PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Theory of Creation
       (according to timbrx)

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(From the topic Abiogenesis Research)
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=40963

orion
I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.
timbrx
That's because you are not listening. Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution. Perhaps more so because it not  only respects physical laws but also moral laws.


We are listening, timbrx.

Can you give us some details of your theory? Or name your particular variant?

How did things happen?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:48 AM on February 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here goes. (abbreviated)

Science

Definition

noun, plural: sciences

(1) The methodological study of a phenomenon through careful observation, collecting data, experimental investigation, or theoretical explanation.

(2) A systematized body of knowledge in the form of hypotheses, theories, principles, models or laws that have been conclusively drawn from observed or verifiable facts or from experimental findings gained basically from the application of the scientific method.
___
(1)
A. Methodological study of a phenomenon - origin of life.
1. Observation- life vs non life, unique characteristics vs common characteristics.
2. research - define life, current hypothesis regarding origins, review evidence.

B. Collect data- origin of life crosses the spectrum of scientific disciplines.
1. Biology- life as we know it
2. Geology - where and when does life occur
3. Chemistry- processes involved, chemical energy
4. Physics- physical energy, limitations
5. Philosophy - does it  matter? Why should we care.
5. Theology- does origin effect our understanding of God?

C. Experimental investigation or theoretical explanation
1. Abiogenisis
2. Evolution
3. Creation
4. Aliens
5. Computer generated existance

Evaluation: Of these five possibilities, only two can stand alone. The other three are dependent on one or both to be in effect.

___
(2)
Evolution - Starting with the big bang where nothing became everything, some of the everything became the earth and after billions of years rocks turned into microbes and eventually became people.
1. biology - things live
2. geology - we are here now, and can guess as to where and when we came from based on our finite understanding of the earth.
3. chemistry- Energy from the sun fuels the processes that feed all life in some way or another
4. physics- delicate balance of nature, distance from the sun, gravity, atomic forces, tides, etc.
5. philosophy- desire to know is an inherited trait that evolved.
5. theology- none. No purpose other than what we make it to be

Creation- starting in the beginning, God who always was made everything that is or would become what is.
1. biology- life was made complete and perfect
2.geology- the universe was made complete and set into motion
3. chemistry- same as evolution
4. physics- same as evolution
5. philosophy- God planted the desire to know into humans
5. theology- since God made us, He sets the standards for morality and purpose.

Short but sweet. Nice outline for a thesis. Admittedly incomplete, but what can you expect from a mere technician?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:13 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What evidence would disprove your theory?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:25 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You put some effort to it. I appreciate it.

I'd like something simpler though. Just the details of your theory. No comparison with other theories.

Perhaps i should have been more specific.

I meant what happened... As in a time line (no need to be precise, just approximations). With some scientific explanation, perhaps. But at least the time line.

1. biology- life was made complete and perfect

When? Is it still perfect? What life? All life? Lions too? Parasites too? Viruses too? Are some of those incomplete now?

2.geology- the universe was made complete and set into motion

When? Is the Earth at it's center? What about the star light? Did it travel millions of years to get here? Are there any stars millions of light years away from Earth? Are they closer than that? Do stars exist? Was the Earth made after the rest of the Universe was already made? How long did the making take? Is the Universe incomplete now?

Now that i think about it, if the light was set into motion and is arriving Earth since 6k years ago, then the lights we see didn't come from actual stars...

I know that's not about life, but every version of Creationism seems to be so encompassing that it's inseparable from the history of the Universe.

5. philosophy- God planted the desire to know into humans
Are we still talking about science? Was that hypothesis tested? Is it a part of your theory about life?

5. theology- since God made us, He sets the standards for morality and purpose.
When did you reach the conclusion that God exists? From what?

If you found out that someone else (than God) made you, and wants you to be an asshole, would you start being one? (Note the "start".)

Still not about science, i think.

C. Experimental investigation or theoretical explanation
1. Abiogenisis
2. Evolution
3. Creation
4. Aliens
5. Computer generated existance

Evaluation: Of these five possibilities, only two can stand alone. The other three are dependent on one or both to be in effect.
Entities in a computer simulation could still evolve (well, actually all of the above can be true).

www.swimbots.com
Make them evolve. Or let them evolve on their own in your computer. They're awesome!

They start as very stupid creatures. They don't know how to swim. But the ones that accidentally swim better have more offspring, and evolution begins.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:06 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Apoapsis at Sun February 8, 2009 - 7:25 PM
What evidence would disprove your theory?


Do you mean is it falsifiable? Well I suppose God could appear before the world and say he didn't do it.

But seriously, I haven't really put forth a theory per say other than to support my theory that the theory of evolution and creation are equally valid, theoretically. ( Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution. Perhaps more so because it not  only respects physical laws but also moral laws.

I'll try and answer wisp line by line tomorrow when I can take myself more seriously.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:26 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok. I'd appreciate that.

In the meanwhile...
But seriously, I haven't really put forth a theory
That's ok. But then don't say it's because we don't listen.
per say
It's "per se" ("in itself", "by itself"). "Se" stands for "self" (you won't find the letter "Y" in true Latin words).
other than to support my theory that the theory of evolution and creation are equally valid, theoretically.
That really sounds like a hypothesis. Not a theory.

I'd like to know if you're a biblical literalist.

Looking forward to your reply. Sleep well.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:42 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:26 PM on February 8, 2009 :
Well I suppose God could appear before the world and say he didn't do it.


Could you accept that God used evolution as his means of creation?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:11 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Could you accept that God used evolution as his means of creation?


Can't speak for Timbrx here but in my reasoned opinion, Biblical creation and evolution are entirely at odds with one another. If God used evolution then why does it say (more than once) that he did it 'in six days'. We can't turn it into billions of years and still claim that it is the same God that inspired the writing of the Bible.
Also the Bible says that death entered the world through sin on the part of the first people. So in other words there was no death originally -the choices of people caused that. People chose to make their own rules much as we continue to do to this day.
The Bible also says that Jesus Christ came to overcome death that was caused by sin.
If evolution is true then death is not a consequence of anything, it is a natural part of life and if that is true then there was no need for Jesus Christ to die for our sins.
Christians that say the two, evolution and creation, are compatible undermine their own gospel.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:02 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So God is limited to what you allow Him to do.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:40 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So God is limited to what you allow Him to do.


No, God limits Himself to what he WILL do.

I agree with Lester10 that to claim evolution as Gods mechanism for creation undermines the validity of the bible.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:39 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Could you accept that God used evolution as his means of creation?
Lester10
Can't speak for Timbrx here but in my reasoned opinion, Biblical creation and evolution are entirely at odds with one another.
Indeed they are. But i don't think Apoapsis is talking about the literal Yahweh (the same that ordered killings, pillages, rapes, human sacrifices, etc).

If God used evolution then why does it say (more than once) that he did it 'in six days'.
Piece of cake: because it's a mythical account of fictitious events (which are supposed to be at least inspirational, but the bible, among other sacred texts, isn't specially good at it). And it's validity isn't above that of the Quran (with a very similar atrocious God, and some other repeated characters). The difference is that the original of the Quran IS IN HEAVEN!!
How fucking cool is that????

We can't turn it into billions of years and still claim that it is the same God that inspired the writing of the Bible.
We have intelligence. Intelligence could be seen as a divine thing. Thus any text would be inspired by God.

Lester10: Congratulations on you successful quote.

No, God limits Himself to what he WILL do.
Like, say, respecting the laws of physics that He Himself instituted?

I agree with Lester10 that to claim evolution as Gods mechanism for creation undermines the validity of the bible.
Not as an inspirational text. In that respect it undermines itself when it starts damning people to death by lapidation.

As a historical account of events it never had the slightest chance of veracity.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:30 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with Lester10 that to claim evolution as Gods mechanism for creation undermines the validity of the bible.

Ah - the truth emerges. The real reason you don't like evolution is because it goes against what you think and shows that you could be wrong. Where did the initial validity of the bible come from? If you believe it is the word of God then you have nothing but the bible itself to base that beliefe on. I could say I am God. By your logic you would have to believe me because I have said that I am God, and well you can't argue with God.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:26 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can't speak for Timbrx here but in my reasoned opinion, Biblical creation and evolution are entirely at odds with one another. If God used evolution then why does it say (more than once) that he did it 'in six days'. We can't turn it into billions of years and still claim that it is the same God that inspired the writing of the Bible.
Also the Bible says that death entered the world through sin on the part of the first people. So in other words there was no death originally -the choices of people caused that. People chose to make their own rules much as we continue to do to this day.
The Bible also says that Jesus Christ came to overcome death that was caused by sin.
If evolution is true then death is not a consequence of anything, it is a natural part of life and if that is true then there was no need for Jesus Christ to die for our sins.
Christians that say the two, evolution and creation, are compatible undermine their own gospel.


Interesting...What Bible are you refering to?
The New International Version? King James? Darby Translation? The Macedonian New Testament? 21st Century King James Version? Russain Synodal Version? Luther Bible? etc...?

How do you reconcile the inconsistancies between the various Bible translations?

How do you determine whether a specific Christian sect or individual is correct with their interpretation?

How do you know all the correct books were cobbled together in your bible?  How do you know for certain that none of the "missing" gospels are valid scripture?

Are you fluent in ancient Greek or Aramaic?  What about Latin, Hebrew or German?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:58 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you believe it is the word of God then you have nothing but the bible itself to base that beliefe on.


Not so. As I have said before, there is an "awakening" "quickening of the spirit" "lifting of a veil" that occurs when God opens a person's eyes to His reality. Without that the Bible is merely words. Ask any born again Christian and they will testify to the same type of experience. The Bible suddenly "comes alive" and starts making sense. The Bible even explains why you doubt. And why fredguff tries to find fault with it. Your eyes are closed. They cannot be opened except by divine intervention. You go on and think Christians are a bunch of backwards hicks. It doesn't matter. Some will remain true to their faith and many will fall away. But Gods plans will come to fruition.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:05 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not so. As I have said before, there is an "awakening" "quickening of the spirit" "lifting of a veil" that occurs when God opens a person's eyes to His reality.
God tends to do that among (North) American protestants.

Without that the Bible is merely words.
Also an interesting account of myths and superstitions. And a couple of historical (even if distorted) facts.

Ask any born again Christian
Do they have a mark or something? How can i spot them?

and they will testify to the same type of experience. The Bible suddenly "comes alive" and starts making sense.
I'd like to understand more about that.

dijonaise (a creationist that used to come by, almost coherent, did his homework) didn't tell us about that.

He said he got to believe in the Bible through careful study (he knew quite a lot about it, and the original Hebrew words and all).

The Bible even explains why you doubt.
About what? About it's veracity i don't have doubts.

And why fredguff tries to find fault with it. Your eyes are closed. They cannot be opened except by divine intervention.
Then we can't be blamed for not believing a word of it, right?

You go on and think Christians are a bunch of backwards hicks. It doesn't matter. Some will remain true to their faith and many will fall away. But Gods plans will come to fruition.
Does that imply that His plans don't come to fruition now?

Does He have a minute plan? If so, why pray?
Is he improvising? Does He have a general scheme and goes on filling the details?

If He's eternal, does He know everything that will happen beforehand? Did He plan for Adam to fuck it up? If so, could Adam have done otherwise?

If Adam could have done it right, and God wanted that, is this all like, what, His plan B?

Can i know if He planned to open my eyes?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:24 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do they have a mark or something? How can i spot them?


you can usually spot them going to church on Sunday, carrying bibles, praying before meals, and trying to resist temptation.

I'd like to understand more about that.


I'd like for you to understand more about that too.

Then we can't be blamed for not believing a word of it, right?

Good point. I wish I had a good answer for this one, but I don't. I'm having a tao moment.

Does that imply that His plans don't come to fruition now?

My wording might unintentionally imply that. But that has nothing to do with how His plans unfold.  

Does He have a minute plan? If so, why pray?
Is he improvising? Does He have a general scheme and goes on filling the details?

If He's eternal, does He know everything that will happen beforehand? Did He plan for Adam to fuck it up? If so, could Adam have done otherwise?

If Adam could have done it right, and God wanted that, is this all like, what, His plan B?


I don't know. But I think praying is more for us than Him.

Can i know if He planned to open my eyes?

To the best of my understanding, only if He does.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:22 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything i do is a part of His plan... Even my lack of belief is a part of His plan...

I had a long discussion about sin, deserving, free will etc in this forum.

The conclusions were that you cannot sin if you don't know right from wrong;
Adam didn't know right from wrong before eating the fruit;
Adam sinned anyway because He knew that God had told him not to eat that;
Then the requirements of sin must be "not doing what God told you" instead of "knowing right from wrong and choosing wrong";
So you can sin without knowing it's wrong.

I played Socrates with this guy, but he never accepted this conclusion.

Adam was blamed and all of us were damned because he acted according with his curiosity (God implanted), and instead of paying attention to God he chose to listen to the snake (God allowed) and his wife (God made), without even knowing it was wrong.

And he was made perfect... A perfect idiot! If i saw my almighty maker and He told me not to eat something, i'd listen.

As a metaphor it does make sense. And it's a nice story. And the eating of the fruit was a very good thing, and i'd congratulate this metaphoric Adam, and this metaphoric God.

timbrx, if God is almighty and all knowing, can He made things in a way that would contradict his will?

Use common sense, or logic, or Math, whatever. How would that be possible?

I'm not trying to pin you with silly paradoxes like "Can He make a stone so heavy that He Himself cannot lift?". Nothing of the sort.

If you say "free will", then does He have a plan?

Can God fail? Can His plans fail?

Do you think about these things at all?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:23 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,

dijonaise (a creationist that used to come by, almost coherent, did his homework) didn't tell us about that.

He said he got to believe in the Bible through careful study (he knew quite a lot about it, and the original Hebrew words and all).


Maybe he didn't want to creep you out. It is quite possible that careful study led him to the truth at which point he was probably born again. Things we don't understand can sound creepy. If it hadn't happened to me, I would have thought it was creepy. But it is like a veil that is lifted. You go from thinking that God exists to knowing that God is real and that the Bible is true just as it claims to be.
However apart from this, the whole picture is more than scientifically or intellectually  satisfying  and makes a whole lot more sense than nothing exploding and ordering itself into everything. Chemicals fortuitously coming together against probability and producing life that becomes more complicated in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics and known genetically verifiable possibilities.
To you supernatural creation may sound like myth but to me evolution as the creator, like a chair creating itself, is the myth.  






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:33 AM on February 10, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not so. As I have said before, there is an "awakening" "quickening of the spirit" "lifting of a veil" that occurs when God opens a person's eyes to His reality. Without that the Bible is merely words. Ask any born again Christian and they will testify to the same type of experience.


Sounds nice but your “awakening”  is no different than the experiences of individuals who find  the same "awakening" + "quickening of the spirit" + "lifting of a veil" when they read The Book of Mormon (or the Quran etc..), listen to the collective works of the Beatles or study the collective works of Shakespeare.  
Which brings us back to the question of establishing authority…By what criteria do you establish that the words of your particular Bible translation supersede the scientific evidence that places the age of the earth at 4-5 billion years?

The Bible suddenly "comes alive" and starts making sense. The Bible even explains why you doubt. And why fredguff tries to find fault with it.


If “finding fault” equals subjecting the claimed word of God to critical analysis then I am guilty as charged. I suppose you would not subject the  Book of Mormon or Quran to the same critical analysis that I subject your Bible translation to.  Huh?!!!

The truth is, you use your interpretation of a translated-interpretation of a collection of books cobbled together by Roman church bureaucrats at the Council of Rome 1600+ years ago, to cast doubt on the rock-solid scientific evidence that puts the earth’s age at 4.5 billion yrs and demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt (at least according to the US Federal Court system) that your mother and Cheeta the Chimp share a common ancestor.  

This stance opens you up to reasonable inquiry.  For starters, how did you establish the authority of your book?  By experiencing the same “rush” that pot smokers get when they listen to the White Album?

Your eyes are closed. They cannot be opened except by divine intervention. You go on and think Christians are a bunch of backwards hicks. It doesn't matter. Some will remain true to their faith and many will fall away. But Gods plans will come to fruition


Says who?  The fundamentalist Muslim?   The bike-riding Mormon?   The Treky waiting in line for the latest Star Trek movie?  The pot-smoker who just synched “Dark Side of the Moon” with “The Wizard of Oz”?  Dr. Phil?

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:23 AM on February 10, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by fredguff at Tue February 10, 2009 - 10:23 AM
rock-solid scientific evidence that puts the earth’s age at 4.5 billion yrs and demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt (at least according to the US Federal Court system) that your mother and Cheeta the Chimp share a common ancestor.

By rock solid are you making a pun in reference to the geologic column?

As for solid evidence, how do you explain the many inconsistencies with the old earth theory?
receding moon
magnetic field decay
spiral galaxy winding-up dilemma
sea floor mud accumulation
increasing ocean salinity rate
tightly bent strata
radiohalos
too much carbon 14 in deep strata
few stone age skeletons
recorded history too short
too much helium in deep minerals
mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA

Seems like a lot of reasonable doubt.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:24 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By rock solid are you making a pun in reference to the geologic column?

As for solid evidence, how do you explain the many inconsistencies with the old earth theory?


Dude these tired war horses have  been refuted on many discussion boards.   This is all PRATT.

receding moon
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

magnetic field decay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

spiral galaxy winding-up dilemma
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html

sea floor mud accumulation
Assuming you believe that erosion should have dumped at least 30 times more sediment in the sea  and that all the continents should  be worn to sea level ...I got 2 words...

PLATE TECTONICS...Ever hear of them?  Huh?!!!

Please read:

On Volcanism and Thermal Tectonics on one-plate Planets
Solomon, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 5, no 6 June 1978
The Supercontinent Cycle
Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#erosion

increasing ocean salinity rate
Please show your data on this and please account  for fluctuations in the production of salt, and the systems which remove salt from the ocean.

tightly bent strata
Over long  periods of time with exposure to  heat and pressure, the strata will bend. A page on lithospheric deformation:
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/plate/deformation.html

radiohalos
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html

too much carbon 14 in deep strata
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

few stone age skeletons
Huh? How many should there be?  Are you sure you are trying to disprove an old earth with this one?!!!

recorded history too short
And just how is this evidence against a 4.5 billion yr old earth?!!!
How old is recorded history? 5k-6k yrs?  Does early human art count as recorded history? I do know there are cave paintings in France that can be dated to 30k+ yrs ago--which totally blows away any Biblical Young Earth "theory" of less than 10k yrs.
Again how does this refute an old earth?

too much helium in deep minerals
http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html

mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA
Whoooa. How the heck does the mutational rate of mitochondrial DNA disprove an old earth?!!!   I think you are trying to disprove chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor or maybe the age of human presence on earth with this one .  Whatever, please elaborate because it doesn't make sense as evidence against an old earth.

Seems like a lot of reasonable doubt.
Not to me or anybody with an open mind, who understands basic biology,  basic geology, basic chemistry, basic physics and basic logic...

Oh!  Until you demonstrate otherwise...Your mom and cheeta still share a common ancestor

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 8:07 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:24 PM on February 10, 2009 :
rock-solid scientific evidence that puts the earth’s age at 4.5 billion yrs and demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt (at least according to the US Federal Court system) that your mother and Cheeta the Chimp share a common ancestor.

By rock solid are you making a pun in reference to the geologic column?

As for solid evidence, how do you explain the many inconsistencies with the old earth theory?
receding moon
magnetic field decay
spiral galaxy winding-up dilemma
sea floor mud accumulation
increasing ocean salinity rate
tightly bent strata
radiohalos
too much carbon 14 in deep strata
few stone age skeletons
recorded history too short
too much helium in deep minerals
mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA

Seems like a lot of reasonable doubt.


Can you defend these or does bearing false witness mean nothing to you?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:45 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
the whole picture is more than scientifically or intellectually  satisfying  and makes a whole lot more sense than nothing exploding and ordering itself into everything.
Which isn't stated by the Theory of Evolution.

To you supernatural creation may sound like myth but to me evolution as the creator, like a chair creating itself, is the myth.
Oh, but that's not a myth!

Given the right conditions a chair could defy the monster of Entropy.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Wl_hlTBN0

You just need energy from some entropy growing source.

Lester10
Chemicals fortuitously coming together against probability and producing life that becomes more complicated in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics and known genetically verifiable possibilities.
Man, stop saying that. It's a lie.


Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl  
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na  
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl  
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na  
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na  
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl  
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na

Edit: timbrx, droping PRATT doesn't count as a timeline. Start a thread for each PRATT, or look it up in the forum (it may have already been discussed, and it's original poster has run away).

Please, give us a timeline. Even if copypasted from your favorite YEC site. You could start with something basic, like "6k years ago, everything, 4k years ago, flood". The next step would be to support it by any evidential means.


(Edited by wisp 2/10/2009 at 9:32 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:58 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:33 AM on February 10, 2009 :
Chemicals fortuitously coming together against probability and producing life that becomes more complicated in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics and known genetically verifiable possibilities.


When you took Thermodynamics, what textbook did you use?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:29 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dude these tired war horses have  been refuted on many discussion boards.


Well, if it is refuted on the internet discussion boards than that settles it. Right?

By the way, what is PRATT?

Can you defend these or does bearing false witness mean nothing to you?


I guess that depends on the context. But why should you care? If evolution is true than I can define morality to suit myself. After all I'm only here by chance and all that really matters is survival. Right?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:40 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many are converted to atheism when they learn how they have been lied to by those they trusted.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:54 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:40 PM on February 10, 2009 :

I guess that depends on the context.


What context do you need to tell the truth?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:06 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If evolution is true than I can define morality to suit myself.

What a lot of baloney!  And I take offense to that.

Timbrx - why do you think morality can only come from religion?  Evolution doesn't have anything to do with morality.  I'm an atheist, but I think I have a pretty good set of morals, I daresay better than some TV evangelists preachers that I can name.  Qualities of knowing right and wrong don't have anything to do with evolution.  And Christianity has a very poor track record in that area.  Don't get me wrong - there are some wonderful Christians out there - I would even say they  approach saint-hood, if there is such a thing.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:26 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, if it is refuted on the internet discussion boards than that settles it. Right?

I gave you links. Did you look at any of them?
Can you refute any of them?  
Can you explain how the mutational rate of mitochondria DNA is evidence against a 4.5 billion year old earth?

By the way, what is PRATT?

Previously Refuted a Thousand Times.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:04 AM on February 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If evolution is true than I can define morality to suit myself.
If you like to think in terms of "must", you must do this:
Think of the highest unconditional value.

Love, Life, Truth, Consciousness, Intelligence, spiritual growth, Knowledge, pleasure/gratification/fun, power, reproduction... your choice (you can change it whenever you like).

Then ask yourself: What would the world be like if everyone shared that highest value?

Take responsibility of your choice. (Another way to put it is "Deserve the world you'd like to be in".)

Now defend it with all you can. Nothing should stand against that. Every other value should be placed underneath.

If it's Knowledge, you should kill whomever opposed it's acquisition. Because it would be above Life.

If it doesn't feel right, review your highest value, because it must be wrong.

Choose with your mind and with your heart.

After all I'm only here by chance and all that really matters is survival. Right?
Evolution doesn't include any "should". It's a depiction of what it is, and how it came to be.

If you have your "should" (i do have mine) learn from Evolution. It can teach you how to fight it.

I fight my violence, jealousy, fear and other evolutionary traits that were designed to give me more offspring. And there are things i'd die for, in spite of it being against my survival (do'h!).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:09 AM on February 11, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a lot of baloney!  And I take offense to that.


On what grounds do you take offense? You say you have good morals. By what standard? Do you chose to live by them of does someone force you? Do you think your morals were inherited traits or learned?

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with morality.


Unfortunate misconception. Belief in evolution has everything to do with the morality of the person who believes it. Inherent in "survival of the fittest" is moral relativism. Right now in western society you survive better if you demonstrate a higher morality to your neighbors. But in Soviet Russia 50 years ago you would survive better if you "ratted out" your neighbor, lied to the commissar and stole food.

Is it morally wrong to torture cats? What about if dogs do it? Should we kill dogs that torture cats to "breed" it out of them? Or is it right to let dogs be dogs?

Does being a Christian make you morally perfect? Of course not. You are a person first and all people are flawed. That's why we need help.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:46 PM on February 11, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On what grounds do you take offense? You say you have good morals. By what standard? Do you chose to live by them of does someone force you? Do you think your morals were inherited traits or learned?


At the end of the day, I try to act in a manner that makes me happy... But I have learned that I can only be happy if I feel good about myself in the long run.   Stealing money from old retirees in my neighborhood might give me some short-term satisfaction if i grab enough money and valuables to buy  a 61-62 jazz bass with stacked tuning knobs or 63 split window coupe with a fuel injected 327.  I even think I could escape prosecution from the legal authorities if I chose this path.  But in the long run, I could not live in happiness knowing that I had to cause pain to innocent and helpless victims to gain my prized possessions.    


Unfortunate misconception. Belief in evolution has everything to do with the morality of the person who believes it. Inherent in "survival of the fittest" is moral relativism. Right now in western society you survive better if you demonstrate a higher morality to your neighbors. But in Soviet Russia 50 years ago you would survive better if you "ratted out" your neighbor, lied to the commissar and stole food.


Strong human societies require certain behaviors from their individual members in order to survive.  As these societies move forward towards the goal of achieving happier lives for all the members, certain individual behaviors that may have once been allowed, are frowned upon or banned.  Rape, for instance, could be a very effective reproductive strategy in a primitive warrior society.  Certainly, if the seed from all the strong violent male warriors  was planted  in all the female slaves stolen from other societies it would ensure that more strong-warriors would be available in future generations.  Doesn't  the Old Testament have an opinion(s) on this particular "reproductive strategy"?

Of course in modern times, rape creates a drag on a society's ability to guide individual members towards "happiness".  Therefore, rapists, when caught, are usually removed from the gene pool.

With the above in mind,  I would hope that law enforcement agencies all across the land would start monitoring closely anyone who claimed that their  morals were based principally on a literal interpretation of the psychotic, sociopath  "god" described  in the King James version of the Old Testament.  

On the other hand,  if I was a Middle-Eastern goat herder from the Bronze Age, I could probably find good reason to follow the morality of the OT god.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:52 PM on February 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunate misconception. Belief in evolution has everything to do with the morality of the person who believes it.

Timbrx - all I can say is that you have a lot fo strange notions that don't come close to fitting reality.  My belief in evolution does not have a thing to do with what I believe is right or wrong.  Evolution and science don't guide my moral values.  Why on earth do you think there is a connection between the two?  They are completely seperate areas of human cognition.  If you had any understanding of science at all, you would realize that and wouldn't make such absurd comments.

As for the OT of the Bible - do you develop your morals from that, as this is also the source of Creationists views?

a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. - Letter to William Short, August 4, 1820.

that's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the God of the OT, and I think he pretty much hit it correctly.  And speaking of Jefferson - he and a number of other of our founding fathers did not hold particularly strong Christian beliefs.  A number of them were deists and atheists.  Yet wouldn't you say they were men of strong moral character and convictions?  I don't think anyone would deny that.

A literal reading of the Bible, especially from Genesis, does not inspire a lot of good moral values in my opinion.  And yet there they are, and people throughout history have used them to justify atrocities - from pillage and rape to slavery and conquest.  From the Crusades, through the conquest of the New World, thru the Ku Klux Klan to today's oppression of gay rights.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:41 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I live in Argentina. Sometimes when i'm on the train a couple of young guys get in, selling pastries, saying that they were once drug addicts, and thieves. But now their lives were changed. They live in a christian rehab community. They found Jesus Christ, and salvation. Or something like that.

Now they work at the community, making pastries to sell on trains (praise the Lord).

Could it be true that such lies would be better for them than the direct truth?

It seems so.

They can't reach what fredguff has figured out (i forgot to add happiness to my short list of highest value candidates).

They are stupid and weak (not meant as an insult, but as a clear and just depiction of their nature), and in desperate need for external guidance. Can't think for themselves.

That's not the way i think you are, timbrx.

On what grounds do you take offense? You say you have good morals. By what standard?
His own, probably.

My standard is this: Would i like to live in a world where everyone shared my values, views and behavior?

Taking out the "boring" factor, the answer is yes.

Do you think your morals were inherited traits or learned?
I prefer ethics. But morals traits are inherited AND learned.

Ethics are developed.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with morality.
Unfortunate misconception. Belief in evolution has everything to do with the morality of the person who believes it.
Are you saying something against our morals? And then ask on what ground one can take offense?

From my ethics i try to make the world a little better.

From the christian view, this world doesn't matter. Fuck this world. Gain a place in the next by acting by what a capricious god said, according to bronze age goat herder prophets.

Now he doesn't order killings, rapes, pillaging, sacrifices, or anything at all, but what if he starts again?

Inherent in "survival of the fittest" is moral relativism.
Well, guess what: morals are relative.

From a christian point of view it's ok to enslave. To me that's a nono. Just like picking on gay people.

When oppressed, christians are martyrs. When in charge, they are bullies.

I'm certainly glad they're not in charge.

Is it morally wrong to torture cats?
It's relative. Just like morals. Remember?

What about if dogs do it? Should we kill dogs that torture cats to "breed" it out of them? Or is it right to let dogs be dogs?
I don't believe in any "right" or "wrong" if we have not previously decided on the highest value.

But i sure hate it when people torture animals. I don't even like it when they eat them. I try to talk people out of it by compassion and disgust.

To me people are animals, and animals have value according to their level of consciousness. To me an adult cat has more objective value than a human fetus. By that i don't mean that it's ok to kill someone else's fetus, because their parents could suffer, and they're more valuable to me than the cat.

Does being a Christian make you morally perfect?
By what standards?

Of course not.
Oh, by any.

But don't say "of course". Christianism teaches that christians are moraly perfect.
Romans 8:33
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.


timbrx
You are a person first and all people are flawed. That's why we need help.
Just like children, right? There are lots of things that they don't understand. So we better give them prohibitions.

That might be true for some people also. But not for me. Or for you, timbrx. I don't believe that, if we ever got you convinced of Evolution's validity, you would start raping virgins.

Wait, that's allowed by the Bible... Mmm... Eating pork. That's a clear prohibition.

Leviticus 19:27, King James version
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Do you follow this? Is this a part of your moral?

Beware. Don't relax any of these commandments.
Matthew 5:18-19 RSV
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:15 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm trying to refrain from using the Bible to support my arguments. I believe I have made it clear as to where my personal beliefs stem from. Yes, I am a YEC but for the sake of argument I have been trying to stay more on the generic ID side of the argument.

Your misunderstanding of the Bible , while understandable, shows a lack of one of the basic tenants of science (understanding) that you so vehemently espouse: context.

I think you mistake those in rehab. I would wager that 75% of them already figured out what fredguff did and that's what left them in rehab. Doing drugs made them happy. Mind altering drugs are merely a poor diabolical substitute for the real thing which is the mind change brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by orion at Thu February 12, 2009 - 01:41 AM
Timbrx - all I can say is that you have a lot fo strange notions that don't come close to fitting reality.  My belief in evolution does not have a thing to do with what I believe is right or wrong.  Evolution and science don't guide my moral values.  Why on earth do you think there is a connection between the two?  They are completely seperate areas of human cognition.  If you had any understanding of science at all, you would realize that and wouldn't make such absurd comments.


Your tone would suggest otherwise. I know, you don't accept that evolution is a religion. But you can't deny that it is a worldview unless you lie to yourself. Your worldview includes evolution as the baseline from which you derive your purpose of life. Yes, human cognition can add more to meaning than the basic animal instincts. But every rational comes back to the context of survival.

Posted by wisp at Thu February 12, 2009 - 08:15 AM
My standard is this: Would i like to live in a world where everyone shared my values, views and behavior?


The guy standing next to you should have the right to the same standard. Right? What if he is a pedophile? Think about it . The door you are opening can lead to a very dark place. Cruelty trumps compassion in the animal world of survival.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:07 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timrx, I disagree with your view of evolution and how it is "a world view".

the merriam-webster dictionary says a worldview is:

"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"

you're basically saying that evolution is a world view, eventhough it only deals with one aspect of life, namely the "change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"

It is a "part of life" and this " part" deals with populations, not with individuals. Whatever someones worldview is, evolution is only an underlying principal for biological change.

And because evolution deals with populations and not just individuals, you can't talk about everyone sticking to a "survival of the fittest" because the survival of one person is not the same as survival of the population, it is completely irrelevant.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:32 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm trying to refrain from using the Bible to support my arguments. I believe I have made it clear as to where my personal beliefs stem from. Yes, I am a YEC but for the sake of argument I have been trying to stay more on the generic ID side of the argument.
I'd like you to defend YEC. Mainly because it's easier to refute than the bendable concept of ID.

Your misunderstanding of the Bible , while understandable, shows a lack of one of the basic tenants of science (understanding) that you so vehemently espouse: context.
What do you mean? What context?
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.
So what context?

I think you mistake those in rehab. I would wager that 75% of them already figured out what fredguff did and that's what left them in rehab.
I wish that was true. But i believe it was fear.

Mind altering drugs are merely a poor diabolical substitute for the real thing which is the mind change brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is a substitute for when you're out of mind altering drugs.

Perhaps "Holy Spirit" was the name they gave to the funny fungi of the old days.

I know, you don't accept that evolution is a religion.
Man, no faith, no priests, no rites...
But you can't deny that it is a worldview unless you lie to yourself.
They also say that it's the basis for communism, which makes no sense.

But yes, there are some people who use the TOE as a scheme of how things should be in the human world (and i still don't think their hopes qualify as a world view).

Again, i see no "should" if you have not yet defined at least some rudimentary order of values. At least the highest one.

"Happiness" (i don't know the standard definition, and i have none for myself) seems easy to set. It's not mine, but it'd be ok for me if it was chosen as the highest value for the human world.

Hum... Perhaps not. Because sometimes ignorance is bliss. And i don't want that bliss.

Nah, it's ok. There will always be people who find their happiness in knowledge. And those who find their happiness in their ignorance are free to avoid learning.

Your worldview includes evolution as the baseline from which you derive your purpose of life.
No.

Yes, human cognition can add more to meaning than the basic animal instincts. But every rational comes back to the context of survival.
No.

Is it not rational to define objective prior to start acting?

Survival is quite an animal basis. And i fight making it mine. With all my animal guts.

A magical view of things is just as basic as survival, for the human animal. And i also fight that, while you don't. It's an evolutionary trait you seem to be ok with.

There are evolutionary traits that i'm comfortable with. Like enjoying sex, and being tender.

I like hugs. ^____^

I fight pleasure as a purpose for my life. But i don't fight pleasure (i'm eating a delicious noodle, peas and corn salad my girl made).

Everything that i have i have to thank Evolution. Even the ability to fight it.


My standard is this: Would i like to live in a world where everyone shared my values, views and behavior?
The guy standing next to you should have the right to the same standard. Right?
I don't actually believe in "rights", but for the sake of argument let's say yes.
What if he is a pedophile? Think about it .
I'm thinking. Mmm...

What could his highest value be? Molesting children? Perhaps it would be his immediate gratification. Yeah, he could be stupid enough.

I could say "Ok, you can teach christianism to those stupid fucks who don't know better, but don't show him the biblical passages where God condones raping little virgins", but then i'm reminded of the child molesting members of christian churches.

But hey!
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?
right?

The door you are opening can lead to a very dark place.
I'm not opening it. Every person does what he/she wants. And if you want to stop it, you're free to try, if you want.

As for opening the doors to a dark place, that's what Christianism did with the dark ages.

Cruelty trumps compassion in the animal world of survival.
Both were invented by Evolution.

But i don't like cruelty.
I oppose it.
Christianism teaches not to oppose it.

So Christianism is guilty of pretty much everything you accuse Evolution/Atheism/Science/whatever.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:29 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you please say something about YEC timeline?

Are you with the 6k years variant?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:34 AM on February 12, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm trying to refrain from using the Bible to support my arguments. I believe I have made it clear as to where my personal beliefs stem from. Yes, I am a YEC but for the sake of argument I have been trying to stay more on the generic ID side of the argument.

You have stated that you believe that your interpretation of your version of the Bible leaves no room for anyone to believe in evolution.  If this is true then I believe it is reasonable to conclude that your Bible serves as the foundation of your understanding of the origin of species (and life)  on Earth.   So please...Don't refrain.

Your misunderstanding of the Bible , while understandable, shows a lack of one of the basic tenants of science (understanding) that you so vehemently espouse: context.
 
It seems I am not the only one who has a "misunderstanding" of the bible. There are over one hundred different English translations and more than 1.5K different Christian sects and denominations.  I think it is fair to say that many, many Christians see the bible differently from one another.  Of course this brings into question the communication skills of the "intelligent being" who inspired the writers of all these different Christian Bibles.
As for context, perhaps you can put the following passage from Judges 21:10-24 NLT in its proper context:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

I think you mistake those in rehab. I would wager that 75% of them already figured out what fredguff did and that's what left them in rehab. Doing drugs made them happy. Mind altering drugs are merely a poor diabolical substitute for the real thing which is the mind change brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


Ummm...I thought I was pretty clear about the importance of knowing how to attain long-term happiness. Many people realize  that the euphoria caused by drugs is not the answer to long-term happiness without having to experience drug addiction.   Be that as it may,  religion is not the only answer to finding happiness for those who have experienced drug addiction.  There are many alternatives to religion that drug abusers can use to beat addiction.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:43 PM on February 12, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your tone would suggest otherwise. I know, you don't accept that evolution is a religion. But you can't deny that it is a worldview unless you lie to yourself. Your worldview includes evolution as the baseline from which you derive your purpose of life. Yes, human cognition can add more to meaning than the basic animal instincts. But every rational comes back to the context of survival.


I don't believe in "evolution".  I believe in the  overwhelming scientific evidence that points to "evolution" as the most valid explanation for species diversification on earth.  

And while it is true that there is some disagreement among members and groups within the scientific communinity on precisely how evolution works, these "disagreements" pale in comparison to the disagreements that occur within the Christian community over what is exactly being said in the Bible...Not to mention the disagreements over which books actually make up the Bible.

The guy standing next to you should have the right to the same standard. Right? What if he is a pedophile? Think about it . The door you are opening can lead to a very dark place. Cruelty trumps compassion in the animal world of survival.


Humans are societal creatures.  IMHO, as human societies have evolved, things like pedophillia have been banned because they cause too much stress within the society.  In these  societies, individuals who cannot suppress their need to commit pedophillia are removed from the gene pool.

For comparison look at some of the advanced societies of social insects.  As these societies have evolved, things like sex among the individual workers have been eliminated through natural selection because insect societies that use only one female member and several temporary male members for reproduction,  free-up all the other female members to focus their attention totally on running the society and protecting it from outsiders. It must be a good survival strategy because these "Sex queen centric" insect collonies have totally outcompeted insect societies that allow sex among the individual workers.

Now I'm not saying that human societies, in order to advance,  should be ready to ban sex among all but a few members, but IMHO, I believe a human society that protects its children from pedophiles has a competetive advantage over a human society that doesn't.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:20 AM on February 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution.
Which version is?

Why don't you give us the timeline?

Perhaps more so because it not  only respects physical laws
It certainly does not respect the physical laws. I hope you can give me this one without going into details.
but also moral laws.
As a standard for experimentation and prediction?

Stealing is morally wrong. So... Mmm... You will only find honest fossils.

What? What predictions can be made from moral laws?

And what standard for experimentation can be derived from moral laws? Not to steal each other's work? Not to investigate fossils that would disprove the biblical account?

orion
I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.
timbrx
That's because you are not listening.
You accuse us of not listening, but it's very likely that we have heard more creationist hypothesis (they really don't count as scientific theories) than you have.

All of them had attention.


(Edited by wisp 2/13/2009 at 02:25 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:21 AM on February 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fredguff,
I appreciate your civil and well reasoned explanation of how evidence points you towards evolution as a valid explanation for origin. You have reminded me that interpretations are as varied as the people who interpret. All to often I find myself posting in generalities rather than specifics. I can offer no excuse other than the desire for brevity.

I find myself in a difficult position. How do I answer to the multitude of questions, statements, contradictions and challenges laid out before me? Any one of them deserves a complete answer. Short answers are an insult to your intelligence and long answers generate endless rabbit trails.

I'm sure orion will accuse me of "weaseling out" and for once I would have to agree with him. Sun Tzu reminds us to choose our battles wisely so as to cause discord within the ranks of the enemy. While I don't consider you to be my enemy per-se (thanks wisp) I have certainly managed to align myself against a united front.

Congratulate yourselves on running off another creationist. But have a care. Your victory will be short lived and I will be watching for the opportunity to paste some definitions and sneer at some spelling errors.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:15 AM on February 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure orion will accuse me of "weaseling out" and for once I would have to agree with him.
I have to say i saw it coming. Creationists start by copypasting PRATT, then they do a little research, it gets refuted also (they don't acknowledge it), then they do some more research... And that's the beginning of the final countdown. 4 to 10 posts left.

Actually that's the best case scenario. Then we have cases like creationest6.

timbrx, will you do some rethinking?

I wish you did. I'm sure no infinite God of Love would damn you if you did. Not even if you doubted His existence.

Perhaps you had a great religious experience, but with no form. Liquid. And in order to understand it you put it in the nearest bottle, which happened to be christian-shaped.

There's no religious explanation for most of our instincts.

There are evolutionary explanations for religions.

There's an evolutionary explanation for everything we see in life. Most of the times the explanation is easy. Sometimes it's quite strange.

But there's always one.

How do I answer to the multitude of questions, statements, contradictions and challenges laid out before me?
In order? Pick a few? Not at all?

Any one of them deserves a complete answer. Short answers are an insult to your intelligence and long answers generate endless rabbit trails.
That's true. But they too are illustrative.

Sun Tzu reminds us to choose our battles wisely so as to cause discord within the ranks of the enemy.
Perhaps i can bee seen as battling. But it's just my redvctio ad absvrdvm approach.

While I don't consider you to be my enemy per-se (thanks wisp)
I'm so very sorry... But actually in this case it's "per te".

"Se" is applied to "it" or to "them", and "te" is applied to "you".

I have certainly managed to align myself against a united front.
I'm not united. I speak for reason, and against ignorance (specially when it causes distress).

But what can i say? Only when compared to a creationist i can be called an evolutionist.

I don't really feel like the fact that there are some of you running loose produces some change in my essence while giving me the name of "evolutionist".

But here i am. An evolutionist by contrast. And these are my comrades. I don't always agree with them, but they tend to reason. And they tend to stay, while creationists tend to disappear.

Congratulate yourselves on running off another creationist.
There's no room for real victories. I believe that most of us don't hope to make creationism vanish.

We are a humble (just a way of speaking, allow me the euphemism) force against a particular form of ignorance.

No creationist claim should go unrefuted.

A little (and still unlikely) victory would be to make a creationist change his/her mind, and acknowledge his/her mistakes. And start a new life of initial uncertainties. To be reborn.

I've seen it (caused it) a few times. It's rewarding even when i get insults.

Your victory will be short lived and I will be watching for the opportunity to paste some definitions
Your calling it "victory" isn't quite enough. You don't sound honest.

You didn't say "Hum... I didn't think of it that way... It really doesn't make sense, does it? I must have been wrong!".

and sneer at some spelling errors.
Mine, right? Oh, my goodness... Where? Tell me!
I get quite nervous at the prospect of having misspellings and missgrammars... And since this is not my language i get the feeling that i'm making mistakes all the time!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:47 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:11 PM on February 8, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 9:26 PM on February 8, 2009 :
Well I suppose God could appear before the world and say he didn't do it.


Could you accept that God used evolution as his means of creation?






If you say that god made evolution, there is no evolution. Evolution is a mindless process, un-guided. If god made evolution, it is guided, controlled, designed.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 6:45 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is that a problem?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:21 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fine by me.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:05 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.