, there has to be a real right and wrong. It wouldn't be an illusion based on chemicals, feelings, whatever, it would be based on the fact that to murder is wrong, just the same as 1+1=2. There is a truth that goes beyond illusions and chemicals that say "this feels good, so it must be good." Indeed, there are certain immediate gratifications that have unpleasant consequences, such as the kind you mentioned when you mentioned fornication. Yes we certainly can disregard certain rules that God sets up for our own good, but we all still reap the consequences. Disease, unwanted pregnancies, emotional hardships, are all consequences for being promiscuous, but obviously we care more about our immediate gratification in a lot of circumstances. Certain sins are not as obvious as others, but there are consequences for any that God warns us against. Whether or not we disregard them, they still exist.
So just to be clear on your question, I'll give you an example. I'll mention the firefighters saving babies. They save babies because it's right, because without them we'd fall apart (what we built?), or because it feels good? And now I have another question for you: Why would we want to build whatever it is we've built, evolutionarily speaking?
-
The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Mendel did not see a kind shift to a different kind. Again, there is a difference between changes within a species and changes across species, changing a kind into a different kind. But if you refuse to see my point there, we should probably agree to disagree, as it's clearly not getting anywhere useful.
Small changes add up, it's that simple. He didn't see a change to a different kind because if he had, that would disprove the theory of evolution. What he saw was small-scale changes, and certain traits becoming more pronounced, while others were less so: this is the definition of evolution. On a larger scale, what do you imagine would happen?
Can you give me an example of how they misrepresent evolution? I'd be happy to clarify any confusion in detail, if you wish.
There's no confusion. They're very clear. The first link treats the urban legend of junk DNA as though it was a serious scientific proposition (you have to wonder why they distrust biologists so much up until that statement), and there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution is gradual, and how such traits are passed on: and it focuses on a tellingly weak case of the argument. The fact humans have a fused chromosome at all (as we undeniably do) while all the great apes, not just chimps, have one pair extra...
All I'm really trying to say regarding objective morality is that for morality to be objective, there has to be a real right and wrong. It wouldn't be an illusion based on chemicals, feelings, whatever, it would be based on the fact that to murder is wrong, just the same as 1+1=2. There is a truth that goes beyond illusions and chemicals that say "this feels good, so it must be good." Indeed, there are certain immediate gratifications that have unpleasant consequences, such as the kind you mentioned when you mentioned fornication. Yes we certainly can disregard certain rules that God sets up for our own good, but we all still reap the consequences. Disease, unwanted pregnancies, emotional hardships, are all consequences for being promiscuous, but obviously we care more about our immediate gratification in a lot of circumstances. Certain sins are not as obvious as others, but there are consequences for any that God warns us against. Whether or not we disregard them, they still exist.
I'm easily capable of working on the Sabbath: defying the Ten Commandments.
I'm not sure why you're decided the only possible system of morality is based on chemicals/feelings. Certainly, it's thought of in those terms: that's how humans think of everything, no matter which worldview you adhere to. It seems that any axiom-based system of morality adheres to the requirements you set up; I just define "Suffering is bad," to be a moral statement: and that's not going to alter. Even if I choose to disregard it, it won't alter: and it defines right and wrong.
What makes that any different to defining, say "God's commands are good?"
So just to be clear on your question, I'll give you an example. I'll mention the firefighters saving babies. They save babies because it's right, because without them we'd fall apart (what we built?), or because it feels good? And now I have another question for you: Why would we want to build whatever it is we've built, evolutionarily speaking?
It's rarely just one reason. They'd save babies because it is good for humanity: it's doing good. Certainly, this would feel good: they'd be paid, applauded etc, but even for all of this, the reason such an act is admired is because it is understood to be good: beneficial.
Evolutionary speaking, life is for living: we're to survive, and survive well. We're to live, and make life good; that's the only 'command' of evolution.
-
The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Mendel did not see a kind shift to a different kind. Again, there is a difference between changes within a species and changes across species, changing a kind into a different kind. But if you refuse to see my point there, we should probably agree to disagree, as it's clearly not getting anywhere useful.
Small changes add up, it's that simple. He didn't see a change to a different kind because if he had, that would disprove the theory of evolution. What he saw was small-scale changes, and certain traits becoming more pronounced, while others were less so: this is the definition of evolution. On a larger scale, what do you imagine would happen?
Can you give me an example of how they misrepresent evolution? I'd be happy to clarify any confusion in detail, if you wish.
There's no confusion. They're very clear. The first link treats the urban legend of junk DNA as though it was a serious scientific proposition (you have to wonder why they distrust biologists so much up until that statement), and there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution is gradual, and how such traits are passed on: and it focuses on a tellingly weak case of the argument. The fact humans have a fused chromosome at all (as we undeniably do) while all the great apes, not just chimps, have one pair extra...
All I'm really trying to say regarding objective morality is that for morality to be objective, there has to be a real right and wrong. It wouldn't be an illusion based on chemicals, feelings, whatever, it would be based on the fact that to murder is wrong, just the same as 1+1=2. There is a truth that goes beyond illusions and chemicals that say "this feels good, so it must be good." Indeed, there are certain immediate gratifications that have unpleasant consequences, such as the kind you mentioned when you mentioned fornication. Yes we certainly can disregard certain rules that God sets up for our own good, but we all still reap the consequences. Disease, unwanted pregnancies, emotional hardships, are all consequences for being promiscuous, but obviously we care more about our immediate gratification in a lot of circumstances. Certain sins are not as obvious as others, but there are consequences for any that God warns us against. Whether or not we disregard them, they still exist.
I'm easily capable of working on the Sabbath: defying the Ten Commandments.
I'm not sure why you're decided the only possible system of morality is based on chemicals/feelings. Certainly, it's thought of in those terms: that's how humans think of everything, no matter which worldview you adhere to. It seems that any axiom-based system of morality adheres to the requirements you set up; I just define "Suffering is bad," to be a moral statement: and that's not going to alter. Even if I choose to disregard it, it won't alter: and it defines right and wrong.
What makes that any different to defining, say "God's commands are good?"
So just to be clear on your question, I'll give you an example. I'll mention the firefighters saving babies. They save babies because it's right, because without them we'd fall apart (what we built?), or because it feels good? And now I have another question for you: Why would we want to build whatever it is we've built, evolutionarily speaking?
It's rarely just one reason. They'd save babies because it is good for humanity: it's doing good. Certainly, this would feel good: they'd be paid, applauded etc, but even for all of this, the reason such an act is admired is because it is understood to be good: beneficial.
Evolutionary speaking, life is for living: we're to survive, and survive well. We're to live, and make life good; that's the only 'command' of evolution.
Small changes within kinds is not contrary to what creationists think. It's that an animal can transform into a different animal that we have a problem with. On a larger scale of small changes, there would be a large variety of species within the same kind of animal. For instance, dogs descended from wolves. But wolves, dingos, chihuahuas, and foxes are all part of the canine family.
Evolutionarily speaking, what is "good" and why are we to do it? Why are we to "make life good"?
Yes, you can work on the Sabbath, the main point of that rule is to rest, refresh yourself, and to make time to connect with friends and family. Wanna guess what would happen if you never did that? Suffering is bad generally speaking, but sometimes it can also be good. Ultimately, if this answers your question, God's commands try to eliminate unnecessary suffering. But he knows better, so sometimes we learn that only after following him.
I know you said you already read this article, but I really don't think I posted it before. It's very technical, and there's too much to quote, but it deals with the chromosome issue in more detail. If you don't wish to check it out, that's fine, but you might be interested in double checking whether or not you actually saw this one. http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1) I have nothing more to say on that subject.
-
(http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/images/petarded.png)
-
CrabbyJim, you know that is low content. Please cease this type of posting. Thanks.
-
CrabbyJim, you know that is low content.
A picture can be worth a thousand words.
Please cease this type of posting. Thanks.
I will if you will. Deal?
-
(http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/images/petarded.png)
So you're trying to get a rise out of me, huh? Sorry you're so emotionally distraught about creationists and ultimately God that you feel the need to be rude, nasty, and try to pick a fight. Whatever happened to you that led you here, that is really too bad and I'm sorry for you. I won't be wasting my time with emotional bickering and insult throwing though. You might need to find another hobby.
-
JimmyTheCrab, I have actually a serious question...
Since you appear to know a lot about Creationists and Evolutionists, please explain this to me, as I don't get it...
As a Bible believer and Creationist, I tell Evolutionists that God (YHWH) is my father both physically (from Adam and Eve) and spiritually (being Born-Again).
It tell them that monkeys are their fathers. One of your ancestors was obviously a crab that you proudly and understandably use as your symbol. Most likely, one of your ancestors was a crab on the way from being an amoeba to a monkey to you.
So, I don't understand why, when I tell people what they say they believe they get upset. Could you please clarify?
-
Small changes within kinds is not contrary to what creationists think. It's that an animal can transform into a different animal that we have a problem with. On a larger scale of small changes, there would be a large variety of species within the same kind of animal. For instance, dogs descended from wolves. But wolves, dingos, chihuahuas, and foxes are all part of the canine family.
That's true: but the fact is, it's incoherent to claim the small changes will magically stop just when they start to add up.
Evolutionarily speaking, what is "good" and why are we to do it? Why are we to "make life good"?
Strictly evolutionary speaking, because it's for the best for humanity. That's not a matter of good or evil, that's just how evolution works: it's the definition. Those that are able to survive and do what's best last. Humans, being social creatures, do just that,
As for 'what is good?' that's separate to evolution. Evolution explains what's called the conscience (and why it notably departs from God's commands), our ability to reason arrives at morality, and it's purely axiom based: as all morality necessarily is. Acknowledging Euthyphro's dilemma and resolution, your axiom is something along the lines of "God's nature is good." That's something that can't be proven, because you take it to be fundamentally true. You can't suppose a standard of good by which to measure it, you just state that his nature is good.
Yes, you can work on the Sabbath, the main point of that rule is to rest, refresh yourself, and to make time to connect with friends and family. Wanna guess what would happen if you never did that? Suffering is bad generally speaking, but sometimes it can also be good. Ultimately, if this answers your question, God's commands try to eliminate unnecessary suffering. But he knows better, so sometimes we learn that only after following him.
Sure, but none of that requires setting aside one day.
Even the cases when you mention suffering causing good, that good is typically reducing suffering: like a child who accidentally burns their hand, and learns to do better in future.
But regardless, that's not the point: we're comparing axioms. If I was to derive a system of morality from the axiom "Suffering is bad," and compare it to yours, derived from "God's nature/commands are good," how might we compare them? What is it that would set yours apart or above mine?
I know you said you already read this article, but I really don't think I posted it before. It's very technical, and there's too much to quote, but it deals with the chromosome issue in more detail.
I did check it out: and it should also be acknowledged the fundamental flaw in that kind of article. Good science is characterized by making it intelligible. If you find an article intended for public readership, that remains drowning in jargon, there's a very good chance either the writer doesn't understand what they're saying, or they're hiding something.
It tell them that monkeys are their fathers.
Evolution doesn't say that. If anything, we're distant, distant cousins: we share a common ancestor.
In fact, under creationism, we'd be far more closely related: more like brothers, half brothers at least. We share a father, after all.
(Hi Jimmy! Good to be on the same side for once, isn't it?)
-
It tell them that monkeys are their fathers.
Evolution doesn't say that. If anything, we're distant, distant cousins: we share a common ancestor.
In fact, under creationism, we'd be far more closely related: more like brothers, half brothers at least. We share a father, after all.
(Hi Jimmy! Good to be on the same side for once, isn't it?)
The question is ... why are Evolutionists upset when I suggest what they believe - they came from amoebas through "a common ancestor"/whatever to them?
"In fact, under creationism, we'd be far more closely related: more like brothers, half brothers at least. We share a father, after all."
Actually not. God created plants. God created animals. God created people in his image. We are not closely related at all. Since this happened about 6000 years ago - kinds are kinds.
I am proud to be a child of God. Why are Evolutionists upset at being children of MANY animal relatives (amoebas, frogs, lizards, rodents, "common ancestors") as they believe?
-
I usually stay out of religious arguments, I respect religious people if they respect me.
But, two things here ...
First ... I am fine with my evolutenary ancestry from single-cell organisms all the way through to humans (including our distant relatives apes - not monkeys actually). I dont know anybody who is upset about that truth.
Second ... Adam and Eve are your ancestors, so as their children had only each other to form the second generation after Adam and Eve, are you okay with having incest as a base of your ancestry?
-
I usually stay out of religious arguments, I respect religious people if they respect me.
But, two things here ...
First ... I am fine with my evolutionary ancestry from single-cell organisms all the way through to humans (including our distant relatives apes - not monkeys actually). I dont know anybody who is upset about that truth.
Second ... Adam and Eve are your ancestors, so as their children had only each other to form the second generation after Adam and Eve, are you okay with having incest as a base of your ancestry?
1) Most Evolutionists I meet get really upset. Oh well...
2) Yes, totally - in fact, Eve came out of Adam - talk about incest. Without going into what I believe in detail - that should be a different thread all unto itself - suffice it to say what you believe (and what you think I believe) and what I believe will probably be drastically different. I do base my beliefs on evidence and high probability. So, I have absolutely no problem with incest.
-
Small changes within kinds is not contrary to what creationists think. It's that an animal can transform into a different animal that we have a problem with. On a larger scale of small changes, there would be a large variety of species within the same kind of animal. For instance, dogs descended from wolves. But wolves, dingos, chihuahuas, and foxes are all part of the canine family.
That's true: but the fact is, it's incoherent to claim the small changes will magically stop just when they start to add up.
Evolutionarily speaking, what is "good" and why are we to do it? Why are we to "make life good"?
Strictly evolutionary speaking, because it's for the best for humanity. That's not a matter of good or evil, that's just how evolution works: it's the definition. Those that are able to survive and do what's best last. Humans, being social creatures, do just that,
As for 'what is good?' that's separate to evolution. Evolution explains what's called the conscience (and why it notably departs from God's commands), our ability to reason arrives at morality, and it's purely axiom based: as all morality necessarily is. Acknowledging Euthyphro's dilemma and resolution, your axiom is something along the lines of "God's nature is good." That's something that can't be proven, because you take it to be fundamentally true. You can't suppose a standard of good by which to measure it, you just state that his nature is good.
Yes, you can work on the Sabbath, the main point of that rule is to rest, refresh yourself, and to make time to connect with friends and family. Wanna guess what would happen if you never did that? Suffering is bad generally speaking, but sometimes it can also be good. Ultimately, if this answers your question, God's commands try to eliminate unnecessary suffering. But he knows better, so sometimes we learn that only after following him.
Sure, but none of that requires setting aside one day.
Even the cases when you mention suffering causing good, that good is typically reducing suffering: like a child who accidentally burns their hand, and learns to do better in future.
But regardless, that's not the point: we're comparing axioms. If I was to derive a system of morality from the axiom "Suffering is bad," and compare it to yours, derived from "God's nature/commands are good," how might we compare them? What is it that would set yours apart or above mine?
I know you said you already read this article, but I really don't think I posted it before. It's very technical, and there's too much to quote, but it deals with the chromosome issue in more detail.
I did check it out: and it should also be acknowledged the fundamental flaw in that kind of article. Good science is characterized by making it intelligible. If you find an article intended for public readership, that remains drowning in jargon, there's a very good chance either the writer doesn't understand what they're saying, or they're hiding something.
It tell them that monkeys are their fathers.
Evolution doesn't say that. If anything, we're distant, distant cousins: we share a common ancestor.
In fact, under creationism, we'd be far more closely related: more like brothers, half brothers at least. We share a father, after all.
(Hi Jimmy! Good to be on the same side for once, isn't it?)
Your argument about my magical line is like saying “if cats can breed with one another, why can’t they breed with dogs?” Creationists believe our variations have to do with information we *already have* vs new information, which is required for evolution.
The real issue in biological change is all about what happens at the DNA level, which concerns information. The information carried on the DNA, the molecule of heredity, is like a recipe, a set of instructions for the manufacture of certain items.
Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms have given rise to all the different kinds we have today. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, for example, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.
The reality is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage, e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.
As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.
Remember, evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungs—lungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere.
Later, there were lungs, but no feathers anywhere in the world, thus no genetic information for feathers. Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system. In fact, mutations overall hasten the downward trend by adding genetic load in the form of harmful mutations, of which we have all accumulated hundreds over the generations of our ancestry.
What we see in the process of artificial selection or breeding giving rise to new varieties, is a thinning-out of the information in the parent stock, a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation. If you try and breed a Chihuahua from a Great Dane population or vice versa, you will find that your population lacks the necessary information. This is because, as each variety was selected out, the genes it carried were not representative of the entire gene pool.
What appeared to be a dramatic example of change with the appearance of apparently new traits thus turns out, when its genetic basis is understood, to be an overall downward movement in informational terms. The number of sentences carried by each subgroup is reduced thus making it less likely to survive future environmental changes. Extrapolating that sort of process forward in time does not lead to upwards evolution, but ultimately to extinction with the appearance of evermore-informationally-depleted populations.
In other words, populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA ‘recipe’. But unless mutations can feed in new information, each time there is variation/adaptation, the total information decreases (as selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population, some information is lost in that population). Thus, given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation.
Regarding the nature of God, we have good because he is good. He is the standard. I’m not sure what the problem is there. So you agree that the good in evolution is not right vs wrong but what enables us to survive, aka what’s best for myself. How did this “good” rise about then? How was it beneficial for the first being to put himself last and put someone else first? For example, what caused the first mother of something to nurture her young (and put her own needs behind)?
Conscience begs the question, since there are murderers who seemingly don’t have a conscience. It depends on how depraved someone is to how far they are capable of committing acts that are evil. So whether you work on the weekend or are a serial killer depends on how numb you are to the consequences, or block out the conscience that I believe God gave us.
"Even the cases when you mention suffering causing good, that good is typically reducing suffering: like a child who accidentally burns their hand, and learns to do better in future.” I don’t disagree with this—it was what I meant exactly.
Okay, one more try. This article http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome (http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome) seems much easier to follow.
-
Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms have given rise to all the different kinds we have today. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, for example, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.
The reality is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage, e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.
We do observe them: they're simply small scale. However, there are many cases of information being added to the genome by mutation.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
if we were divinely created, what kind of Creator do you imagine that would make it so we're inevitably losing information as the centuries go by? That seems doomed to failure.
Remember, evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungs—lungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere.
They didn't evolve all at once. Small changes happened, maybe even for a completely different purpose: these added up, until a long, or feathers, were introduced.
Regarding the nature of God, we have good because he is good. He is the standard. I’m not sure what the problem is there.
No problem, if you admit you're simply defining this as an axiom: a fundamental statement that can't be proven. And if you're doing this, it can be compared to other axioms.
So you agree that the good in evolution is not right vs wrong but what enables us to survive, aka what’s best for myself. How did this “good” rise about then? How was it beneficial for the first being to put himself last and put someone else first? For example, what caused the first mother of something to nurture her young (and put her own needs behind)?
For the first being, it wasn't: not all animals act this way, though some observably do. Social creatures, however, rely on the influence of a society: and so a system of mutual trust and care would necessarily develop. Self-sacrifice might be part of this, or a side-effect of this caring: as for the first mother, it's clearly beneficial to protect your young. If you didn't, tehy'd be more likely to die, and those genes wouldn't be passed on: whereas the genes of the caring mother would far more likely survive.
Conscience begs the question, since there are murderers who seemingly don’t have a conscience. It depends on how depraved someone is to how far they are capable of committing acts that are evil. So whether you work on the weekend or are a serial killer depends on how numb you are to the consequences, or block out the conscience that I believe God gave us.
I'd say it's far more likely someone could blot out a conscience naturally evolved that one divinely mandated.
Even so, the typical trait of a predisposed killer (omitting crimes of passion) would be selfishness: focus on their own wants and needs rather than caring for others. A certain amount of 'selfishness' is a good thing, it's what means we eat rather than give all our food away, but evolution isn't perfect: of course certain drives can be misrepresented or badly followed. However, we can tell from an overall picture why what someone does is wrong.
Okay, one more try. This article http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome (http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome) seems much easier to follow.
Has little to do with the key similarity, still only focuses on the great apes, admits there's error involved and yet treats the study as perfect... And all from a perspective that evolution is apparently some massive conspiracy.
-
Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms have given rise to all the different kinds we have today. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, for example, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.
The reality is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage, e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.
We do observe them: they're simply small scale. However, there are many cases of information being added to the genome by mutation.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)
if we were divinely created, what kind of Creator do you imagine that would make it so we're inevitably losing information as the centuries go by? That seems doomed to failure.
Remember, evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungs—lungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere.
They didn't evolve all at once. Small changes happened, maybe even for a completely different purpose: these added up, until a long, or feathers, were introduced.
Regarding the nature of God, we have good because he is good. He is the standard. I’m not sure what the problem is there.
No problem, if you admit you're simply defining this as an axiom: a fundamental statement that can't be proven. And if you're doing this, it can be compared to other axioms.
So you agree that the good in evolution is not right vs wrong but what enables us to survive, aka what’s best for myself. How did this “good” rise about then? How was it beneficial for the first being to put himself last and put someone else first? For example, what caused the first mother of something to nurture her young (and put her own needs behind)?
For the first being, it wasn't: not all animals act this way, though some observably do. Social creatures, however, rely on the influence of a society: and so a system of mutual trust and care would necessarily develop. Self-sacrifice might be part of this, or a side-effect of this caring: as for the first mother, it's clearly beneficial to protect your young. If you didn't, tehy'd be more likely to die, and those genes wouldn't be passed on: whereas the genes of the caring mother would far more likely survive.
Conscience begs the question, since there are murderers who seemingly don’t have a conscience. It depends on how depraved someone is to how far they are capable of committing acts that are evil. So whether you work on the weekend or are a serial killer depends on how numb you are to the consequences, or block out the conscience that I believe God gave us.
I'd say it's far more likely someone could blot out a conscience naturally evolved that one divinely mandated.
Even so, the typical trait of a predisposed killer (omitting crimes of passion) would be selfishness: focus on their own wants and needs rather than caring for others. A certain amount of 'selfishness' is a good thing, it's what means we eat rather than give all our food away, but evolution isn't perfect: of course certain drives can be misrepresented or badly followed. However, we can tell from an overall picture why what someone does is wrong.
Okay, one more try. This article http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome (http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome) seems much easier to follow.
Has little to do with the key similarity, still only focuses on the great apes, admits there's error involved and yet treats the study as perfect... And all from a perspective that evolution is apparently some massive conspiracy.
Sorry for my late answer, busy day.
First, information. An article you gave me says "Rather than going into what defines 'information'..." but that's exactly the problem. I decided to pull some key elements from an article. You can view the entire article here: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information (http://creation.com/mutations-new-information)
Adaptive immunity
I have a hard time calling something like adaptive immunity, which involves changes in the order of a certain set of genes to create novel antibodies, ‘mutation’. Adaptive immunity is often brought up by the evolutionist as an example of ‘new’ genes (traits) being produced by mutation. Here we have an example of a mechanism that takes DNA modules and scrambles those modules in complex ways in order to generate antibodies for antigens to which the organism has never been exposed. This is a quintessential example of intelligent design. The DNA changes in adaptive immunity occur only in a controlled manner among only a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only part of the immune system, and these changes are not heritable. Thus, the argument for evolution falls flat on its face.
Gene duplication
Gene duplication is often cited as a mechanism for evolutionary progress and as a means of generating ‘new’ information. Here, a gene is duplicated (through several possible means), turned off via mutation, mutated over time, turned on again through a different mutation, and, voilà!, a new function has arisen.
Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes. This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution.34In fact, gene deletions35 and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.36 Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?
But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people37), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher). Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not.
Several creationists have written on this subject, including Lightner,38 Liu and Moran.39 Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function.
The real issue
The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources. Chicken-and-egg problems abound. What came first, the molecular machine called ATP synthase or the protein and RNA manufacturing machines that rely on ATP to produce the ATP synthase machine? The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept.
Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires. Darwin pulled a bait and switch in his On the Origin of Species. He actually produced two separate theories: what I call his special and general theories of evolution, following Kerkut45. Darwin went on at length to show how species change. This was the Special Theory of Evolution and he was preceded by numerous others, including several creationists, with the same idea.
It took him a long time to get to the point, but he finally said,
“ … I can see no limit to the amount of change … which may be effected in the long course of time by nature’s power of selection.”46
This was his General Theory of Evolution, and this is where he failed, for he provided no real mechanism for the changes and was ignorant of the underlying mechanisms that would later be revealed. To use a modern analogy, this would be akin to saying that small, random changes in a complex computer program can create radical new software modules, without crashing the system.47 Thus, the ‘can mutations create new information’ argument is really about the bridge between the special and general modes of evolution. Yes, mutations can occur within living species (kinds), but, no, those mutations cannot be used to explain how those species (kinds) came into existence in the first place. We are talking about two completely separate processes.
Regarding your question on God's character, since we lose information: Disease and loss of information and decay are all products of what we term "the fall"--the first time man sinned. God didn't create the world as we see it today. But I've already touched on that in previous posts.
Regarding axioms, all philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or unprovable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems from them. Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms. So the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world.
Regarding lungs, wings, and such: If lungs and hearts and wings were to evolve slowly (different topic, I get sidetracked), we would see these transitional organs in animals all over the fossil record. But what we see is fully developed lungs, hearts, and fully developed animals.
You say that evolutionary goodness rises from man's need to survive. This would mean that it all stems from selfish desires. But my conscience tells me that selfishness is wrong. Doesn't yours? Selfishness is the root of all evils: murder, lying, greed, etc. are all rooted in selfishness. Good, objective good, arises from just the opposite: selflessness. Selflessness is what causes us to be charitable, moms and dads, and heroes. It's what causes us to trust each other. A father penguin will practically starve himself while he sits on his chicks in sub-zero temperatures and ice storms. Why in the heck would he know that this helps to pass on his genes? If evolution were true, let me just tell you the obvious--we wouldn't be here. The natural instinct is to survive for MY benefit, not to pass on my genes. No lowly evolved being would have reason that he is aware of enough to sacrifice anything whatsoever. How would he or she even know they were passing on genes? They would've been like, "what is this thing leaching off of me?" And threw it away. Goodbye penguins, goodbye mammals. Goodbye, humans.
Creationists do not believe there's a conspiracy, but a lot of the information in the mass media is definitely biased, and the information in evolution is of course always interpreted from an evolutionary worldview and evolutionary presuppositions.
-
The DNA changes in adaptive immunity occur only in a controlled manner among only a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only part of the immune system, and these changes are not heritable. Thus, the argument for evolution falls flat on its face.
Outright nonsense. The fact the system works even in just one generation gives it an evolutionary advantage: and as the ability to possess an immune system is passed on... To say nothing of the inexplicable conclusion that it's intelligent design as a presupposition. It's easy to see how the beneficial system would come about naturally: some basic antibody system, a body able to guess, to what we observe.
We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones.
And here's the problem: we are talking about small changes. Evolution can only cause small changes. It just so happens that, as in every single situation, when a lot of small changes are made, these will add up to a big one.
The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems.
Just an argument from irreducible complexity, which is outdated in so many ways: it assumes only one possible path, instead of, for example, the idea that a 'scaffold' existed, or that multiple parts were once used for a different purpose. We've observed both those things, to my knowledge. take a keystone arch: if one stone is removed, the whole thing collapses: but this doesn't mean it's impossible for one to be built. And take a mousetrap; take one part away and it's useless, but each part is still handy for different purposes.
Yes, mutations can occur within living species (kinds), but, no, those mutations cannot be used to explain how those species (kinds) came into existence in the first place. We are talking about two completely separate processes.
Given evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, I fail to see how this counts for anything against the theory. The Bible doesn't explain Pythagoras' theorem, does that damage your faith?
Regarding your question on God's character, since we lose information: Disease and loss of information and decay are all products of what we term "the fall"--the first time man sinned. God didn't create the world as we see it today. But I've already touched on that in previous posts.
Did God not know how we would develop should early man fall?
Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms.
I am not faulting you, as I've said: simply pointing out this means the Christian form of morality is no better than any other axiom-based system.
Regarding lungs, wings, and such: If lungs and hearts and wings were to evolve slowly (different topic, I get sidetracked), we would see these transitional organs in animals all over the fossil record. But what we see is fully developed lungs, hearts, and fully developed animals.
It is physically impossible to observe an organ in a fossil. If you want transitional examples, flying squirrels have proto-wings, and there are a lot of animals (especially in the sea) with primitively developed eyes. See: animals that see only in black and white, or who have a pinhole camera type system, or who only react to light...
But my conscience tells me that selfishness is wrong. Doesn't yours?
It tells me selfishness in excess is wrong, the same as anything. Without some self-interest we'd all have died long ago, desperately trying to share food, only to have the other person give it back, before we insisted they have it, and they gave it back... Without some selfishness, some desire to do what you want, you'd have starved or died one of a million ways.
This doesn't preclude selflessness, it's all a matter of degree: the same as anything.
A father penguin will practically starve himself while he sits on his chicks in sub-zero temperatures and ice storms. Why in the heck would he know that this helps to pass on his genes?
In those terms, he probably doesn't. So? He doesn't need to know something to have the genetic urge; it's well-documented humans have an inherent closeness to relatives, whether children or parents. Such principles exist, and clearly an animal that has an arge to protect its young will have its genes passed on. That's all evolution is: the genes which favor genes being passed on will, well, be passed on.
The natural instinct is to survive for MY benefit, not to pass on my genes.
Then the genes that cause you to have that instinct wouldn't be passed on. You'd definitely die, but why does that mean everyone would? Plus that still supposes evolution lasted a while, to get beyong single-celled organisms to organisms capable of thought, and at that point there's a pretty strong basis for alternative systems to develop.
There is certainly an instinct for self-preservation: if this didn't exist we wouldn't live long enough to pass on our genes. Don't forget though, self-preservation (even if that was all at play) is hardly damaged by society: if anything, it's stronger. It's far easier to survive if you have help; not true for every creature, but for social animals like humans...
-
The DNA changes in adaptive immunity occur only in a controlled manner among only a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only part of the immune system, and these changes are not heritable. Thus, the argument for evolution falls flat on its face.
Outright nonsense. The fact the system works even in just one generation gives it an evolutionary advantage: and as the ability to possess an immune system is passed on... To say nothing of the inexplicable conclusion that it's intelligent design as a presupposition. It's easy to see how the beneficial system would come about naturally: some basic antibody system, a body able to guess, to what we observe.
We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones.
And here's the problem: we are talking about small changes. Evolution can only cause small changes. It just so happens that, as in every single situation, when a lot of small changes are made, these will add up to a big one.
The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems.
Just an argument from irreducible complexity, which is outdated in so many ways: it assumes only one possible path, instead of, for example, the idea that a 'scaffold' existed, or that multiple parts were once used for a different purpose. We've observed both those things, to my knowledge. take a keystone arch: if one stone is removed, the whole thing collapses: but this doesn't mean it's impossible for one to be built. And take a mousetrap; take one part away and it's useless, but each part is still handy for different purposes.
Yes, mutations can occur within living species (kinds), but, no, those mutations cannot be used to explain how those species (kinds) came into existence in the first place. We are talking about two completely separate processes.
Given evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, I fail to see how this counts for anything against the theory. The Bible doesn't explain Pythagoras' theorem, does that damage your faith?
Regarding your question on God's character, since we lose information: Disease and loss of information and decay are all products of what we term "the fall"--the first time man sinned. God didn't create the world as we see it today. But I've already touched on that in previous posts.
Did God not know how we would develop should early man fall?
Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms.
I am not faulting you, as I've said: simply pointing out this means the Christian form of morality is no better than any other axiom-based system.
Regarding lungs, wings, and such: If lungs and hearts and wings were to evolve slowly (different topic, I get sidetracked), we would see these transitional organs in animals all over the fossil record. But what we see is fully developed lungs, hearts, and fully developed animals.
It is physically impossible to observe an organ in a fossil. If you want transitional examples, flying squirrels have proto-wings, and there are a lot of animals (especially in the sea) with primitively developed eyes. See: animals that see only in black and white, or who have a pinhole camera type system, or who only react to light...
But my conscience tells me that selfishness is wrong. Doesn't yours?
It tells me selfishness in excess is wrong, the same as anything. Without some self-interest we'd all have died long ago, desperately trying to share food, only to have the other person give it back, before we insisted they have it, and they gave it back... Without some selfishness, some desire to do what you want, you'd have starved or died one of a million ways.
This doesn't preclude selflessness, it's all a matter of degree: the same as anything.
A father penguin will practically starve himself while he sits on his chicks in sub-zero temperatures and ice storms. Why in the heck would he know that this helps to pass on his genes?
In those terms, he probably doesn't. So? He doesn't need to know something to have the genetic urge; it's well-documented humans have an inherent closeness to relatives, whether children or parents. Such principles exist, and clearly an animal that has an arge to protect its young will have its genes passed on. That's all evolution is: the genes which favor genes being passed on will, well, be passed on.
The natural instinct is to survive for MY benefit, not to pass on my genes.
Then the genes that cause you to have that instinct wouldn't be passed on. You'd definitely die, but why does that mean everyone would? Plus that still supposes evolution lasted a while, to get beyong single-celled organisms to organisms capable of thought, and at that point there's a pretty strong basis for alternative systems to develop.
There is certainly an instinct for self-preservation: if this didn't exist we wouldn't live long enough to pass on our genes. Don't forget though, self-preservation (even if that was all at play) is hardly damaged by society: if anything, it's stronger. It's far easier to survive if you have help; not true for every creature, but for social animals like humans...
We have no evidence of the immune system evolving. For instance, the immune system appears abruptly in cartilaginous fish, and even 'primitive' jawed vertebrates have an immune system that is very similar to 'advanced mammals'. Before sharks, not a trace of antibodies or other pivotal immune proteins; after them, all elements are in place.
"when a lot of small changes are made, these will add up to a big one." The problem is, again, that these changes that are mutations are losing information for the most part. Even in billions of years, it's pretty impossible that mutations would be able to make enough small changes to gain the sort of information required to build an animal that never existed before. The quick changes that we see in speciation or survival of the fittest are operating under a different system. Speciation is working with genes that were already present in that kind of animal.
I think you're over-simplifying the human body, cell, genome, DNA, etc. by comparing it to an arch or a mousetrap (interesting example, btw, I don't see how that works, but that's okay). This is an article that posts both evolutionist's responses like yours, and the viewpoint from the other side, of course. http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity) If you're not getting too tired of reading articles.
I wasn't going to actually get into the origin of life, but it is fundamental to both evolution and creation. If life cannot come from non-life, then evolution is a pointless argument anyway.
Yes, God knew we would fail, thus giving us certain traits that came out when our environment got harsher. But he deemed it all worth it, and turned it into good. I could go on and on in this subject, but that's the nutshell.
The important thing in believing an axiom is whether or not it's consistent with the real world. So I don't agree that the Christian view of morality is no better than any other axiom, because I believe it's the only one that makes sense with the way things are.
I don't believe flying squirrels have anything transitional. But regarding eyes:
"Ironically, the greatest variety of eye design, not only in structure, but also in number and location, exists not among the vertebrates as Darwinism would expect, but among the so-called ‘primitive’ invertebrates." --Fernald, R.D., Eyes: variety, development and evolution, Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Invertebrates also have eyes that are, in some respects, superior to those of vertebrates. One example is the hemispherical eyes of most flies and other insects, which produce, unlike human and most vertebrate eyes, an image largely free of spherical distortion. Human eyes have significant peripheral image distortion, but spherical eyes form a sharp image in all directions. However, humans do not have sharp peripheral vision because this is the function of the central retina called the macula. Our peripheral vision is for the detection of light and movement which trigger the fixation reflex to turn the eyes toward the stimulus.
The presumably highest, most evolved form of life, the higher primates, have only two cone photoreceptors, blue and green, but birds have a total of six pigments: four cone pigments plus pinopsin (a pineal photoreceptive molecule) and rhodopsin for black and white vision. Put another way, chickens, humans and mice all have the rhodopsin pigment; mice in addition have blue and green; humans have blue, green, and red; and birds have these three pigments plus violet and pinopsin. For every color that humans perceive, birds can see very distinct multiple colors, including ultraviolet light. Birds use infrared light (which we sense as heat) for night vision, allowing them to rapidly visualize their young in a dense, dark tree.
We all have the instinct to survive, e.g. not give all our food away. But if we saw a starving child, the best of us would give all our food away to that child and starve in her place. It's only selfishness if you're preferring yourself over someone else. This would be consistent with evolution. To develop an accidental trait for selflessness is a far-reaching notion. Where would the reasoning behind a selfless act come from? To develop a random urge to care for your young without reason is equally absurd. But if you're basing the urge to care for our young merely on a glitch, urge, or chemical reaction, then we are really talking about love and free will and every other virtue as merely an illusion, in which we can't help ourselves. We are merely robots, enslaved to our urges.
Philip Skell, who was Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, commented:
“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
-
Protecting your offspring, even by sacrificing yourself, is of clear evolutinary advantage ... if in my species a parent will die to save several of its kind it has a clear advantage over another group that doesn't do that ... and over time that "enlightened" species will prevail.
Father pinguin doesn't know what he is doing when sacrificing himself, but evolution has made sure that he has that urge because pinguins without that urge had fewer surviving offspring and eventually disappeared amongst the growing number that had that urge.
-
Protecting your offspring, even by sacrificing yourself, is of clear evolutionary advantage ... if in my species a parent will die to save several of its kind it has a clear advantage over another group that doesn't do that ... and over time that "enlightened" species will prevail.
So which is stronger, survival instinct of the individual or the instinct to protect your offspring?
-
As a species I would say we still have that instinct, but as humans developed intellect and individualism we have also learned to overcome our instincts ... thats sometimes good and sometimes bad ... evolution has basically no morals ... and I would argue that the morals we developed have roots in individual or social advantages too ... and are not god-given but men-evolved.
-
As a species I would say we still have that instinct, but as humans developed intellect and individualism we have also learned to overcome our instincts ... thats sometimes good and sometimes bad ... evolution has basically no morals ... and I would argue that the morals we developed have roots in individual or social advantages too ... and are not god-given but men-evolved.
No, I get the concept. I understand that if an animal were to accidentally get the urge to protect her young that the specific species would survive because they had offspring as a result. I think Jadyyn had a really good question about which instinct is stronger. But I'm not satisfied, because I don't believe the urge to have offspring would happen with out a Reason--a Being to plan this out. It's too "just so," among many other evolutionary stories, really including the need to survive in the first place, come to think of it. Even the fact that trees produce seeds, without the need to nurture, just the fact that they produce seeds at all is pointing to a designer. I can't buy the idea that these things "just happened" from nothing and for no reason. If you look at this stuff from an outsider's viewpoint, you must surely see the reasoning behind what I'm saying.
-
Funny enough "Argument from incredulity" has been mentioned several times on this forum lately ... and your post is just that ... "I can't imagine that" just shows a lack of imagination and understanding on your side and not a general problem with the theory.
In fact, Evolution is a very detailed, logical and well researched science and the "just so" approach seems on the side of those that explain the diversity of the world by an external magic influence when it actually follows a perfect inner logic.
-
Funny enough "Argument from incredulity" has been mentioned several times on this forum lately ... and your post is just that ... "I can't imagine that" just shows a lack of imagination and understanding on your side and not a general problem with the theory.
In fact, Evolution is a very detailed, logical and well researched science and the "just so" approach seems on the side of those that explain the diversity of the world by an external magic influence when it actually follows a perfect inner logic.
Oh no, my friend, I don't lack an imagination. Do care to expand, if you wish to enlighten my understanding. I believe discussing our beliefs, the why's, and the potential how's, are useful and beneficial in a world where we are quick to judge and throw insults without trying to respect and see another's viewpoint. You are free to not participate in our discussion, but personal attacks and a lack of information/resources to help your point are really not beneficial.
I've explained to you that evolution, while it may be detailed, is certainly more magical and fairytale-like to me. You are obviously allowed to think otherwise, as long as your chemicals and urges will allow it, that is.
-
I would like to say that you made the discussion personal by questioning a well researched scientific theory without any argument beyond you don't believing it possible. I pointed out the limits of such an argument ...
Science is complicated and the sum of our knowledge has far outgrown the understanding of any single person ... therefore calling evolution "magical and fairytale-like to me" is not a very constructive way of moving an argument along.
I thereby stand by my initial observation of "Argument from incredulity" which I colorful described as "a lack of imagination and understanding on your side". Considering the usual standard of discussion on this forum I can't really see it as a bad personal attack and I will freely admit that there are many issues where my own "imagination and understanding" isn't enough to fully grasp them ... of course, in such cases I generally try to stay out of arguing for or against them.
-
The problem is, again, that these changes that are mutations are losing information for the most part. Even in billions of years, it's pretty impossible that mutations would be able to make enough small changes to gain the sort of information required to build an animal that never existed before. The quick changes that we see in speciation or survival of the fittest are operating under a different system. Speciation is working with genes that were already present in that kind of animal.
You have already been told that the information loss argument is inconsistent. Evolution works with genes that are already present, it just alters them slightly.
I wasn't going to actually get into the origin of life, but it is fundamental to both evolution and creation. If life cannot come from non-life, then evolution is a pointless argument anyway.
Sure, but that still isn't something the theory of evolution attempts to explain. Besides, there's no reason to think it's impossible.
I don't believe flying squirrels have anything transitional.
Proto-wings, for one. Every animal has 'something transitional,' to think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution.
The important thing in believing an axiom is whether or not it's consistent with the real world. So I don't agree that the Christian view of morality is no better than any other axiom, because I believe it's the only one that makes sense with the way things are.
Axioms of morality have no way to be consistent with the real world: unless you assume the conscience relates to an objective system of morality (only true presupposing God), and even then a non-theistic axiom is better. Every inherent moral belief is based on doing no harm, while there is clearly no tendency to believe in God (observable by comparing rates of disbelief with other moral sins) which is a theistic moral statement.
We all have the instinct to survive, e.g. not give all our food away. But if we saw a starving child, the best of us would give all our food away to that child and starve in her place. It's only selfishness if you're preferring yourself over someone else. This would be consistent with evolution. To develop an accidental trait for selflessness is a far-reaching notion. Where would the reasoning behind a selfless act come from? To develop a random urge to care for your young without reason is equally absurd. But if you're basing the urge to care for our young merely on a glitch, urge, or chemical reaction, then we are really talking about love and free will and every other virtue as merely an illusion, in which we can't help ourselves. We are merely robots, enslaved to our urges.
Don't forget, not every act is a direct implication of evolution. Often, many things can be side-effects of an otherwise good trait. Take moths: they fly too close to a flame because they're used to navigating by stars. Either a sadistic God made them, or they have an impulse that hasn't yet adapted to a relatively recent or minor invention. Human empathy is clearly beneficial, especially for children. We want to protect children, who normally can't protect themselves: and so further allow our species to develop.
There's every reason to care for our children, in an evolutionary perspective. Beyond that, how do you define evolution? I've never liked the notion that just because something's in our mind, it must be less real: ultimately, we experience everything through our minds. If something's an illusion just because it arises from our minds, then everything's an illusion: it's incoherent to single out love and virtue.
As for which instinct is stronger, self-sacrifice or self-preservation, I couldn't say objectively speaking. People aren't clones of one another; everyone's different, especially on these issues where people think and internalize new ideas and thoughts. Compare a self-harmer with low self-esteem to Donald Trump, you'd get two completely different results.
“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
Darwinian explanations can be tested by observing the root, rather than the effect. That's how science works.
-
Sexual Reproduction. Exactly how would that evolve?
-
Sexual Reproduction. Exactly how would that evolve?
Asexual reproduction can be much the same thing, just with the parts nestled in one entity. Have the necessary ingredients part (keeping in the same entity), to allow for more variation (which would be selected for). On the cellular level, where most things like that would evolve, it would be easier for the parts to just split completely: which would save on, for example, energy.
-
Sexual Reproduction. Exactly how would that evolve?
Asexual reproduction can be much the same thing, just with the parts nestled in one entity. Have the necessary ingredients part (keeping in the same entity), to allow for more variation (which would be selected for). On the cellular level, where most things like that would evolve, it would be easier for the parts to just split completely: which would save on, for example, energy.
Wouldn't you need a male and female at the same time and same place to start this? (i.e. one with a penis/testicles, the other one with a uterus/placenta - location, breasts growing at the right time for feeding, hormone creating organs to control the whole process taking days to complete. This adds additional DNA material (information) and chromosomes for ONLY these FUNCTIONAL HUGE GIGANTIC STRUCTURES (compared to a single cell). This is not just another different single cell. Furthermore, the additional information for the creation of these structures would need to be in the zygote telling the creature where and when to create them)? If any of these fail, the birth process will probably abort. How many positive mutations does all this require? Can animals with different amounts of chromosomes reproduce? Human albinos have an extra chromosome and are sterile. For animals and people that reproduce ONLY this way, how would these animals begin from asexual reproduction? Asexual -> Sexual is a HUGE leap. Wouldn't asexual reproduction be MUCH better? You don't need to find a partner, just split?
-
I would like to say that you made the discussion personal by questioning a well researched scientific theory without any argument beyond you don't believing it possible. I pointed out the limits of such an argument ...
Science is complicated and the sum of our knowledge has far outgrown the understanding of any single person ... therefore calling evolution "magical and fairytale-like to me" is not a very constructive way of moving an argument along.
I thereby stand by my initial observation of "Argument from incredulity" which I colorful described as "a lack of imagination and understanding on your side". Considering the usual standard of discussion on this forum I can't really see it as a bad personal attack and I will freely admit that there are many issues where my own "imagination and understanding" isn't enough to fully grasp them ... of course, in such cases I generally try to stay out of arguing for or against them.
If you take it personally when someone doesn't agree with your faith, you must have some emotional aversion to other belief systems (or perhaps mine, specifically, which is more likely the case). If you get offended this easily, it will be difficult for you to converse constructively with anyone, and it's impossible to keep an open mind, which is evident.
If you wish to "be constructive" in "moving this argument along," you have my permission. I haven't seen it yet.
I do have an imagination, and so does Darwin, Hans Christian Anderson, Mark Twain, and J.R.R. Tolkein. Indeed, evolution is a figment of your imagination. Don't be too upset, you really walked right into that joke on the last post. ;)
-
The problem is, again, that these changes that are mutations are losing information for the most part. Even in billions of years, it's pretty impossible that mutations would be able to make enough small changes to gain the sort of information required to build an animal that never existed before. The quick changes that we see in speciation or survival of the fittest are operating under a different system. Speciation is working with genes that were already present in that kind of animal.
You have already been told that the information loss argument is inconsistent. Evolution works with genes that are already present, it just alters them slightly.
I wasn't going to actually get into the origin of life, but it is fundamental to both evolution and creation. If life cannot come from non-life, then evolution is a pointless argument anyway.
Sure, but that still isn't something the theory of evolution attempts to explain. Besides, there's no reason to think it's impossible.
I don't believe flying squirrels have anything transitional.
Proto-wings, for one. Every animal has 'something transitional,' to think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution.
The important thing in believing an axiom is whether or not it's consistent with the real world. So I don't agree that the Christian view of morality is no better than any other axiom, because I believe it's the only one that makes sense with the way things are.
Axioms of morality have no way to be consistent with the real world: unless you assume the conscience relates to an objective system of morality (only true presupposing God), and even then a non-theistic axiom is better. Every inherent moral belief is based on doing no harm, while there is clearly no tendency to believe in God (observable by comparing rates of disbelief with other moral sins) which is a theistic moral statement.
We all have the instinct to survive, e.g. not give all our food away. But if we saw a starving child, the best of us would give all our food away to that child and starve in her place. It's only selfishness if you're preferring yourself over someone else. This would be consistent with evolution. To develop an accidental trait for selflessness is a far-reaching notion. Where would the reasoning behind a selfless act come from? To develop a random urge to care for your young without reason is equally absurd. But if you're basing the urge to care for our young merely on a glitch, urge, or chemical reaction, then we are really talking about love and free will and every other virtue as merely an illusion, in which we can't help ourselves. We are merely robots, enslaved to our urges.
Don't forget, not every act is a direct implication of evolution. Often, many things can be side-effects of an otherwise good trait. Take moths: they fly too close to a flame because they're used to navigating by stars. Either a sadistic God made them, or they have an impulse that hasn't yet adapted to a relatively recent or minor invention. Human empathy is clearly beneficial, especially for children. We want to protect children, who normally can't protect themselves: and so further allow our species to develop.
There's every reason to care for our children, in an evolutionary perspective. Beyond that, how do you define evolution? I've never liked the notion that just because something's in our mind, it must be less real: ultimately, we experience everything through our minds. If something's an illusion just because it arises from our minds, then everything's an illusion: it's incoherent to single out love and virtue.
As for which instinct is stronger, self-sacrifice or self-preservation, I couldn't say objectively speaking. People aren't clones of one another; everyone's different, especially on these issues where people think and internalize new ideas and thoughts. Compare a self-harmer with low self-esteem to Donald Trump, you'd get two completely different results.
“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
Darwinian explanations can be tested by observing the root, rather than the effect. That's how science works.
Evolution is not working with genes already present, it's adding new DNA, new information. From scratch.
There's no reason to think life from nothing is impossible? This article does an okay job of explaining that problem. http://creation.mobi/cheating-with-chance (http://creation.mobi/cheating-with-chance) There are others I've read that really baffle the brain, and I've been wholly convinced that life by chance is absolutely impossible.
Let me rephrase this. There is no evidence that squirrels or any animal has anything transitional. As is proven in my eye topic, there are many different types and uses of various animal parts, but there is no reason to think they are turning into something else or were something else. A squirrel's "wing" is fully functional. But more importantly, it's still a squirrel. Natural selection can change a species, but not a kind.
I'm not only talking about morality in my axiom, but I'll address that too. The reason why atheism is not a better axiom, in my opinion, is because it fails to explain the way the world works in a consistent manner. You are right to say that if evolution is true, there is no objective morality. Naturalism cannot provide ethics, it is simply not capable of providing meaning. In the atheist's worldview, thoughts and reasoning are just the results of chemical reactions in the brain. A debate and a couple of soda bottles fizzing are just different types of chemical reactions. The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. There's no explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles fizzing.
I don't know where you got the idea that humans don't have the tendency to believe in God. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm) It's just simply not true.
If we evolved to do no harm and that is the evolutionary moral code, it seems that we would be programmed to do a little better. Rather, it seems that we wouldn't be able to help but be morally perfect. Of course it makes sense to care for our young, but it doesn't make sense that we would do so without knowing why we're doing it. It doesn't make sense that we would evolve urges that contradict other evolved urges. And it's also too convenient.
Just because you don't like a notion doesn't make it any less true. If you are a product of chemicals and nothing more, everything in your mind is an illusion. Every idea, including evolution, stems from some kind of urge or chemical. Really nothing can be trusted to be real. Sad, huh?
I'm not really sure what you meant in your last line.
-
Evolution is not working with genes already present, it's adding new DNA, new information. From scratch.
From what's already there. Small changes. Take asexual reproduction: that's adding whole new DNA, not different (muttaion takes care of that), but it is creating new DNA. We know that occurs. Look at the end result, you see the big change you're focused on: but the small changes leading up to that are simple and understood.
There's no reason to think life from nothing is impossible?
That doesn't even try to show it's impossible. The best you can say it's unlikely, but the Earth is not all that exists. There's all of time and all of space for the conditions to be met, and there are many things that could develop. The flaw with that article is that it supposes fully functional cells and DNA sprouted out of nowhere, which no one thinks happened.
there is no reason to think they are turning into something else or were something else.
Only if you presuppose evolution doesn't exist, in which case your line of arguing against evolution is meaningless. Everything that exists has a use, because otherwise it wouldn't exist: that's a simplification of evolution. Claiming that we don't observe transition and therefore that's not evidence for evolution, however, is wholly circular.
I'm not only talking about morality in my axiom, but I'll address that too. The reason why atheism is not a better axiom, in my opinion, is because it fails to explain the way the world works in a consistent manner. You are right to say that if evolution is true, there is no objective morality. Naturalism cannot provide ethics, it is simply not capable of providing meaning.
Because evolution doesn't provide an axiom: it provides our ability to reason and arrive at the axiom, and to have a conscience.
The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. There's no explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles fizzing.
Reasoning is trustworthy by axiom too: that's necessarily the case. You can't exactly prove, beyond assuming it, that God gave us reliable faculties of reasoning: any attempt to do so would be based in assuming you can reason. As for worthwhile, something does not need an objective meaning to mean something: you suppose there is an observer akin to God. Meaning is a structly subjective phenomenon.
I don't know where you got the idea that humans don't have the tendency to believe in God.
Capital-G God. Beyond issues with the study, there is no tendency to believe in the morally mandated God.
If we evolved to do no harm and that is the evolutionary moral code, it seems that we would be programmed to do a little better. Rather, it seems that we wouldn't be able to help but be morally perfect. Of course it makes sense to care for our young, but it doesn't make sense that we would do so without knowing why we're doing it. It doesn't make sense that we would evolve urges that contradict other evolved urges. And it's also too convenient.
We breathe without knowing why we're doing it, at first: and early humans did for centuries. Why do you have to know a reason, to do something?
If we were divinely created, we should do a little better, and our urges should be more in line. Evolution isn't an intelligent process, flaws will seep in: that's how it works.
Of course it's convenient: the basic principle of evolution is that the changes which prove convenient for our survival stick around.
If you are a product of chemicals and nothing more, everything in your mind is an illusion. Every idea, including evolution, stems from some kind of urge or chemical. Really nothing can be trusted to be real. Sad, huh?
I still fail to understand what your definition of illusion is. If you think something is an illusion simply because God didn't make it, sure, but that's meaningless.
-
Evolution is not working with genes already present, it's adding new DNA, new information. From scratch.
From what's already there. Small changes. Take asexual reproduction: that's adding whole new DNA, not different (muttaion takes care of that), but it is creating new DNA. We know that occurs. Look at the end result, you see the big change you're focused on: but the small changes leading up to that are simple and understood.
But I don't have a problem with small changes, so long as it's clear that I don't believe they can lead to a transformation of one kind to another kind. There is no good evidence of this and there should be. If it were true.
There's no reason to think life from nothing is impossible?
That doesn't even try to show it's impossible. The best you can say it's unlikely, but the Earth is not all that exists. There's all of time and all of space for the conditions to be met, and there are many things that could develop. The flaw with that article is that it supposes fully functional cells and DNA sprouted out of nowhere, which no one thinks happened. [/quote]
Many attempts have been made to calculate the probability of the formation of life from chemicals, but all of them involve making simplifying assumptions that make the origin of life even possible (i.e. probability > 0).
Mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle stated in various ways the extreme improbability of life forming, or even getting a single functional biopolymer such as a protein. Hoyle said, “Now imagine 1050 blind persons [ed: standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.”
Indeed, we can calculate the probability of getting just one small protein of 150 amino acids in length, assuming that only the correct amino acids are present, and assuming that they will join together in the right manner (polymerize). The number of possible arrangements of 150 amino acids, given 20 different ones, is (20)150. Or the probability of getting it right with one try is about 1 in 10195. Lest someone protest that not every amino acid has to be in the exact order, this is only a small protein, and only one of several hundred proteins needed, many of which are much larger, and the DNA sequence has to arise as well, seriously compounding the problem. Indeed there are proteins that will not function at all with even a small alteration to their sequence.
At that time Hoyle argued that life must therefore have come from outer space. Later he realized that even given the universe as a laboratory, life would not form anywhere by the unguided (non-intelligent) processes of physics and chemistry:
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Does a figure of 1 in 1040,000 make the origin of life somewhere in the universe impossible without purposeful intelligence? Can we say that?
The total number of events (or ‘elementary logical operations’) that could have occurred in the universe since the supposed big bang (13.7 billion years) has been calculated at no more than 10120 by MIT researcher Seth Lloyd.40 This sets an upper limit on the number of experiments that are theoretically possible. This limit means that an event with a probability of 1 in 1040,000 would never happen. Not even our one small protein of 150 amino acids would form.
However, biophysicist Harold Morowitz41 came up with a much lower probability of 1 in 1010,000,000,000. This was the chance of a minimalist bacterium being assembled from a broth of all the basic building blocks (e.g. theoretically obtained by heating a brew of living bacteria to kill them and break them down to their basic constituents).
As an atheist, Morowitz argued that therefore life was not a result of chance and posited that there must be some property of available energy that drives the formation of entities that can use it (aka ‘life’). This sounds much like the idea of Gaia, which attributes pantheistic mystical properties to the universe.
More recently the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel proposed something similar to account for the origin of life and mind.
Anything but believe in a supernatural Creator, it would appear.
The different probabilities calculated arise from the difficulty of calculating such probabilities and the differing assumptions that are made. If we make calculations using assumptions that are most favorable to abiogenesis and the result is still ridiculously improbable, then it is a more powerful argument than using more realistic assumptions that result in an even more improbable result for the materialist (because the materialist can try to argue against some of the assumptions with the latter approach).
However, all calculations of the probability of the chemical origin of life make unrealistic assumptions in favor of it happening, otherwise the probability would be zero. For example, Morowitz’s broth of all the ingredients of a living cell cannot exist because the chemical components will react with each other in ways that will render them unavailable for forming the complex polymers of a living cell, as explained above.
The origin of life is about as good as it gets in terms of scientific ‘proof’ for the existence of God.
High profile information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:
“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”
Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, “the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.”
there is no reason to think they are turning into something else or were something else.
Only if you presuppose evolution doesn't exist, in which case your line of arguing against evolution is meaningless. Everything that exists has a use, because otherwise it wouldn't exist: that's a simplification of evolution. Claiming that we don't observe transition and therefore that's not evidence for evolution, however, is wholly circular. [/quote]
But you're forgetting that you're coming at it from the angle that evolution does exist, which is also a presupposition. Can you explain to me how it's circular reasoning to say that if we can't observe something in science, it doesn't exist? I'm fairly certain science is observing, pretty much by definition.
I'm not only talking about morality in my axiom, but I'll address that too. The reason why atheism is not a better axiom, in my opinion, is because it fails to explain the way the world works in a consistent manner. You are right to say that if evolution is true, there is no objective morality. Naturalism cannot provide ethics, it is simply not capable of providing meaning.
Because evolution doesn't provide an axiom: it provides our ability to reason and arrive at the axiom, and to have a conscience. [/quote]
Evolution does not have an explanation for reason or conscience, but you must assume that it provides you with the ability to reason if you refuse to believe in God.
The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. There's no explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles fizzing.
Reasoning is trustworthy by axiom too: that's necessarily the case. You can't exactly prove, beyond assuming it, that God gave us reliable faculties of reasoning: any attempt to do so would be based in assuming you can reason. [/quote]
If you believe in God, then you believe him when he says he made us in his image. That means that he gave us the ability to reason because he does. To give us free will, we must also have the ability to reason and to choose to be in relationship with him or to reject him.
I don't know where you got the idea that humans don't have the tendency to believe in God.
Capital-G God. Beyond issues with the study, there is no tendency to believe in the morally mandated God. [/quote]
I thought you meant there was no tendency to believe in a supernatural being. Because that would be the opposite of atheism. But if you believe in a god of any sort, you must believe he or she is there for a reason, whether it's to hold you accountable for your actions (which is usually the case) or because it's the power that began life.
If we evolved to do no harm and that is the evolutionary moral code, it seems that we would be programmed to do a little better. Rather, it seems that we wouldn't be able to help but be morally perfect. Of course it makes sense to care for our young, but it doesn't make sense that we would do so without knowing why we're doing it. It doesn't make sense that we would evolve urges that contradict other evolved urges. And it's also too convenient.
We breathe without knowing why we're doing it, at first: and early humans did for centuries. Why do you have to know a reason, to do something? [/quote]
Because our urges and chemicals should only be for surviving. But to have offspring is too intelligent of a need for an accidental urge to stick around, because it doesn't have to. Other tendencies like breathing are critical to survival (and still absurd to have began on its own) but passing off genes is just a benefit--a bonus.
If we were divinely created, we should do a little better, and our urges should be more in line. Evolution isn't an intelligent process, flaws will seep in: that's how it works. [/quote]
But the difference is that God made us with free will in a world where we can choose good or evil. But evolution seems to have given birth to robots who are programmed from pond scum to do good because we're selfish and want to survive, for some reason. Or rather, for no reason.
If you are a product of chemicals and nothing more, everything in your mind is an illusion. Every idea, including evolution, stems from some kind of urge or chemical. Really nothing can be trusted to be real. Sad, huh?
I still fail to understand what your definition of illusion is. If you think something is an illusion simply because God didn't make it, sure, but that's meaningless.
[/quote]
What I'm saying is that your feelings and ideas, if based on chemicals and urges only, are completely without logic. There's no point to them. And really no point to anything.
By the way, I thought I figured out how to do your quote then mine, for easier reading, but the preview doesn't show it how it's supposed to be. I'm hoping it's clear enough. Also doing this all on my phone, so it's taking even longer. But maybe that's why the code isn't working? I don't know.
-
Just put a quote around everything you want separate (use the quote button):
[Q][Q] A said [/Q] B said [/Q]
========
--------------
A said
--------------
B said
========
-
But I don't have a problem with small changes, so long as it's clear that I don't believe they can lead to a transformation of one kind to another kind. There is no good evidence of this and there should be. If it were true.
You've been given the evidence: you rejected it on the basis that you didn't believe it could happen.
Does a figure of 1 in 1040,000 make the origin of life somewhere in the universe impossible without purposeful intelligence? Can we say that?
Aside from the fact the odds would in fact be much larger, because other forms of life are possible, do you think the Earth is all that exists? You're assuming everything happens only on one world: that's nonsense. With billions of worlds, and all of time, and even a multiverse which is possible, those odds are nothing.
But you're forgetting that you're coming at it from the angle that evolution does exist, which is also a presupposition. Can you explain to me how it's circular reasoning to say that if we can't observe something in science, it doesn't exist?
I'm not coming at it from the presupposition evolution exists: I am using it as a case of where what we observe matches exactly with what evolution would predict occurs, and using this as evidence.
Just because a pot in your yard's been dug up doesn't prove a cat's done it, but if you observe that, as well as next door having a cat, it's easy to draw a conclusion. Evidence adds up.
Evolution does not have an explanation for reason or conscience, but you must assume that it provides you with the ability to reason if you refuse to believe in God.
I must assume I have the ability to reason in order to reason. That's true no matter what you believe. The origin of a conscience has been explained to you, and reason is obviously beneficial.
If you believe in God, then you believe him when he says he made us in his image. That means that he gave us the ability to reason because he does. To give us free will, we must also have the ability to reason and to choose to be in relationship with him or to reject him.
Assuming God gave you an accurate means to reason and understand him or his word, or what it means to be made in his image.
I thought you meant there was no tendency to believe in a supernatural being. Because that would be the opposite of atheism.
I wasn't talking about that: i was demonstrating that a moral command from God (to believe in and worship him) does not exist in the human conscience.
Because our urges and chemicals should only be for surviving. But to have offspring is too intelligent of a need for an accidental urge to stick around, because it doesn't have to. Other tendencies like breathing are critical to survival (and still absurd to have began on its own) but passing off genes is just a benefit--a bonus.
You don't seem to understand evolution. The genes that encourage survival are passed on because the offspring survives. If the children didn't survive, there is no possible way for those genes to be passed on. What you propose is incoherent.
What I'm saying is that your feelings and ideas, if based on chemicals and urges only, are completely without logic. There's no point to them. And really no point to anything.
Only is you assume the only meaning stems from God: which is circular.
Point is subjective. You believe the same, you just make the subject God: I don't. Feelings and ideas are equivalent to everything else: there's no higher power for them to pale under. You're examining everything from a theistic perspective: comparing to God.
Besides, it's easy to reformulate your argument: why is there a point to anything because God just happened to have the urge to create? We're as much based on urges under theism as we are atheism.
-
Just put a quote around everything you want separate (use the quote button):
[Q][Q] A said [/Q] B said [/Q]
========
--------------
A said
--------------
B said
========
Thank you, Jadyyn. :)
-
You've been given the evidence: you rejected it on the basis that you didn't believe it could happen.
No, I don't remember being given any evidence to support the transformation of one kind into another. You keep saying that mutations and speciation/adaptations are basically the same thing. But if that were true with the rate of speciation, we would see kinds transforming into different kinds right before our eyes.
Aside from the fact the odds would in fact be much larger, because other forms of life are possible, do you think the Earth is all that exists? You're assuming everything happens only on one world: that's nonsense. With billions of worlds, and all of time, and even a multiverse which is possible, those odds are nothing.
I don't understand this. You're saying that because we could have life elsewhere means odds of life here by chance aren't so slim? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Like, because life happened by chance, there could be life elsewhere? But even if there's a God, life could be elsewhere. Simply confused!
I'm not coming at it from the presupposition evolution exists: I am using it as a case of where what we observe matches exactly with what evolution would predict occurs, and using this as evidence.
Just because a pot in your yard's been dug up doesn't prove a cat's done it, but if you observe that, as well as next door having a cat, it's easy to draw a conclusion. Evidence adds up.
Atheism is a presupposition no less than theism. But Darwin had the idea of evolution before he did his research. Then he hoped we would find the evidence that he couldn't (we never did). So evolution is based on a presupposition. Today's evolutionists interpret the evidence through evolutionary goggles. So everything they see can be interpreted to fit their theories. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”
This is taken from the article titled, "It's not science" from creation.com:
Many evolutionists claim mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria as being some sort of prediction of evolution. In fact, genetics was an embarrassment to evolution, which could have been a factor in Mendel’s pioneering genetics research going unrecognized for so many years (Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the ‘neo-Darwinian’ synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc.
What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.
Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.
Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?
Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.
Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.
Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.
Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
I must assume I have the ability to reason in order to reason. That's true no matter what you believe. The origin of a conscience has been explained to you, and reason is obviously beneficial.
What I meant by that is that we don't know how, evolutionarily speaking, we have reason to begin with. There's no evolutionary explanation for it.
Assuming God gave you an accurate means to reason and understand him or his word, or what it means to be made in his image.
There's no point to believing in God if you don't believe what he says. He made his word for us, so it wouldn't make any sense to not be able to understand it.
I wasn't talking about that: i was demonstrating that a moral command from God (to believe in and worship him) does not exist in the human conscience.
You must mean we don't automatically believe in God before we know about him? But we don't automatically believe there is no god or evolution, so I don't see your point. However, all cultures, tribes, all over the world, be it pagan or not, have the tendency to worship something (idolize something--place it in upmost importance). Some replace God with science or themselves or nature, or material possessions, but we all have the tendency to worship. Our world appears designed. So a reasonable hermit who never communicated with others ever would probably believe in a god if he looked outside his window. He'd be even more amazed if he knew about the snowflake, and he wouldn't have a doubt after knowing about a cell.
You don't seem to understand evolution. The genes that encourage survival are passed on because the offspring survives. If the children didn't survive, there is no possible way for those genes to be passed on. What you propose is incoherent.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Sexual reproduction only encourages survival of a race--not the individual. Why would a sexual reproduction system help an individual be more fit for survival?
Only is you assume the only meaning stems from God: which is circular.
Point is subjective. You believe the same, you just make the subject God: I don't. Feelings and ideas are equivalent to everything else: there's no higher power for them to pale under. You're examining everything from a theistic perspective: comparing to God.
Besides, it's easy to reformulate your argument: why is there a point to anything because God just happened to have the urge to create? We're as much based on urges under theism as we are atheism.
Meaning is not subjective. We all have the desire to be loved and to love. We all want to be of worth. We all want to have something to live for. How we achieve those things is subjective, because we can come to those fulfillments in different ways: children, a spouse, career, horses, friends). But my point is that there's no logical reason, in evolution, for love to be more special than soda, worth than chlorine, living than a glass of water.
God did not have the "urge to create." He made us out of love, and nothing could be more meaningful.
-
Just put a quote around everything you want separate (use the quote button):
[Q][Q] A said [/Q] B said [/Q]
========
--------------
A said
--------------
B said
========
Thank you, Jadyyn. :)
Just to be clear, the button that looks like cartoon speech under the "Font Size" box, not the Quote button on the right side of a post (that does the whole post).
-
Ugh. JR, there's a paragraph in there that may be confusing. It starts with "what about creation vs evolution?" Or something like that and it's from the article. The sudden capitalized letters beginning sentences like "How evolution harms science" are links to other articles. But I don't think it transferred over. I was going to delete that whole paragraph, but forgot. If you want to read the articles mentioned in that paragraph however, just put the titles in the search engine at creation.com.
-
Meaning is not subjective. We all have the desire to be loved and to love. We all want to be of worth. We all want to have something to live for. How we achieve those things is subjective, because we can come to those fulfillments in different ways: children, a spouse, career, horses, friends). But my point is that there's no logical reason, in evolution, for love to be more special than soda, worth than chlorine, living than a glass of water.
Subjectively, there's plenty: and that's all that can exist.
God did not have the "urge to create." He made us out of love, and nothing could be more meaningful.
That's an urge nonetheless: and notice your presupposition. You claim that God's love makes this meaningful: why? You require this claim to have a basis in a worldview without God, why not in yours?
-
Subjectively, there's plenty: and that's all that can exist.
Sorry, don't understand this comment.
That's an urge nonetheless:
Okay, but it's more than that. God didn't just casually decide one day, while sitting on the couch eating potato chips, that he wanted to make people. Anyone with children will understand how you can have a deep desire for them, or if not, at least they can somewhat relate to that kind of love after they've had them.
and notice your presupposition. You claim that God's love makes this meaningful: why? You require this claim to have a basis in a worldview without God, why not in yours?
Love being meaningful, again, is not a presupposition. Everyone everywhere would agree that love is meaningful. The difference between love from God and love from chemicals is that chemicals make feelings and ideas not any more meaningful in the logical sense than a lab experiment. But if love is not just a chemical reaction and exists beyond the material body to who God is, that gives it true meaning. Then it's no longer a series of chemical reactions that we can't help but follow like robots, but we begin to realize that love is more than that. It's a choice but it's also the most powerful force in all the world. An interesting thought is that love of oneself isn't stronger than love for another individual, like your own child, since the need to survive would be the most important force in evolution.
-
Hay is for horses. ANd J Kasich is my personal hero. My thread has more views that this one. I am the better flatearthener. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Sorry, don't understand this comment.
Subjectivity is all that exists in the absence of God. Your arguments that what we do is somehow less is founded on comparing it with an irrelevant paradigm. It's always going to be possible to construct a 'better' state of affairs, that doesn't mean anything. What matters is the inside of one particular model.
Love being meaningful, again, is not a presupposition. Everyone everywhere would agree that love is meaningful. The difference between love from God and love from chemicals is that chemicals make feelings and ideas not any more meaningful in the logical sense than a lab experiment. But if love is not just a chemical reaction and exists beyond the material body to who God is, that gives it true meaning. Then it's no longer a series of chemical reactions that we can't help but follow like robots, but we begin to realize that love is more than that. It's a choice but it's also the most powerful force in all the world. An interesting thought is that love of oneself isn't stronger than love for another individual, like your own child, since the need to survive would be the most important force in evolution.
[/quote]
That is the definition of a presupposition. You have decided that something not resulting from 'chemical reactions' is meaningful, presumably because matter and chemicals somehow make it lesser for no adequately explained reason. It's hard to see your own presuppositions, but they're clearly there.
You have already been told how your view of evolution is incoherent. The definition of evolution is doing what would help your offspring survive. That is the definition. Of course you need to survive to have offspring, so that is part of it, but if you didn't care for your children they wouldn't live and those genes wouldn't be passed on. "since the need to survive would be the most important force in evolution," is a completely inexplicable claim and just shows you know nothing, have taken in nothing, and are completely ignorant of the most fundamental facts about evolution. This is not an insult, this is a fact. if you do not understand that evolution requires that we care for children, you do not understand anything about it.
-
Sorry, don't understand this comment.
Subjectivity is all that exists in the absence of God. Your arguments that what we do is somehow less is founded on comparing it with an irrelevant paradigm. It's always going to be possible to construct a 'better' state of affairs, that doesn't mean anything. What matters is the inside of one particular model.
Love being meaningful, again, is not a presupposition. Everyone everywhere would agree that love is meaningful. The difference between love from God and love from chemicals is that chemicals make feelings and ideas not any more meaningful in the logical sense than a lab experiment. But if love is not just a chemical reaction and exists beyond the material body to who God is, that gives it true meaning. Then it's no longer a series of chemical reactions that we can't help but follow like robots, but we begin to realize that love is more than that. It's a choice but it's also the most powerful force in all the world. An interesting thought is that love of oneself isn't stronger than love for another individual, like your own child, since the need to survive would be the most important force in evolution.
That is the definition of a presupposition. You have decided that something not resulting from 'chemical reactions' is meaningful, presumably because matter and chemicals somehow make it lesser for no adequately explained reason. It's hard to see your own presuppositions, but they're clearly there.
You have already been told how your view of evolution is incoherent. The definition of evolution is doing what would help your offspring survive. That is the definition. Of course you need to survive to have offspring, so that is part of it, but if you didn't care for your children they wouldn't live and those genes wouldn't be passed on. "since the need to survive would be the most important force in evolution," is a completely inexplicable claim and just shows you know nothing, have taken in nothing, and are completely ignorant of the most fundamental facts about evolution. This is not an insult, this is a fact. if you do not understand that evolution requires that we care for children, you do not understand anything about it.
Well my friend, I think I have already proven in my previous posts that I'm not the least bit uneducated about evolution or any subject that we have discussed this far. However I can see I have tired you out. There has been no adequate answer for my questions on reproduction because there is no adequate answer, period. It doesn't matter anyway, because the reproduction system in itself could not have evolved. I'm done discussing that.
Everyone has a presupposition. You do, I do, everyone does. I thought we got past that. That attack will not work on me because it means nothing when discussing philosophies and beliefs. When it comes to those subjects, everyone in every belief system, including evolution and atheism, has a presupposition. You don't even realize that you're making the same assumptions, only from an atheistic perspective. Now if I've made myself clear enough, you can feel free to explain to me why love means anything to you. I will ignore the obvious flaw in saying love is subjectively valuable. If my explanation of chemicals vs immaterial and God-given doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you can do better. Tell me why love made out of chemicals has a logical value to it.
-
Well my friend, I think I have already proven in my previous posts that I'm not the least bit uneducated about evolution or any subject that we have discussed this far. However I can see I have tired you out. There has been no adequate answer for my questions on reproduction because there is no adequate answer, period. It doesn't matter anyway, because the reproduction system in itself could not have evolved. I'm done discussing that
The vast majority of what you've said about evolution has been a quote from another source. You don't need to know anything to do that: and you have tired me out because you are demanding nothing except repitition. You have an utterly incoherent view of how genes would be passed on (apparently genes can be passed on without a child surviving, that makes no sense), and depending on what you mean by reproduction, that's either irrelevant or answered. The very first system of reproduction could not have evolved by Darwinian means because it would require reproduction: but two-person reproduction could evolve very easily, given it began in highly simplified organisms: bacteria and the like. Bacteria colonies wouldn't need every element to be capable of everything: they'd 'work together'.
Everyone has a presupposition. You do, I do, everyone does. I thought we got past that.
I thought we had as well, but you are the only who denied it.
You don't even realize that you're making the same assumptions, only from an atheistic perspective.
I openly said I was?! I was calling out your hypocrisy in saying your defined meaning was better when your only justification was preferring your presupposition.
I will ignore the obvious flaw in saying love is subjectively valuable.
So, you're admitting you're just ignoring my arguments, and not even bothering to respond now?
-
The vast majority of what you've said about evolution has been a quote from another source. You don't need to know anything to do that: and you have tired me out because you are demanding nothing except repitition. You have an utterly incoherent view of how genes would be passed on (apparently genes can be passed on without a child surviving, that makes no sense), and depending on what you mean by reproduction, that's either irrelevant or answered. The very first system of reproduction could not have evolved by Darwinian means because it would require reproduction: but two-person reproduction could evolve very easily, given it began in highly simplified organisms: bacteria and the like. Bacteria colonies wouldn't need every element to be capable of everything: they'd 'work together'.
You're right, I have quoted from another source because there's just so much information and it's hard to think of all the details. But I have learned quite a bit, and I'm sure you have too.
You have completely and repeatedly misunderstood what I'm saying about genes being passed down. I'm not sure whose fault that is. I would be an idiot indeed if I were to not understand that in order for genes to be passed down, one must have the "urge" to pass those genes down. I get that. What I don't understand is that from an evolutionary worldview, how one must have developed that need in the first place, since we can survive individually without feeling the need to pass on the gene. I suppose you would say that we accidentally felt the need to pass the gene down, or that someone did, and that someone would've also developed the sexual reproductive system and then, voila, you've got babies. But anyway, it's just too impossible and too close to intelligence.
Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently. I'll give you another article if you're interested. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_120-127.pdf
I thought we had as well, but you are the only who denied it.
This is so weird, because I never denied it. In fact, I admitted that I do have a presupposition, but also explained that you did too, in which case you actually denied it. I went on to explain why you did. You may want to review it, but it's there.
I openly said I was?! I was calling out your hypocrisy in saying your defined meaning was better when your only justification was preferring your presupposition.
Obviously we prefer our presuppositions, or else we wouldn't have any opinions about the world now would we? And you also said that yours was better, so...
So, you're admitting you're just ignoring my arguments, and not even bothering to respond now?
I just don't see how we can get past the subjective/objective argument. I asked you to explain to me why love logically means anything to you, but you actually ignored that question. But if you wish, I don't have a problem putting more thought into it, since more thoughts actually came to me. Love is an object, like a car is an object. It's not an opinion. We can't say "the car isn't there" by opinion, because the truth is that the car is there, no matter what we say. So is love. Love is not subjective, because to say so would be to say that love is an opinion. But love cannot disappear. Everyone in the entire world from every culture, tribe, religion, and worldview, needs love. This is why I say that love is objective. I'm just wondering if we weren't clear on the definition before.
-
I think I better understand your second to last argument in the last post. So, you were saying that I said my presupposition was better because I preferred it without further explanation. But that's not true. I explained why I thought mine made more sense in regards to how the world works. So either you're forgetting things now or you haven't been paying attention.
-
What I don't understand is that from an evolutionary worldview, how one must have developed that need in the first place, since we can survive individually without feeling the need to pass on the gene. I suppose you would say that we accidentally felt the need to pass the gene down, or that someone did, and that someone would've also developed the sexual reproductive system and then, voila, you've got babies. But anyway, it's just too impossible and too close to intelligence.
We do feel the urge to pass on the gene. Outliers aside (to be expected in an evolutionary system), most people have a sex drive, a lot of people are interested in kids...
And you wouldn't need intelligence. The system would have developed with organisms too simple to pass on: it likely would have been accidental, at first. Little more than cells sliding over cells.
It just developed, as life does.
What I don't understand is that from an evolutionary worldview, how one must have developed that need in the first place, since we can survive individually without feeling the need to pass on the gene. I suppose you would say that we accidentally felt the need to pass the gene down, or that someone did, and that someone would've also developed the sexual reproductive system and then, voila, you've got babies. But anyway, it's just too impossible and too close to intelligence.
They didn't develop independently: they developed with respect to one another. They needed to interact, after all.
in which case you actually denied it. I went on to explain why you did. You may want to review it, but it's there.
And you also said that yours was better, so...
None of that is true.
I asked you to explain to me why love logically means anything to you, but you actually ignored that question.
I'm not sure how the question is meant to mean anything. You're asking after a definition of a definition. It is meaningful because it is a meaningful feeling: because feelings are, by definition, subjectively meaningful.
But that's not true. I explained why I thought mine made more sense in regards to how the world works.
And in doing so, relied on a further presupposition.
As far as love being objective, if agreement is what defines objectivity then it would be, but that seems a rather weak definition of the term.
-
We do feel the urge to pass on the gene. Outliers aside (to be expected in an evolutionary system), most people have a sex drive, a lot of people are interested in kids...
And you wouldn't need intelligence. The system would have developed with organisms too simple to pass on: it likely would have been accidental, at first. Little more than cells sliding over cells.
It just developed, as life does.
This "just developed" theory isn't good enough for me. Again, one would need to survive a trait long enough for it to develop and be passed down, but this complicated reproductive system is not crucial to survive. It doesn't fit into the "survival of the fittest" model, and my article further explained that it actually detracts from being fit for survival. But if we can't go on from here, we must agree to disagree on the probability of reproduction and all its implications.
I'm not sure how the question is meant to mean anything. You're asking after a definition of a definition. It is meaningful because it is a meaningful feeling: because feelings are, by definition, subjectively meaningful.
So if love is a "meaningful feeling," what makes it meaningful, and what is a feeling?
And in doing so, relied on a further presupposition.
Again, the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world. If it's truly consistent with itself and with the real world, there is no presupposition in that statement. It's either true or it's not. There are various reasons, some of which I have stated in the above posts, as to why creationism makes more sense to me and is more consistent with the real world, from what I've observed, than evolution. You may disagree, and that is fine.
As far as love being objective, if agreement is what defines objectivity then it would be, but that seems a rather weak definition of the term.
Again, it's not an opinion as to whether or not the car exists. The car exists, and you're an idiot if you deny that it exists. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you agree or not. The car/love is there either way. So no, objectivity does not depend on agreement. It depends on the truth of an object existing outside of opinion.
-
This "just developed" theory isn't good enough for me. Again, one would need to survive a trait long enough for it to develop and be passed down, but this complicated reproductive system is not crucial to survive. It doesn't fit into the "survival of the fittest" model, and my article further explained that it actually detracts from being fit for survival. But if we can't go on from here, we must agree to disagree on the probability of reproduction and all its implications.
If it's not good enough for you, that's a problem with you, not the theory. It wouldn't develop on the macro scale you're imagining: it would develop on a small scale, which would allow the macro scale to develop.
So if love is a "meaningful feeling," what makes it meaningful, and what is a feeling?
I answered this: "feelings are, by definition, subjectively meaningful." You know what a feeling is: what we feel. From the perspective of our experiences, they thus mean something.
It depends on the truth of an object existing outside of opinion.
Only if the object in question is something tangible.
-
If it's not good enough for you, that's a problem with you, not the theory. It wouldn't develop on the macro scale you're imagining: it would develop on a small scale, which would allow the macro scale to develop.
It wouldn't develop at all, because it wouldn't need to.
I answered this: "feelings are, by definition, subjectively meaningful." You know what a feeling is: what we feel. From the perspective of our experiences, they thus mean something.
I'll just tell you, in case you didn't know, feelings from a materialist's worldview are just chemical reactions. In other words, they don't really mean anything, but you think that they do because they give you a sense of euphoria, that things are "okay," which is also a chemical reaction. Feelings are the soda in a bottle, and meaning is the Mento that you add to it.
Only if the object in question is something tangible.
Love is tangible, in a sense. But really, this argument is going nowhere.
-
It wouldn't develop at all, because it wouldn't need to.
So? That doesn't cause impossibility. I don't need to have brown hair, so what? It doesn't need to happen, but it was beneficial: it would let different parts focus on different things.
I'll just tell you, in case you didn't know, feelings from a materialist's worldview are just chemical reactions. In other words, they don't really mean anything,
That doesn't follow.
-
So? That doesn't cause impossibility. I don't need to have brown hair, so what? It doesn't need to happen, but it was beneficial: it would let different parts focus on different things.
Well, now we're comparing the reproductive system and accompanying need to make sure your young survive with hair color. As I said before, survival of the fittest is about having the traits that make you more adaptable than other creatures who do not possess what you have, in order to survive. Yes, we can carry on genes of brown hair accidentally (so to speak), but carrying on all the parts and pieces that eventually create the reproductive system when there is no other reason for those parts to form, without a designer, is completely absurd.
-
Well, now we're comparing the reproductive system and accompanying need to make sure your young survive with hair color. As I said before, survival of the fittest is about having the traits that make you more adaptable than other creatures who do not possess what you have, in order to survive. Yes, we can carry on genes of brown hair accidentally (so to speak), but carrying on all the parts and pieces that eventually create the reproductive system when there is no other reason for those parts to form, without a designer, is completely absurd.
I'm comparing principles. Evolution won't immediately erase any change, especially not that which is relatively neutral to survival benefit.
There is plenty of reason. Consistently ignoring it won't change that. Larger organisms can't reproduce asexually, and there are a lot of ways expansion is beneficial: and streamlining is also beneficial, so the initial, simpler organisms would divide up into analogues of male and female, because a) they're colonies more than individuals, nothing's lost and b) it allows each part to dedicate more energy to certain tasks, aiding the survival of the species.
Do you feel like addressing any of this, or are you simply going to ignore it and repeat, yet again, the unjustified claim that reproduction is somehow not beneficial?
All the parts and pieces for reproduction are required by evolution. Are you complaining about asexual reproduction instead? Evolution wouldn't exist without it.
-
I'm comparing principles. Evolution won't immediately erase any change, especially not that which is relatively neutral to survival benefit.
What, exactly, was relatively neutral to survival benefit (in the beginning when the parts were just forming), and where is the evidence for it? Also, it's not only that. We'd have to have the correct order of parts coming together, surviving, then creating a more complex structure (as in all complicated systems or parts). I'm assuming you've thought of this?
There is plenty of reason.
It doesn't matter if there is plenty of reason. That doesn't explain the origin.
Do you feel like addressing any of this, or are you simply going to ignore it and repeat, yet again, the unjustified claim that reproduction is somehow not beneficial?
Sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population (i.e., not changing the number of individuals), there is on average one surviving offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. Sex also means that an optimal gene configuration can never be passed on in its entirety.
It is also biologically costly to maintain the sex organs, and to maintain mechanisms to stop the male’s immune system destroying his own (genetically different) sperm, and stop the female’s immune system destroying incoming sperm or the offspring she carries (in viviparous organisms). And, sometimes sexual displays can be cumbersome and make the organism more vulnerable. Females obviously expend a lot of time and energy if they must bear live young. It takes energy to find a mate, otherwise the organism will die without passing on its genes, and if one sex is eliminated, the species will become extinct. It’s a lot of trouble, considering that asexual organisms such as bacteria reproduce very quickly.
Of course I posed problems in the past, such as the example of the father penguin who will practically starve himself to sit on his chicks. Again, where did this instinct come from? Another accident that contradicts the survival instinct? A problem I have brought up before, but there is no evolutionary solution. Justified enough for ya?
-
What, exactly, was relatively neutral to survival benefit (in the beginning when the parts were just forming), and where is the evidence for it? Also, it's not only that. We'd have to have the correct order of parts coming together, surviving, then creating a more complex structure (as in all complicated systems or parts). I'm assuming you've thought of this?
Single celled organisms dividing into streamlined parts, one having part of what's required for reproduction, one having the other. The evidence is the system we observe. The rest of your post is exactly what the theory of evolution explains. You do understand that reproduction on the microscopic level is much simpler than it on the larger?
Sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation.
Sex is what allows for mutation in the first place: otherwise,s ay, one disease would wipe out an entire population. This is basic, seriously.
Again, where did this instinct come from? Another accident that contradicts the survival instinct?
Which remains incoherent no matter how much you repeat it. Imagine a father that let their child die. How do you imagine those genes would be passed on?
This has been explained to you multiple times. Repitition does not make an argument.
-
Which remains incoherent no matter how much you repeat it. Imagine a father that let their child die. How do you imagine those genes would be passed on?
This has been explained to you multiple times. Repitition does not make an argument.
I think the main problem is that I'm coming from the end of origins to what we have today, and you're looking at today and saying that the benefits explain the origins. This doesn't fit. It's backwards logic. Yes, we have children due to the sacrifices of parents and in spite of the fact that young deplete nourishment from their parents (and sanity, in the case of humans). But it is being repeated over and over because I feel like it's not getting through. But this will be the last time I try to explain it. Benefits do not explain origin. There is a process, no matter how "simple" you think it was to begin with, (we observe nothing simple in nature), that wouldn't proceed to anything. The idea that there was some primitive part of reproduction that was beneficial to survival, then grew, is mere speculation. Survival of the fittest and reproduction are against each other in every way. It couldn't have been an accident. And I think we all know better.
-
Which remains incoherent no matter how much you repeat it. Imagine a father that let their child die. How do you imagine those genes would be passed on?
This has been explained to you multiple times. Repitition does not make an argument.
I think the main problem is that I'm coming from the end of origins to what we have today, and you're looking at today and saying that the benefits explain the origins. This doesn't fit. It's backwards logic. Yes, we have children due to the sacrifices of parents and in spite of the fact that young deplete nourishment from their parents (and sanity, in the case of humans). But it is being repeated over and over because I feel like it's not getting through. But this will be the last time I try to explain it. Benefits do not explain origin. There is a process, no matter how "simple" you think it was to begin with, (we observe nothing simple in nature), that wouldn't proceed to anything. The idea that there was some primitive part of reproduction that was beneficial to survival, then grew, is mere speculation. Survival of the fittest and reproduction are against each other in every way. It couldn't have been an accident. And I think we all know better.
If you're going to begin under the assumption that we were all created by God, then sure, but then what is the point of examining an alternative theory?
-
If you're going to begin under the assumption that we were all created by God, then sure, but then what is the point of examining an alternative theory?
Interesting question. I'm not sure if you mean me personally or people in general. To begin with, I'll say that I'm not examining another theory (just to clarify). I'm just trying to explain my point of view, but I also enjoy learning about other people's point of view.
If you meant people in general, well, you must begin with an assumption either way. If you want to assume there is no God, nor seek him out to find out if he's real, I would assume it's because it feels uncomfortable to do so. Many people think that if there is a God that they would be held accountable for the way they live, and they're not comfortable giving up their lifestyles. But they don't know the joy, true freedom, and peace that comes from having a relationship with our maker. It's truly awesome. But it's like swimming in the tropical ocean before anyone else and exclaiming, "come on in! The water's fine!" But you wouldn't know it unless you tried it for yourself. And that's where you no longer need to rely on the scientific facts and the why's and how's (they just become fun and enhance what you already know to be true). Because once you're in the water, you know. But it takes logic sometimes to bring in the others with you. And that's why it's my duty and joy to give this a shot with you and anyone else who may be reading along.
-
Interesting question. I'm not sure if you mean me personally or people in general. To begin with, I'll say that I'm not examining another theory (just to clarify). I'm just trying to explain my point of view, but I also enjoy learning about other people's point of view.
A discussion, such as we're having, is pointless if your default is simply going to be to assume that you're right and any alternative is wrong. Finding an argument is false doesn't imply your conclusion is.
If you meant people in general, well, you must begin with an assumption either way. If you want to assume there is no God, nor seek him out to find out if he's real, I would assume it's because it feels uncomfortable to do so. Many people think that if there is a God that they would be held accountable for the way they live, and they're not comfortable giving up their lifestyles.
Or I could say that people seek out God because it gives them a sense of superiority, because they're able to feel chosen, or the centre/purpose for the whole of creation, and that many people who think that there is a God do so out of ego.
See how easy it is to make assumptions? They're little more than bald faced stereotypes in an attempt to discredit. I don't know if this is what you intended or not, but 99% of the time that's exactly where that chain of reasoning comes from.
But they don't know the joy, true freedom, and peace that comes from having a relationship with our maker. It's truly awesome. But it's like swimming in the tropical ocean before anyone else and exclaiming, "come on in! The water's fine!" But you wouldn't know it unless you tried it for yourself. And that's where you no longer need to rely on the scientific facts and the why's and how's (they just become fun and enhance what you already know to be true). Because once you're in the water, you know. But it takes logic sometimes to bring in the others with you. And that's why it's my duty and joy to give this a shot with you and anyone else who may be reading along.
If there's a maker who wants belief, it should be easy to arrive at it with more than what are at best arguments from ignorance.
-
A discussion, such as we're having, is pointless if your default is simply going to be to assume that you're right and any alternative is wrong. Finding an argument is false doesn't imply your conclusion is.
I'd like to think that if either of us have learned anything during this discussion, then it was not pointless.
Or I could say that people seek out God because it gives them a sense of superiority, because they're able to feel chosen, or the centre/purpose for the whole of creation, and that many people who think that there is a God do so out of ego.
See how easy it is to make assumptions? They're little more than bald faced stereotypes in an attempt to discredit. I don't know if this is what you intended or not, but 99% of the time that's exactly where that chain of reasoning comes from.
Well, you could say that, but where does that assumption come from? Because all the legitimate Christians that I know would probably be surprised at your surmise. Actually, it's quite humbling to say that "I need God" because "I am a sinner" and "need forgiveness." with the hope of everlasting life. I certainly don't and never did have a sense of superiority or ego about the matter; quite the opposite. God chose all of us, so there's no special circumstance there with me. The only difference is that I chose to accept his gift. My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, wrote that he accepted God "kicking and screaming" so to speak, because it wasn't what he wanted, but he knew better. Then he was "surprised by joy" at the result. This attitude of superiority that you speak of would certainly go against Jesus' words when he said to be a servant and showed that example by washing his disciple's feet, to pray for those who mistreat you, and that the last would be first and the first last. He sat and dined with the lowly sinners and showed strong disfavor with those who thought they were superior. So if anyone had this attitude of superiority, it would be in direct conflict with what they state to believe in. If the signs of their behavior are not in accordance with Jesus, then they are truly not followers of his.
If there's a maker who wants belief, it should be easy to arrive at it with more than what are at best arguments from ignorance.
I really don't know what you mean by "arguments from ignorance," but I would strongly agree that God actually has made it quite easy to believe in him. As I said before, our world looks designed. Even Dawkins has admitted this, poor guy. If there was a hermit who lived all alone, without any communication with others, he would examine the world around him. If he weren't a fool, he would see the clearly designed features of his own self and the world around him. If he were able to look at a snowflake, his suspicion would be confirmed. If he were able to learn about the cell, same result. But as I said, we have the evidence around us. If the hermit were able to seek out God from his discoveries, he would find him, just as God promised we would. If we have eyes and a mind, we are without excuse.
-
Well, you could say that, but where does that assumption come from?
A place of vitriol and dishonesty, the exact same as yours. When an atheist does good, as many do, they do it because it is good: they have no hope of a reward. For an atheist, everything we do has actual meaning: it's not a drop in eternity, it's a finite life, ruled by experience: and those experiences have far more weight. But sure, blindly claim all atheists "are not comfortable giving up their lifestyles," and even ignoring the fundamental flaw with a God who would design a people more comfortable to do what he forbids, it's about as meaningful a claim as mine was.
I really don't know what you mean by "arguments from ignorance,"
"I don't know, so it must be God." You can say the same about anything, heading back and forth through history. Once the Sun was a god: now we understand it.
If there was a hermit who lived all alone, without any communication with others, he would examine the world around him. If he weren't a fool, he would see the clearly designed features of his own self and the world around him.
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
-
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Fuck off, moron, why the hell are you here if all you offer is whinging in every fucking thread? Go away, no one wants you here.
-
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Fuck off, moron, why the hell are you here if all you offer is whinging in every fucking thread? Go away, no one wants you here.
You're wrong. The only 2 people who do not want me here is you and "The big one". Since you were the 2 people mostly refuted by me, by far, that makes sense. You do not want to be questioned.
-
You're wrong. The only 2 people who do not want me here is you and "The big one". Since you were the 2 people mostly refuted by me, by far, that makes sense. You do not want to be questioned.
Refuted? That's a laugh. You don't do anything except lie and spam and ignore and derail. I'm pretty sure we're the only people you've talked to.
I'll listen to you when you have any idea what you're talking about. Then, maybe you can refute something. Until then, you just sound like a whiney toddler. You'd think by now you'd know you cannot begin to refute a model if you don't understand the most basic thing about it.
-
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Fuck off, moron, why the hell are you here if all you offer is whinging in every fucking thread? Go away, no one wants you here.
You're wrong. The only 2 people who do not want me here is you and "The big one". Since you were the 2 people mostly refuted by me, by far, that makes sense. You do not want to be questioned.
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
-
A place of vitriol and dishonesty, the exact same as yours. When an atheist does good, as many do, they do it because it is good: they have no hope of a reward. For an atheist, everything we do has actual meaning: it's not a drop in eternity, it's a finite life, ruled by experience: and those experiences have far more weight.
We, as Christians, are not rewarded for doing good at all, actually. We inherit our Father's inheritance when we accept him as our Father, and that's it. It has nothing to do with doing good or bad. We naturally try to do good because it's the essence of who God is and we're striving to be more like him, but fail. Even though you do good, you also fail. You fail when you cuss people out, you fail when you have a bad attitude, you fail when you lie, or cheat, or lust after someone. And so do I. So we both do good because we have "experiences" and know what good is. But really, if this life is all we have, you might say "then party on!" and do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, as many do. Many atheists live for themselves and "screw the rest." But good for you for trying to do better in your life.
But sure, blindly claim all atheists "are not comfortable giving up their lifestyles," and even ignoring the fundamental flaw with a God who would design a people more comfortable to do what he forbids, it's about as meaningful a claim as mine was.
Even though it's more comfortable and easy to make mistakes, we still all know what the better option is. I wonder what atheism could explain about that (why it's more comfortable to make mistakes). Anyway, temporary pleasure with long-term bad consequences are what God forbids. He designed us to be perfect, as I said closer to the beginning of our discussion, but we fell into temptation, which was partly allowed because God wanted to show us that we need him. He's taken care of the ultimate consequence though (death).
"I don't know, so it must be God." You can say the same about anything, heading back and forth through history. Once the Sun was a god: now we understand it.
But we DO know. As you said, we understand the sun. We also understand a lot more now about our bodies and the world around us. So we're even more without excuse now that we know more. Because evolution has not been able to explain why we have what we have, especially BECAUSE we know so much. And by the way, even when there were still people worshiping the sun, people believed in God. Some people still worship the sun, stars, crystals, etc. So I'm not sure how much that has to do with knowledge.
And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?
Yes, I can give you an example of things that are not designed. Look around your house. Look at your ceiling. Look at a blank wall. Is that more designed or less designed than say, Leonardo Da Vinci's ceilings? Do you have any smashed up objects? Do you have any kits that haven't been assembled yet? We have lot of examples of things that are designed, but we can also compare things that are less designed than others. So somehow, we all know what it means to be "designed."
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
We, as Christians, are not rewarded for doing good at all, actually.
Ultimately, semantics. You do good, you're rewarded: you failed, you're damned. Whether you're rewarded for doing good, or simply not punished, the end result is the same.
But really, if this life is all we have, you might say "then party on!" and do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, as many do. Many atheists live for themselves and "screw the rest." But good for you for trying to do better in your life.
A convenient stereotype for you to use to demonize. Certainly, there are bad atheists out there, just as there are Christians who use the faithful to line their pockets or as an excuse for cruelty.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying life: but to live exclusively for selfish enjoyment would kill you. We rely on getting along with others.
I wonder what atheism could explain about that (why it's more comfortable to make mistakes).
Moths and flames. Impulses can be good, and bad in excess.
He designed us to be perfect, as I said closer to the beginning of our discussion, but we fell into temptation, which was partly allowed because God wanted to show us that we need him.
God still designed us. Did he not know how we'd develop after temptation?
So we're even more without excuse now that we know more.
How do you figure? Do you expect humanity to be omniscient?
Because evolution has not been able to explain why we have what we have, especially BECAUSE we know so much.
It explains far more than you give it credit for. The only thing you've accused it of not explaining, that it does not explain, is the origin of life: and that's because it's not meant to. There are multiple models for abiogenesis, no one being confirmed until we know more of the initial state.
And by the way, even when there were still people worshiping the sun, people believed in God. Some people still worship the sun, stars, crystals, etc. So I'm not sure how much that has to do with knowledge.
Theyw orship them, but they don't blame a god for them. No one believes the Sun is literally carried by a chariot.
And people did believed in God centuries ago: a very different God to the one you accept.
Yes, I can give you an example of things that are not designed. Look around your house. Look at your ceiling. Look at a blank wall. Is that more designed or less designed than say, Leonardo Da Vinci's ceilings? Do you have any smashed up objects? Do you have any kits that haven't been assembled yet? We have lot of examples of things that are designed, but we can also compare things that are less designed than others. So somehow, we all know what it means to be "designed."
Your first question is an interetsing one: does my wall look less designed than Da Vinci's ceilings? Well, yes; but is it, really? If anything, my wall is more deisgned: whole teams would have worked to construct, and paint, and repaint it. Da Vinci's were mostly just one person's work. Ultimately, if either is more designed, it's the wall; or at least, they're evenly designed. There's no particular difference between the designers, only the purpose.
Perhaps determining design from eyesight alone isn't so simple?
If you want to compare nature to smashed up furniture, however, it's pretty easy. What we observe as designed is far more streamlined, for an express purpose. In reality, I look out and I see uneven ground, and plants fighting for space, and leaves dying and making a mess. There are a lot of ways to improve on that design.
-
Ultimately, semantics. You do good, you're rewarded: you failed, you're damned. Whether you're rewarded for doing good, or simply not punished, the end result is the same.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. I thought you were saying that an atheist has more "meaning" when they do good because Christians "have" to do good in order to enter eternity. I was just trying to clarify, because it's a common misconception.
A convenient stereotype for you to use to demonize. Certainly, there are bad atheists out there, just as there are Christians who use the faithful to line their pockets or as an excuse for cruelty.
There is no genuine Christian who steals and is cruel. We make mistakes, but to deliberately do something like this is to not be in real relationship with God. There are people who profess to be Christians who steal and who are cruel, for sure.
God still designed us. Did he not know how we'd develop after temptation?
Yes, and he knew it would be worth it. He wanted us to have free will so that we could choose to follow him or someone/something else. He wants us to choose him back, because that's what love is. It's a 2-way relationship, like in a marriage, or the relationship between a parent and a child. The end result is a few things: 1) We know we need a God, that we aren't on equal ground with him. 2) We know what sin does, we know what a fallen world looks like, and this causes us to appreciate the perfect world we will inherit, and causes us to see how perfect God is. 3) Sin led to the ultimate display of love: God's sacrifice to save our lives. In this way he proved how much he loves us. These are probably not all the reasons, but some that come to mind anyway.
How do you figure? Do you expect humanity to be omniscient?
I don't understand. I'm saying that because we know more about the human body and the world around us, it causes us to see how we're clearly designed and that evolution goes against true science. Most of what Darwin believed has been proven to be false today because of what we've found out. Therefore, since we can know more now about how evolution is not true and the complexity of our universe and our bodies, we should be more skeptical of evolution and more accepting of the idea of a creator.
It explains far more than you give it credit for. The only thing you've accused it of not explaining, that it does not explain, is the origin of life: and that's because it's not meant to. There are multiple models for abiogenesis, no one being confirmed until we know more of the initial state.
Disagree. It explains absolutely nothing successfully.
Theyw orship them, but they don't blame a god for them. No one believes the Sun is literally carried by a chariot.
And people did believed in God centuries ago: a very different God to the one you accept.
No, they think they themselves are a god or that the crystals have god-ish powers. The very same God I worship today is the same God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time.
Your first question is an interetsing one: does my wall look less designed than Da Vinci's ceilings? Well, yes; but is it, really? If anything, my wall is more deisgned: whole teams would have worked to construct, and paint, and repaint it. Da Vinci's were mostly just one person's work. Ultimately, if either is more designed, it's the wall; or at least, they're evenly designed. There's no particular difference between the designers, only the purpose.
Perhaps determining design from eyesight alone isn't so simple?
If you want to compare nature to smashed up furniture, however, it's pretty easy. What we observe as designed is far more streamlined, for an express purpose. In reality, I look out and I see uneven ground, and plants fighting for space, and leaves dying and making a mess. There are a lot of ways to improve on that design.
To the first part of your reply, fair enough, but I was trying to merely point out the surface of the ceiling, and I should have said "paint job" or something of that sort. Yes, it's a different type of design, but if we were to compare it to the artwork-type of design of Da Vinci, the comparison would be plain to see.
You can look out and see the results of the fall (when sin entered the world), but you can also see bits of heaven, too. We have both. We have "smashed up" design, sure, but it was still design to begin with, and that's easy to see.
-
There is no genuine Christian who steals and is cruel. We make mistakes, but to deliberately do something like this is to not be in real relationship with God. There are people who profess to be Christians who steal and who are cruel, for sure.
No True Scotsman. Clear fallacy. If you define Christian to preclude such things, sure: but an actually workable definition would be one who believes, or thinks they believe, in the relevant God. Are you really claiming all such people are good? People misinterpret, it's well known.
I don't understand. I'm saying that because we know more about the human body and the world around us, it causes us to see how we're clearly designed and that evolution goes against true science. Most of what Darwin believed has been proven to be false today because of what we've found out.
That's simply untrue. Are you imagining an absurd conspiracy? That's what the denial of evolution amounts to. With no reason, for no gain, thousands and millions of people gather, compare evidence, and don't notice the flaws. two people developed the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously. The evidence is there. Simply because you've chosen to reject it won't do away with that evidence.
No, they think they themselves are a god or that the crystals have god-ish powers. The very same God I worship today is the same God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time.
First, unjustified. Second, barely. Even by the God's own words, it was worshipped only in a limited geographical area for several thousand years: if you believe a literal Genesis then that's your only justification for the claim, and it still falls flat because there was no such worship going on outside the middle east.
You can look out and see the results of the fall (when sin entered the world), but you can also see bits of heaven, too. We have both. We have "smashed up" design, sure, but it was still design to begin with, and that's easy to see.
If you look for it. Most of the world you would see is designed anyhow: humans built and maintain most of it. As for literal design though, that's a presupposition through and through.
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.
I'm sorry.
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.
I'm sorry.
Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.
I'm sorry.
Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.
JR, your "wall of text" would NEVER make it to a scientific journal for peer review. This is NOT because there is a RE conspiracy, but because the "wall of text" you spent so much time on is crap. Documents that are posted in scientific journals have (1) a SUMMARY (2) then the descriptions and mathematical formulas (3) then test results and supporting evidence they are true (4) and finally, a list of references. Your BS "wall of text" is just random thoughts, confusing and not even written well. If presented in English class as an essay, I doubt you would even get a "C" after all these months of work on it.
Instead of BSing that people don't understand it, why don't you spend an hour or two and make it a document worthy of scientific consideration or at least an essay. I believe, since the "wall of text" was written back in June, that you WANT it to be vague and jumbled ideas because (1) there really is very little coherent meat in it and (2) you can run around asserting/claiming no one understands it but you and it solves everything because you say so.
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.
I'm sorry.
Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.
JR, your "wall of text" would NEVER make it to a scientific journal for peer review. This is NOT because there is a RE conspiracy, but because the "wall of text" you spent so much time on is crap. Documents that are posted in scientific journals have (1) a SUMMARY (2) then the descriptions and mathematical formulas (3) then test results and supporting evidence they are true (4) and finally, a list of references. Your BS "wall of text" is just random thoughts, confusing and not even written well. If presented in English class as an essay, I doubt you would even get a "C" after all these months of work on it.
Instead of BSing that people don't understand it, why don't you spend an hour or two and make it a document worthy of scientific consideration or at least an essay. I believe, since the "wall of text" was written back in June, that you WANT it to be vague and jumbled ideas because (1) there really is very little coherent meat in it and (2) you can run around asserting/claiming no one understands it but you and it solves everything because you say so.
What is the point in talking to you? I have answered EVERY ONE of your bullshit requests MULTIPLE TIMES, and now you're back to the exact same whining because you REFUSE to admit any of your arguments are clearly nonsense.
-
Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.
SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!
With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.
I'm sorry.
Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.
JR, your "wall of text" would NEVER make it to a scientific journal for peer review. This is NOT because there is a RE conspiracy, but because the "wall of text" you spent so much time on is crap. Documents that are posted in scientific journals have (1) a SUMMARY (2) then the descriptions and mathematical formulas (3) then test results and supporting evidence they are true (4) and finally, a list of references. Your BS "wall of text" is just random thoughts, confusing and not even written well. If presented in English class as an essay, I doubt you would even get a "C" after all these months of work on it.
Instead of BSing that people don't understand it, why don't you spend an hour or two and make it a document worthy of scientific consideration or at least an essay. I believe, since the "wall of text" was written back in June, that you WANT it to be vague and jumbled ideas because (1) there really is very little coherent meat in it and (2) you can run around asserting/claiming no one understands it but you and it solves everything because you say so.
What is the point in talking to you? I have answered EVERY ONE of your bullshit requests MULTIPLE TIMES, and now you're back to the exact same whining because you REFUSE to admit any of your arguments are clearly nonsense.
Where is the document in the public domain?
-
This is all you get - the DEF "wall of text": (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3040.0)
Imagine publishing this in a scientific journal. If JR was serious about this, he would create a real scientific publishable paper with clearly defined summary, concepts and formulas, drawings and maps, EVIDENCE supporting the THEORY, and a list of references (for things like Aether). He wants to spend HOURS, DAYS, WEEKS and MONTHS defending the DEF - then claiming no one understands it (as a proof/refutation) because it is too complex instead of creating a document worthy of scientific review. Until that is done, which is why there are rigorous scientific requirements (i.e. people just can't submit BS vague drawings/writings on a napkin), DEF is and will always be at best a FANTASY. Fantasies don't need proof and most do not have any for their fantastic, bizarre elements). I have already falsified/disproved it (aligning telescopes) as even a hypothesis. JR continues to call it DET (theory). This is a deception. It is a willful lie. It is only a theory in his mind.
-
It took me awhile to respond because I didn't get a notification of your response. This is the second time this has happened, but on a different forum. I decided to check independently. Not sure who to tell if it keeps happening. "Notify me of replies." is always checked. Maybe a moderator could help me out? Thanks.
No True Scotsman. Clear fallacy. If you define Christian to preclude such things, sure: but an actually workable definition would be one who believes, or thinks they believe, in the relevant God. Are you really claiming all such people are good? People misinterpret, it's well known.
You're right about the definition of a Christian, but the Bible also says that there are "fruit" or signs of being an actual Christian. To be a thief or a liar as one's lifestyle would be in direct defiance of God and who he wants us to be. If we love God, we will not want to grieve him, and we will have a heart to love others as well. This would mean leaving a lifestyle of selfishness, and to live the way he wants us to.
That's simply untrue. Are you imagining an absurd conspiracy? That's what the denial of evolution amounts to. With no reason, for no gain, thousands and millions of people gather, compare evidence, and don't notice the flaws. two people developed the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously. The evidence is there. Simply because you've chosen to reject it won't do away with that evidence.
No, I am not imagining an absurd conspiracy, and I'm sure you don't have any of your own, either. =) There is plenty of reason to follow after evolution if the alternative is to accept God. There are many who would rather believe aliens planted us here. As far as gain, only what every other scientist gains by discovering things, writing books on things, selling to schools, the Nobel Prize, etc. right? I'm not saying that they don't believe what they see is true, but there are presuppositions before they examine the "evidence," and it will fit into whatever agenda they have, even if it means stretching the truth. This is weird but true: http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution (http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution)
I have also learned that "misplaced" fossils in the fossil record are excused, and dating methods have quite a lot of presuppositions involved. All these evolutionists who "come together" is a pretty fantastical picture, anyway. The truth is that each scientist has their own special field of study, and they all trust each other's fields to find the answers that they need (that they themselves may be lacking). But what happens when they don't, or if what they find discredits the theory? Bill Stein's Expelled is a documentary about just that. If you don't agree with evolution, you're kicked out. So yes, in a sense, that is a conspiracy. But it's been proven.
As far as your claim that there were two individuals who developed the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously, are you thinking of Russell Wallace? Because the only thing he and Darwin both realized individually was "survival of the fittest" which is not evolution. In fact, a creationist by the name of Blythe wrote about that 25 years earlier.
First, unjustified. Second, barely. Even by the God's own words, it was worshipped only in a limited geographical area for several thousand years: if you believe a literal Genesis then that's your only justification for the claim, and it still falls flat because there was no such worship going on outside the middle east.
What is unjustified? That people look to the powers of crystals? I live in a hippy town. I know these things. Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about with the middle east and all that crap, or why that would discredit anything if it's true. If there was a great flood as the Bible says there was, any evidence of man-made things would be gone before that. Any evidence of worship afterwards would have started in the middle east, because that's where they landed and began their new life. But the only evidence I can think of of God-worship in those days would be altars and then the ancient scrolls to document the history. You might have fun searching creation.com for archeological finds. It's quite interesting.
If you look for it. Most of the world you would see is designed anyhow: humans built and maintain most of it. As for literal design though, that's a presupposition through and through.
Again, you must have a presupposition to believe in evolution or God. If you look for design and find it, but decide not to believe, that's your choice. Incidentally, have you heard of Fibonacci? I just learned about him. Fascinating: http://creation.com/golden-numbers (http://creation.com/golden-numbers)
But we're not talking about maintenance of yards here, we're talking about our own bodies, the cell, the genome, DNA, a fingerprint, a flower, a snowflake, the creatures of the ocean, the katydid, sand dollars, are just some that come to mind. People don't maintain these obviously designed things, but to turn a blind eye to it is definitely a choice of preference as to what to believe in.
-
This is all you get - the DEF "wall of text"
So, I explain the problems with teaching the model with a wall of text, I explain my reasons, I explain how the scientific community will not respect any FE model no matter what, I have explained the limited resources I have access to: and still you choose to come forward and OUTRIGHT LIE. Are you really struggling to manage any honest response?
I have already falsified/disproved it (aligning telescopes)
How about you respond to my repeated refutation before claiming victory? That would be the honest thing to do, if you were honest in the slightest.
You're right about the definition of a Christian, but the Bible also says that there are "fruit" or signs of being an actual Christian. To be a thief or a liar as one's lifestyle would be in direct defiance of God and who he wants us to be. If we love God, we will not want to grieve him, and we will have a heart to love others as well. This would mean leaving a lifestyle of selfishness, and to live the way he wants us to.
And even that's down to interpretation. To be a liar is wrong: is it against God to say "This statement is a lie?" Lines are rarely clearly defined; and sometimes you can only choose between the lesser of two evils.
There is plenty of reason to follow after evolution if the alternative is to accept God. There are many who would rather believe aliens planted us here. As far as gain, only what every other scientist gains by discovering things, writing books on things, selling to schools, the Nobel Prize, etc. right? I'm not saying that they don't believe what they see is true, but there are presuppositions before they examine the "evidence," and it will fit into whatever agenda they have, even if it means stretching the truth.
Read your own link. Beyond a handful of inexplicable criticisms of simplifications intended to make it easier to understand what's being said, there's the Piltdown Man/Piltdown Bird exposed by scientists as fakes: knowledge which caught on, and no scientist will use them as evidence.
The rest of that article pretty much only makes sense if you presuppose the falsehood of evolution. Of course they're concerned with tecahing truth; evolution is truth, except you have apparently decide dthat even though scientists have exposed falsehoods relating to the theory, and made sure no one would take some (ancient) examples as evidence, they're incapable of seeing through the flaws they work with daily. That just doesn't make sense.
You're taught simplifications in school: children can't understand details of a theory. You don't teach them Relativity when you teach speed equals distance over time.
Again, you must have a presupposition to believe in evolution or God.
My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.
But we're not talking about maintenance of yards here, we're talking about our own bodies, the cell, the genome, DNA, a fingerprint, a flower, a snowflake, the creatures of the ocean, the katydid, sand dollars, are just some that come to mind. People don't maintain these obviously designed things, but to turn a blind eye to it is definitely a choice of preference as to what to believe in.
Which are only designed if you ignore alternatives.
-
This is all you get - the DEF "wall of text"
So, I explain the problems with teaching the model with a wall of text, I explain my reasons, I explain how the scientific community will not respect any FE model no matter what, I have explained the limited resources I have access to: and still you choose to come forward and OUTRIGHT LIE. Are you really struggling to manage any honest response?
Yes, you whine why you can't do it. Like I said, why don't you spend a couple HOURS make this into a document worthy of publication in a scientific journal. You claim you spent MONTHS developing a "wall of text". Stop whining.
It is a "wall of text" - and will remain so - so you can claim that no one but you understands it so can't argue anything about it. This is not true BTW. I have destroyed DEF. THAT is why you don't want to WASTE anymore of YOUR time on the DEF BS. And... obviously, neither does the FE society or other FEers.
I have already falsified/disproved it (aligning telescopes)
How about you respond to my repeated refutation before claiming victory? That would be the honest thing to do, if you were honest in the slightest.
I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...
-
Yes, you whine why you can't do it. Like I said, why don't you spend a couple HOURS make this into a document worthy of publication in a scientific journal. You claim you spent MONTHS developing a "wall of text". Stop whining.
Because this is a forum, not a scientific journak. No journal is going to accept text based on FET, and it takes a while to fully outline what underpins the model. I could make it as neat as you want, it's not going to change the fact next to know REers are willing to exert the effort necessary to actually learn a model. You provide perfect evidence of this: all you're interested in is a basic, flawed understanding and straw man, because it's easy. Dishonest, but easy.
I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...
A lie, and an irrelevant one. You refuse, consistently, to justify your claim that the RE explanation for observations is the only possible one. Your only attempts to do so have been refuted derailments and completely incoherent straw men. And yet you still drag the exact same argument into every thread as though the fact I'm getting sick of repeating myself is any kind of point.
You love your arguments from exhaustion.
-
Yes, you whine why you can't do it. Like I said, why don't you spend a couple HOURS make this into a document worthy of publication in a scientific journal. You claim you spent MONTHS developing a "wall of text". Stop whining.
Because this is a forum, not a scientific journak. No journal is going to accept text based on FET, and it takes a while to fully outline what underpins the model. I could make it as neat as you want, it's not going to change the fact next to know REers are willing to exert the effort necessary to actually learn a model. You provide perfect evidence of this: all you're interested in is a basic, flawed understanding and straw man, because it's easy. Dishonest, but easy.
I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...
A lie, and an irrelevant one. You refuse, consistently, to justify your claim that the RE explanation for observations is the only possible one. Your only attempts to do so have been refuted derailments and completely incoherent straw men. And yet you still drag the exact same argument into every thread as though the fact I'm getting sick of repeating myself is any kind of point.
You love your arguments from exhaustion.
So no coherent, presentable document - EVER. Hmm... sounds like your map avoidance. Face it, all you want to do is debate about BS. REers don't want to waste their time on something that is incoherent - like garbage and ramblings of a mad man written on a napkin. Certainly, most certainly, most don't want to spend time on anything making bizarre claims without a shred of evidence (Sun/Moon in the Earth and Aether).
Let's face it, *I* probably have spent the most amount of time understanding, discussing and disproving DEF than any other REer. I have even provided a link here on this website so anyone can read, understand and see what I am discussing. I, as you suggested, have posted my results in various threads that I am sure other REers have read. ALL you keep saying is no one but you understands your model (I bastardize it). No other FEers, who I am sure read your "wall of text" too, buy it - certainly no one is arguing it (like UFEF). Unless you can provide some evidence, NO ONE will waste their time on it. You are dreaming. It will always remain just in your mind. Unfortunately, you clutter other discussions with your DE fantasy.
Honestly, if you really wanted DEF to be more than just in your mind you would clean it up and make it presentable. Be proud!
I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...
A lie, and an irrelevant one. You refuse, consistently, to justify your claim that the RE explanation for observations is the only possible one. Your only attempts to do so have been refuted derailments and completely incoherent straw men. And yet you still drag the exact same argument into every thread as though the fact I'm getting sick of repeating myself is any kind of point.
You love your arguments from exhaustion.
Truth. It disproves all FE models and is totally relevant. You are desperately trying to get rid of it - I know...
It is the only one, as explained, because it has the properties needed. From Logic 101, IF any other models properties could explain it, how would that prove DEF - a FLAT model? Why argue this? This is merely a debate tactic not to show how FE models explain it (they can't because they do not have the right properties). All you have are debate tactics, never any actual proof. Like in your posts in this thread yet again...
Rebuttals are not refutations. You need to learn the difference. You have refuted nothing. Aligning real telescopes and asking how FE models do it is not a straw-man. If it is incoherent to you, that explains a lot. You don't even know what the problem is apparently and how RET solves it perfectly and FE models can't.
You can repeat your BS all you want. You will NEVER turn a FE disk into a RE sphere. It IS exhausting discussing this with someone who doesn't understand Geometry 101 and the properties of rotating objects but goes on and on about how his model successfully fulfills the requirements of aligning telescopes...
-
You provide a link I explicitly asked you not to do so, after a lengthy discussion on the problems of learning from a wall of text. You consistently ignore all the evidence I give you, claiming I offered no such thing when anyone who reads the threads will see otherwise. You complain I don't have the resources to map every inch of the world's surface. You presuppose the truth of RET, and offer nothing against DET beyond assertions you have repeatedly been corrected on. Your alignment argument has been demonstrated to not refute FET, and you constantly derail that discussion.
You lie again, and again, and again. Why is it you act so secure in your model, when you refuse honest discussion, and handwave any attempt to involve you in an honest discussion and pointing out the flaws in your logic as 'debate tactics?'
-
And even that's down to interpretation. To be a liar is wrong: is it against God to say "This statement is a lie?" Lines are rarely clearly defined; and sometimes you can only choose between the lesser of two evils.
It's not that difficult to get, is it? Everybody will lie at some point in his or her life. The point I was trying to make is that one's lifestyle cannot be one in a lie and yet also be following after God. You cannot serve two masters. Either you serve God or you serve yourself. So if you are living a lie and wish to be a child of God, he will help your heart change so that you no longer are wishing to be a liar and are uncomfortable enough to change, with the wisdom he gives you.
Read your own link. Beyond a handful of inexplicable criticisms of simplifications intended to make it easier to understand what's being said, there's the Piltdown Man/Piltdown Bird exposed by scientists as fakes: knowledge which caught on, and no scientist will use them as evidence.
I did read my own link, and maybe you should read it again. The "handful" of examples are falsehoods that were not exposed until at least years later, 40 years later for Piltdown Man. The fake examples of evolution were continuously published in school books, and the forged Haeckel embryo pictures still are, apparently. So we're not talking about "simplifications" here. We're talking about lies.
except you have apparently decide dthat even though scientists have exposed falsehoods relating to the theory, and made sure no one would take some (ancient) examples as evidence, they're incapable of seeing through the flaws they work with daily. That just doesn't make sense.
It's not a simple as "flaws," although there are indeed some flaws that are overlooked because it doesn't "make sense" to evolutionary theory. There is always an excuse for why things don't match up. I can see that I need to present more examples, and there are examples in every field of evolutionary study, so it's hard to just tell you. I'll give you a couple of articles that I may or may not have read, but I think they might explain what I mean when I say that scientists use a lot of presuppositions in their studies to fit what they find into the theory. They do this in the dating methods, in the fossil record, and when they find things they shouldn't find, like unfossilized dinosaur bones. This is an article about the fossil record and assumptions: http://creation.com/index-fossils (http://creation.com/index-fossils) This one is about fresh dino blood: http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report (http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report) This one is about unfossilized dino bones (and media bias): http://creation.com/unpermineralized-hadrosaur-bones-alaska (http://creation.com/unpermineralized-hadrosaur-bones-alaska) This one is about radiometric dating: http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating (http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating) And this one is about carbon dating: http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs (http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs) But what's interesting to me is that we began our discussion with you stating that you distrusted scientists and refused to defend dating methods. Yet you seem ready to defend these "scientists" to the end now.
My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.
Whatever the reason for your presupposition or for mine, you keep stating that I have one, as if you don't. So every time you say that I have one, I'll remind you that you have one too. Because everyone has one. So it's an invalid argument.
Which are only designed if you ignore alternatives.
Or, they are only not designed if you ignore the possibility of God and search for other alternatives.
-
I did read my own link, and maybe you should read it again. The "handful" of examples are falsehoods that were not exposed until at least years later, 40 years later for Piltdown Man. The fake examples of evolution were continuously published in school books, and the forged Haeckel embryo pictures still are, apparently. So we're not talking about "simplifications" here. We're talking about lies.
Most illustrations in science books are lies by that definition.
(https://ehistory.osu.edu/sites/ehistory.osu.edu/files/mmh/clash/Scopes/IndexImages/Images/evolutionofman.gif)
That's a lie. No skeletons look exactly like drawings, or stand up in a 2-D row like that. It illustrates an idea: that's all.
As for the Piltdown Man, you're still ignoring the fact it was scientists who exposed it as a lie: something you now claim they're unable to do.
There is always an excuse for why things don't match up.
Would you like me to link you to a site filled with arguments against God and the Bible? I'm sure there are plenty. Sure, given time you might be able to respond to them all. What would stop me saying, after that, "There is always an excuse for why things don't match up."
If there's an answer to your question, then maybe it's not as major as you evidently think.
scientists use a lot of presuppositions in their studies to fit what they find into the theory.
If by 'presupposition' you mean 'deductions or observations confirmed or shown to be reasonable by repeated testing.'
Whatever the reason for your presupposition or for mine, you keep stating that I have one, as if you don't. So every time you say that I have one, I'll remind you that you have one too. Because everyone has one. So it's an invalid argument.
And again, I say the exact same thing, as you seem to have ignored:
My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.
The point is not that you have a presupposition, it's that you have an unnecessary one.
-
You provide a link I explicitly asked you not to do so, after a lengthy discussion on the problems of learning from a wall of text. You consistently ignore all the evidence I give you, claiming I offered no such thing when anyone who reads the threads will see otherwise. You complain I don't have the resources to map every inch of the world's surface. You presuppose the truth of RET, and offer nothing against DET beyond assertions you have repeatedly been corrected on. Your alignment argument has been demonstrated to not refute FET, and you constantly derail that discussion.
You lie again, and again, and again. Why is it you act so secure in your model, when you refuse honest discussion, and handwave any attempt to involve you in an honest discussion and pointing out the flaws in your logic as 'debate tactics?'
That is a lie. You provided a link to another site that you asked me not to provide - I haven't and you know it. I searched Google for "Dual Earth Theory" and to my surprise, I found DEF publicly available! Other than the 3 paragraphs under the diagram, it is essentially the same "wall of text". YOU did not send me the link. Stop lying and whining. If you want, I can provide BOTH links so people can see your lie.
I ignore your "evidence" because most of the time, when asked, you don't provide any. If you provide anything, it is total BS that you state authoritatively. Your favorite "evidence" is "You don't understand my model". Hey everyone, check out they type of "evidence" you provide in the "Evidence" section for yourselves (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3040.0) - from Google.
You never correct stuff, just say you do. That is not a correction. Random BS statements are not corrections.
You never demonstrated anything concerning aligning telescopes - just BS rebuttals. A rebuttal is not a refutation. These are just more lies.
I ignore your debate tactics because they derail posts from providing evidence of DEF to arguing RET. If someone brings any evidence from the real world - off you go debating that instead of DEF. It gets tiring. Most of your posts/rebuttals are just "READ!", "I've already provided evidence" and other such random, vague and unsubstantiated statements. Then if I don't respond to this BS, you say you refuted my argument. BS - waste of time. Look at my sig... I typically require an order of magnitude time and effort to refute your BS arguments.
-
That is a lie. You provided a link to another site that you asked me not to provide - I haven't and you know it. I searched Google for "Dual Earth Theory" and to my surprise, I found DEF publicly available! Other than the 3 paragraphs under the diagram, it is essentially the same "wall of text". YOU did not send me the link. Stop lying and whining. If you want, I can provide BOTH links so people can see your lie.
Is that seriously your defense? I didn't erase the text from everywhere I wrote it because I can't remember every password I've ever used. And for crying out loud, the link I sent you could be found by google as well, that's how the internet works. You had it explained to you, at length, the problems with learning a model from a wal of text, especially with trolls and people only interested in mocking rather than learning (as you clearly are) around. And yet you turn around and do EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ASKED NOT TO.
I ignore your "evidence" because most of the time, when asked, you don't provide any.
All you've ever done is complain that I used an analogy, ignoring everything else, and ignoring observational evidence: and pretending I have never explained what observations I'm talking about when I do every single time, and even do so in the link. And EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you why this is not satisfactory, or what kind of evidence you would prefer that is not this, you flee.
You never correct stuff, just say you do. That is not a correction.
Outright lie. You make a false claim about my model, I correct you: ten seconds later you're back to making the exact same claim.
You never demonstrated anything concerning aligning telescopes - just BS rebuttals.
And yet you've been incapable of ever responding, just repeating the exact same argument with no acknowledgement or alteration to address the flaw.
I ignore your debate tactics because they derail posts from providing evidence of DEF to arguing RET.
Because the topic under discussion is not universally DET. Is this really a hard concept? If you are trying to falsify a model, it falls to you to provide the evidence: all I need to do is show your evidence doesn't amount to anything, which is often trivially easy to do. then all you do is change the topic and move the goalposts and act like your dishonesty is somehow my fault.
If someone brings any evidence from the real world - off you go debating that instead of DEF. It gets tiring. Most of your posts/rebuttals are just "READ!", "I've already provided evidence" and other such random, vague and unsubstantiated statements. Then if I don't respond to this BS, you say you refuted my argument. BS - waste of time. Look at my sig... I typically require an order of magnitude time and effort to refute your BS arguments.
Yes, it takes time to respond to arguments, well done. That's why I can't be bothered to repeat myself over and over to the likes of you when you have demonstrated a complete inability to learn and a complete unwillingness to be even the slightest bit honest. So all you're going to get is 'Read!' UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DO READ AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAY.
-
1) Sorry, but I wasn't on this website 5 months ago. You never mentioned any other threads. I saw the DEF being developed in a different thread (outside sun, couple suns, Sun inside Earth). You said those were "work in progress" - fine. You implied, with "PM me", that you had something much further developed (the previous threads were not valid anymore) - don't share the link. I didn't. That is why I was surprised to find one publicly available that was basically what you provided me. As far as I am concerned, since this is publicly available, you can't whine about trolls. I am not here to protect you from trolls. It is not just me against you in this forum (although it seems that way when it comes to DEF much of the time). You assert/claim I "bastardize" what you wrote. Now everyone can see for themselves (this is why I didn't want the "PM me" BS). I did not provide the link you gave me and you know this. Stop saying I did.
I ignore your "evidence" because most of the time, when asked, you don't provide any.
All you've ever done is complain that I used an analogy, ignoring everything else, and ignoring observational evidence: and pretending I have never explained what observations I'm talking about when I do every single time, and even do so in the link. And EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you why this is not satisfactory, or what kind of evidence you would prefer that is not this, you flee
Defining observational evidence and saying you provided some and that I ignore it does not demonstrate you ever provided any.
You never correct stuff, just say you do. That is not a correction.
Outright lie. You make a false claim about my model, I correct you: ten seconds later you're back to making the exact same claim.
Where? Saying I "bastardize" something is not correction.
You never demonstrated anything concerning aligning telescopes - just BS rebuttals.
And yet you've been incapable of ever responding, just repeating the exact same argument with no acknowledgement or alteration to address the flaw.
Responding to what? You - "altitude of stars." Me - How high is Polaris or Sigma Octanis? Oh... poor me... I don't have the resources to measure those... but... DEF definitely can align telescopes - I know that for a fact! You have been REBUTTED! - is that what you mean by me "incapable of ever responding?" - do you mean me or you?
What flaw? Never anything specific. Stop stating BS as the truth with authority.
I ignore your debate tactics because they derail posts from providing evidence of DEF to arguing RET.
Because the topic under discussion is not universally DET. Is this really a hard concept? If you are trying to falsify a model, it falls to you to provide the evidence: all I need to do is show your evidence doesn't amount to anything, which is often trivially easy to do. then all you do is change the topic and move the goalposts and act like your dishonesty is somehow my fault.
The topic is FE models. Is DEF a FE model? The argument disproves ALL FE models because they are FLAT. Is DEF FLAT? Is this really a hard concept - that I have repeated a dozen times.
I have provided falsifiable evidence. (1) you can't align a telescope in 2 different directions at the same time (necessary - requirement of aligning telescopes) (2) SINCE the alignment of matches RET (spherical) PERFECTLY, it CAN NOT, by definition match ANY FE model (flat) - duh. <-- EVIDENCE. If this is so "trivial" (another bold lie), demonstrate how ANY FE model can do (1) & (2).
If someone brings any evidence from the real world - off you go debating that instead of DEF. It gets tiring. Most of your posts/rebuttals are just "READ!", "I've already provided evidence" and other such random, vague and unsubstantiated statements. Then if I don't respond to this BS, you say you refuted my argument. BS - waste of time. Look at my sig... I typically require an order of magnitude time and effort to refute your BS arguments.
Yes, it takes time to respond to arguments, well done. That's why I can't be bothered to repeat myself over and over to the likes of you when you have demonstrated a complete inability to learn and a complete unwillingness to be even the slightest bit honest. So all you're going to get is 'Read!' UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DO READ AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAY.
Tell me about it... with your 2 word answers and bogus vague statements and insults. That's just it, the only thing you repeat are the 2 word answers, vague statements, and insults. You never give proper supported answers ("altitude of stars"). What the hell kind of answer is that? I have NOTHING to learn from 2 word answers and insults and your BS unsupported statements. I read everything. The problem is, there is nothing to read but 1 word answers (READ!) and BS. You actually want me to respond to "READ!" - yeah right. Hey I should respond to all your posts - READ!
-
Do flat earthers have any explanation for this?
Yes.
Is this another example of your "teaching"?
-
That is why I was surprised to find one publicly available that was basically what you provided me. As far as I am concerned, since this is publicly available, you can't whine about trolls.
Open ignorance. You ignore everything I've said and you're repeating a stock argument, as per usual, specifically addressed and refuted in what I just said.
You assert/claim I "bastardize" what you wrote. Now everyone can see for themselves (this is why I didn't want the "PM me" BS). I did not provide the link you gave me and you know this. Stop saying I did.
Paranoia, transparent excuses.
You have been REBUTTED! - is that what you mean by me "incapable of ever responding?" - do you mean me or you?
What flaw? Never anything specific. Stop stating BS as the truth with authority.
Moving the goalposts to absurd points doesn't magically repair your argument. I don't need to provide the exact figures: I don't have the resources. All I need is the knowledge that the explanation, as predicted by DET, works. Until you can demonstrate it doesn't, your argument doesn't falsify a thing.
<-- EVIDENCE.
Refuted multiple times, and I'm downright SICK of having to repeat myself to you. All you do is run away whenever I do, and then you're back to repeating the same old arguments. Here's better you're going to be whining yet again despite the fact you ignore EVERYTHING I SAY EVERY TIME I SAY IT. No alteration, just the same old bullshit that makes zero sense, repeated ad nauseum because you refuse to accept any correction or admit any mistake. ALL YOU HAVE IS THE ASSERTION OF RET. Evidence 1 assumes the RE explanation alone, evidence 2 assumes far more than has actually been proven: as you have been told, as you have admitted, as you have been incapable of justifying, and as you whinge about again and again and again.
grow up.
Tell me about it... with your 2 word answers and bogus vague statements and insults. That's just it, the only thing you repeat are the 2 word answers, vague statements, and insults. You never give proper supported answers ("altitude of stars"). What the hell kind of answer is that? I have NOTHING to learn from 2 word answers and insults and your BS unsupported statements. I read everything. The problem is, there is nothing to read but 1 word answers (READ!) and BS. You actually want me to respond to "READ!" - yeah right. Hey I should respond to all your posts - READ!
You get the posts with no effort put into them because you put no effort into reading what I say. Why should I waste time? Why should I go on for paragraphs when all you'll do is ignore it and spam the exact same argument all over the forum and get pissy when I don't repeat all the same paragraphs every time? All you have is an argument from exhaustion, insisting I debate your nonsensical argument in every damn thread. It's just childish.
Is this another example of your "teaching"?
Yep. Could always try checking back to a thread and being honest, rather than relying on assuming the worst and basing an entire argument around what you'd like to be the case. Oh, wait, that's all you're capable of.
Look at that, yet another thread you're derailing with off-topic whining. What is your obsession?! Are you still going to claim you're not scared by DET? You seem to feel the urge to whine about it constantly.
-
Most illustrations in science books are lies by that definition.
(https://ehistory.osu.edu/sites/ehistory.osu.edu/files/mmh/clash/Scopes/IndexImages/Images/evolutionofman.gif)
That's a lie. No skeletons look exactly like drawings, or stand up in a 2-D row like that. It illustrates an idea: that's all.
I don't view this example as the same things that were mentioned. There's a difference between blatant inaccuracies without clarifications and what you show above. There is no need to put fine print like, "no skeletons look exactly like drawings or stand up in a 2-D row like this." Sometimes I think you really know better than what you let on, though.
As for the Piltdown Man, you're still ignoring the fact it was scientists who exposed it as a lie: something you now claim they're unable to do.
I'm not claiming that scientists are unable to expose lies. But let's look closer. Is it really a victory for evolutionists that they were able to figure out that something was a hoax after studying it for 40 years? The timing was interesting, too, as there were other candidates lined up to take Piltdown Man's place right away.
Would you like me to link you to a site filled with arguments against God and the Bible? I'm sure there are plenty. Sure, given time you might be able to respond to them all. What would stop me saying, after that, "There is always an excuse for why things don't match up."
If there's an answer to your question, then maybe it's not as major as you evidently think.
The difference is that arguments against God and the Bible on secular sites are pretty uneducated from my experience. I've never seen an argument that had the theology right, although sometimes it's a matter of not understanding what the author was trying to convey in a passage. Anyway, if evolution can explain everything away and fit everything to fit "just so," then it's not falsifiable, and it's not science. And it's not.
If by 'presupposition' you mean 'deductions or observations confirmed or shown to be reasonable by repeated testing.'
Nope, not what I meant at all. Observations can only be made in the here and now. Historical science only requires interpretation of the observations, guesses about what might have been, and a worldview that shapes it all. One cannot repeat history to test it. So what you described is not evolution.
And again, I say the exact same thing, as you seem to have ignored:
My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.
The point is not that you have a presupposition, it's that you have an unnecessary one.
God is not unnecessary. Evolution is. See, arguments like that don't really work for debating other philosophies without more meat to it. Why is evolution the necessary presupposition? Why is God the unnecessary one?
-
I don't view this example as the same things that were mentioned. There's a difference between blatant inaccuracies without clarifications and what you show above.
And when those inaccuracies are meant as any more than illustrations of a theory, maybe you'd have a point.
I'm not claiming that scientists are unable to expose lies.
That's exactly what what you're saying relies upon.
The difference is that arguments against God and the Bible on secular sites are pretty uneducated from my experience. I've never seen an argument that had the theology right, although sometimes it's a matter of not understanding what the author was trying to convey in a passage.
Well said. Try applying the same reasoning.
Anyway, if evolution can explain everything away and fit everything to fit "just so," then it's not falsifiable, and it's not science. And it's not.
Just because something is not falsified, doesn't mean it's not falsifiable. There are countless ways for evolution to be falsified; you get plenty of them listed every time there's a debate on evolution. The fact is none of them happen.
Nope, not what I meant at all. Observations can only be made in the here and now. Historical science only requires interpretation of the observations, guesses about what might have been, and a worldview that shapes it all. One cannot repeat history to test it. So what you described is not evolution.
Which is why I specified deduction as well. You can't just ignore literally half of what I said. You can't do any science without deduction: even observations won't tell you anything unless you use logic to deduce why it happened, and when it would.
God is not unnecessary. Evolution is. See, arguments like that don't really work for debating other philosophies without more meat to it. Why is evolution the necessary presupposition? Why is God the unnecessary one?
Because evolution is not the presupposition. Do I need to repeat myself again?
-
How are these explained:
(http://www.sott.net/image/s6/128207/full/GIANT_SKELETONS_CHART.jpg)
a small sampling (Google "Giant Skeleton images" for more):
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5wtwpOaG0f4/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.juxtapoz.com/images_old/stories/AustinMcManus/january_13/8/jux_sketeleton1.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XHVShpg6_T8/UlNcnh6Q6eI/AAAAAAAACYc/KffgGEqyFUQ/s1600/10-8-2013+8-11-50+AM.png)
Where do these fit in human evolution? Strangely, these are never mentioned in school books.
-
Here an interesting article about the fake "giant man unearthed" pictures circulating the web, some from amateurs, some from hoax- or fake-news websites.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp)
By the way, the square-cube law makes it a physical impossibility that humanoids of the size represented by these bones could ever have existed.
Large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight.
-
This entire thread is a farce. It is not very interesting.
-
I think farces are pretty interesting. That's what led me to this site. =)
And when those inaccuracies are meant as any more than illustrations of a theory, maybe you'd have a point.
Well I'd like to know what Haeckel's embryos in certain text books are supposed to illustrate if nothing other than the falsehood that we go through our evolutionary stages in the womb and have gills lol. Why not use actual photos of the embryo stages? We've gotten farther in our knowledge and technology. Why not put those to good use? But alas, this topic is rather "boring."
That's exactly what what you're saying relies upon.
No, then you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that yes, they are willing to stretch the truth to let the information fit into their worldview. No, I don't think scientists and evolutionists are generally liars. I think they believe (probably) what they see fits into their worldview and are afraid of the alternative. A lot of what we hear from them stems from a bias.
Well said. Try applying the same reasoning.
I do, which is why I try and educate myself as much as possible on evolution. It's important that I know what I'm arguing against and why. So far I haven't seen any good refutations of my arguments. I've been this into evolution/creation since I was a kid. That doesn't make me an expert on the subject, but I do take the time to learn.
Just because something is not falsified, doesn't mean it's not falsifiable. There are countless ways for evolution to be falsified; you get plenty of them listed every time there's a debate on evolution. The fact is none of them happen.
Can you give me an example of how historical science could be falsifiable and how it has been tried?
Which is why I specified deduction as well. You can't just ignore literally half of what I said. You can't do any science without deduction: even observations won't tell you anything unless you use logic to deduce why it happened, and when it would.
Any deduction that one makes has to stem from a ... guess what? It's that word again, presupposition. Anything from the past must be analyzed with an already present worldview. Creationists can take the same data and fit it into their worldview. It only depends on which worldview makes the most sense to you.
Because evolution is not the presupposition. Do I need to repeat myself again?
It doesn't seem to help that I also keep repeating myself: evolution is a presupposition. This always kicks atheists in the pants, because they think attacking theists with the "p" word really works for some reason. I've already explained multiple times, very reasonably, why evolution is a presupposition. Darwin speculated, "What if we all came from pond scum?" (not verbatim, but I can get the quote if you want it) and that's where it all began, my friend. A speculation. Speculations = presuppositions. All the "evidence" has to fit into this bias, and if it doesn't, it is excused. For example, mammals are usually found with dinosaurs, and there are 430 species of mammals found in dinosaur age strata, only seven to 10 of which have modern counterparts thus far. Furthermore, when paleontologists find dinosaur bones or dinosaur trace fossils in the Cenozoic they are almost always ‘redated’ or claimed ‘reworked’ and put into the Mesozoic. There are lots of examples of this kind of work. It's short of blatant lying, but I always give people the benefit of a doubt: I think that they look at this type of stuff as "mistakes" that need to be looked at again in order for it to all fit into an evolutionary worldview because otherwise it "doesn't make sense."
-
Well I'd like to know what Haeckel's embryos in certain text books are supposed to illustrate if nothing other than the falsehood that we go through our evolutionary stages in the womb and have gills lol. Why not use actual photos of the embryo stages? We've gotten farther in our knowledge and technology. Why not put those to good use? But alas, this topic is rather "boring."
Why not use actual photos all the time instead of illustrations? Illustrations make things clearer.
What I'm saying is that yes, they are willing to stretch the truth to let the information fit into their worldview. No, I don't think scientists and evolutionists are generally liars. I think they believe (probably) what they see fits into their worldview and are afraid of the alternative. A lot of what we hear from them stems from a bias.
And yet they've successfully peered through the bias to refute claims multiple times. The ground you're standing on is contradictory.
Can you give me an example of how historical science could be falsifiable and how it has been tried?
Find a reliable source which goes against what another source says.
There are numerous slanderous rumours about historical figures: how do we know they're just rumours? Source work. It's not a direct analogue because of course it woudln't, you're comparing two completely different topics, but it's more than possible to falsify a historical view.
Anything from the past must be analyzed with an already present worldview. Creationists can take the same data and fit it into their worldview. It only depends on which worldview makes the most sense to you.
And we'll focus on the latter point, because it addresses your final paragraph as well. Which worldview makes more sense?
Take evolution's "What if we all came from wherever?" That is not a beginning: that is a consequence of a separate presupposition. Why? Because it is not a presupposition to claim we came from somewhere. That's necessary. The creationist appends that with a separate presupposition: an entity unnecessary. One who accepts evolution, instead, relies only on that which we have observed to be the case, combined with deduction. Both those steps exist and are used by creationists, so no extra presupposition is involved.
-
Why not use actual photos all the time instead of illustrations? Illustrations make things clearer.
If you knew what Haeckel's forged embryo illustration looked like, you probably wouldn't be arguing this point. They look nothing like real embryos, first of all, and secondly, photos of actual embryos are much more clear. The thing that isn't "clear," however, is that we come from fish. But this way of teaching that philosophy should've been thrown out long ago with the medicinal leeches.
And yet they've successfully peered through the bias to refute claims multiple times.
Like?
Find a reliable source which goes against what another source says.
There are numerous slanderous rumours about historical figures: how do we know they're just rumours? Source work. It's not a direct analogue because of course it woudln't, you're comparing two completely different topics, but it's more than possible to falsify a historical view.
I was asking if you had any examples of how evolution has been attempted to be falsified.
And we'll focus on the latter point, because it addresses your final paragraph as well. Which worldview makes more sense?
Take evolution's "What if we all came from wherever?" That is not a beginning: that is a consequence of a separate presupposition. Why? Because it is not a presupposition to claim we came from somewhere. That's necessary. The creationist appends that with a separate presupposition: an entity unnecessary. One who accepts evolution, instead, relies only on that which we have observed to be the case, combined with deduction. Both those steps exist and are used by creationists, so no extra presupposition is involved.
It is necessary to say that we came from somewhere, but it is not necessary to say that we came from pond scum. We have not observed this to "be the case," and saying deduction does not make it anymore scientific. A presupposition still remains. The one that 1) there is no God and 2) our origins and life, and everything else we see, is what it is because of an accident in pond scum. And that is what makes more sense to you.
-
They look nothing like real embryos, first of all,
Neither do illustrations.
Like?
Look at the link you yourself provided. Piltdown, for one.
I was asking if you had any examples of how evolution has been attempted to be falsified.
Then don't ask after history.
Evolution is attempted to be falsified every time a fossil is unearthed or a genome examined. One flaw, it all comes crashing down. It has not, and it's that simple. The fact is, all the ways that could falsify evolution (a lack of genetic similarities, a lack of the ability to mutate, a lack of consistency and order in the fossil record...) fail to, and then you have sites such as creation.com that treat all this as a given, and complain that there aren't more tests, because the ones that have been done don't fall in line with the agenda they've set out.
It is necessary to say that we came from somewhere, but it is not necessary to say that we came from pond scum. We have not observed this to "be the case," and saying deduction does not make it anymore scientific.
But we know for a fact that this source exists: and that the means for development do exist.
A presupposition still remains. The one that 1) there is no God and 2) our origins and life, and everything else we see, is what it is because of an accident in pond scum. And that is what makes more sense to you.
Again, 1 is not a presupposition. 1 does not enter into it. The only remotely close thing that occurs is that "God is not necessary," and this is a result of "Don't assume more than what is required," and your second 'presupposition' too is a result. You've been corrected on this multiple times, stop ignoring it, just because it happens to be inconvenient for you.
-
Neither do illustrations.
I was talking about the illustrations. The illustrations (Haeckel's) look nothing like real embryos. This is in response to you saying that illustrations make things more clear.
Look at the link you yourself provided. Piltdown, for one.
You point out the bias that I used as an example of really bad science (the teeth were filed!) that was finally admitted to being a hoax after 40 years and after there were other alternatives. Not sure this is a good example for you.
Then don't ask after history.
Evolution is a historical assumption.
Evolution is attempted to be falsified every time a fossil is unearthed or a genome examined. One flaw, it all comes crashing down. It has not, and it's that simple. The fact is, all the ways that could falsify evolution (a lack of genetic similarities, a lack of the ability to mutate, a lack of consistency and order in the fossil record...) fail to, and then you have sites such as creation.com that treat all this as a given, and complain that there aren't more tests, because the ones that have been done don't fall in line with the agenda they've set out.
It's really not that simple, unfortunately. Time for a review, I suppose? 1) genetic similarities do not have anything to do with relation. http://creation.com/human-ape-dna (http://creation.com/human-ape-dna) 2) We do not have the ability to mutate new information to create new kinds. This has never been observed, but evolution hopes it is true based on the fact that we have rapid speciation, which is a completely different thing. 3) There is a ridiculous amount of inconsistencies with the fossil record. I have brought this up too many times to count. Finally, if you're referring to the offers for creation.com to fund carbon dating in things like dinosaurs, with the offers being turned down curiously, that is all I can think of that you would be referring to in the last part of your argument.
But we know for a fact that this source exists: and that the means for development do exist.
No, we don't know that we have any blueprints for the developments that were necessary to get what we have today. Again, we have speculated that we have what is necessary, but this has actually never been observed. We rely on things like the fossil record to support this, which is terribly lacking in evidence. Again, this is history that we analyze. That is all we have. Also, as you would be hasty to repeat, I'm sure, we observe things like speciation within yeasts, bacteria, and species. I will repeat yet again, this is not evidence for evolution. It's a different kind of information, and mutations do more harm than good. There's also the entropy problem that I stated earlier.
Again, 1 is not a presupposition. 1 does not enter into it. The only remotely close thing that occurs is that "God is not necessary," and this is a result of "Don't assume more than what is required," and your second 'presupposition' too is a result. You've been corrected on this multiple times, stop ignoring it, just because it happens to be inconvenient for you.
This is where I'm thinking our argument is done. I keep repeating myself, and you're too closed-minded to see your philosophical flaw. The only reason why God wouldn't be necessary is if we could have arrived by chance, which is an assumption. God is completely necessary because we couldn't have arrived by chance, and we have far too much evidence for design. There is also too much going against evolutionary "evidence" and too many inconsistencies for it to be science or true. Evolution becomes the "necessary entity" if you refuse to believe that God is necessary. Here's the thing, JRowe: There has to be a necessary entity. It's either God, or evolution by chance. To state otherwise is to be clearly so blinded by your bias that you don't make any philosophical sense.
If you have anymore questions about God for personal reasons, do not hesitate to PM me. Otherwise, I don't see how we can proceed from here. Thanks for your time, and have a happy rest of the holiday season. =)
PS Do you mind revealing your age? I'm so curious. I won't use it against you.
-
I was talking about the illustrations. The illustrations (Haeckel's) look nothing like real embryos. This is in response to you saying that illustrations make things more clear.
They do: by sensationalizing. No illustration is a photorealistic perfect copy, they're approximations to make a point clearer.
Not sure this is a good example for you.
And yet scientists openly admit a mistake. So...
It's really not that simple, unfortunately.
It really is. ignoring the arguments in response, you're still up against the fact that whether or not there are multiple explanations (there always are), everything is in line with what we expect to see. the new-kinds argument is rooted in resupposition on your part, as has been explained, and you just need to use google to find multiple examples of new information being added to the genome.
What I was referring to in the last part, was exactly what I said. You treat all the evidence of evolution as though it doesn't matter, simply because it's already been found. You treat it like it is still in the early stages of testing, when the tests have come back time and time again.
There's also the entropy problem that I stated earlier.
And which was shown to be utterly irrelevant earlier.
The only reason why God wouldn't be necessary is if we could have arrived by chance, which is an assumption.
Completely ignoring what I say and then complaining that you're repeating yourself is a problem with you, not me. It is a conclusion of a separate axiom. Repeatedly claiming otherwise won't change that.
Here's the thing, JRowe: There has to be a necessary entity. It's either God, or evolution by chance.
There has to be a necessary entity, sure: evolution isn't it. Evolution is a natural occurence that develops from existing rules of the universe, which develop from said entity. You're treating evolution like a be-all and end-all: it's not, and has never been. You're ignoring all the evidence that supports it, and has been used to support it, an inexplicably claiming it's a presupposition. if you use evidence to support something, it is not a presupposition: the axiom used is the one I have repeated multiple times and which you consistently ignore.