Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 11:38 AM
131 online now:
CosmicChimp, Coyote, Diomedes, New Cat's Eye, NoNukes, PaulK, Taq, vimesey (8 members, 123 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,748 Year: 13,354/21,208 Month: 2,836/3,605 Week: 178/933 Day: 74/104 Hour: 3/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 606
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 16 of 75 (791195)
09-12-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

Who says god cannot lie? God can do whatever he chooses based on what believers indicate.

And this brings up a fantastic thought experiment: if a god wanted to truly test his creation, a great way to do so is give the creation the ability to critically think but at the same time, allow false information to permeate in the world. The actual 'test' would be for those that could look at the data and evidence and realize the true nature of the universe.

It is a simple concept in the end: either there is one 'true' religion that gets everything right and all the others are wrong. Which is clearly false. Or, more plausibly, all religions are false and that science (which is demonstrable) is correct.

I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?

I am curious: do you not see the irony in you making a sarcastic comment towards someone by asserting the absurdity of their perceived communion with the divine while simultaneously believing in a book written by people thousands of years ago that claimed the exact same capability?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2017 11:35 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28820
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 17 of 75 (791196)
09-12-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes:

If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.

Except of course for the fact that Genesis tells of God lying.

Since God lied in Genesis 2 is there any reason to think the fact that either of the two mutually exclusive flood myths is factual?

Faith writes:

If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past.

Except for the fact that the distant past itself tells us that the story is wrong. Should we believe stories or the actual evidence? Did God intentionally tamper with the evidence just to fool everyone?

Faith writes:

But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock.

Yet again the evidence shows that those you claim are not believers actually are believers and that includes much of Christianity today as well as in the past.

Faith writes:

There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.

No doubt people do believe as you say yet the fact remains that the two mutually exclusive flood myths are just mashed together just as the God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 and the two creation myths are also totally contradictory.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18448
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 18 of 75 (797857)
01-28-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Diomedes
09-12-2016 3:19 PM


or ...
And this brings up a fantastic thought experiment: if a god wanted to truly test his creation, a great way to do so is give the creation the ability to critically think but at the same time, allow false information to permeate in the world. The actual 'test' would be for those that could look at the data and evidence and realize the true nature of the universe.

Nice concept. Fits well with Deism.

It is a simple concept in the end: either there is one 'true' religion that gets everything right and all the others are wrong. Which is clearly false. Or, more plausibly, all religions are false and that science (which is demonstrable) is correct.

Or thirdly, that all religions are somewhat incomplete and muddled human interpretations, limited by the ability of early people to fully understand things outside their cultural and intellectual limitations, some more correct in some aspects and others in other aspects, and that science can be used to sort the reality of creation from misunderstanding and mistaken interpretations. After all iff reality is the result of creation, then the best way to understand creation (life, the universe and everything) is to understand reality ... to the best of our god-given ability to do so.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 09-12-2016 3:19 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4554
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 75 (797870)
01-28-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-27-2016 8:54 PM


3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design

I do know some fellow-creationists that argue this one. Not sure I have heard of anyone arguing the other things of design though, they almost seem like they've been written by evolutionists to misrepresent creation/ID arguments.

But this one is argued by some creationists and I try to tell them not to argue it because of an example for example of the water-cycle. If we recreate the conditions of the water-cycle then obviously we can't then attribute it to intelligent design because we have only reconstructed/replicated natural conditions which logically proves that the intelligent lab equipment being designed is MOOT/meaningless.

At the risk or repeating myself, to conclude something is intelligently designed you have to show it has all of the usual features of design.

I just don't know of many creationists that argue these things to be honest, that is the only one I remember some of my fellow-creos arguing.

8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided.

This one seems particularly tenous, all you have to do to refute it is swap, "naturalistic" and, "supernatural", like this;

8. The Law of Natural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the former is always better. supernatural bias must be avoided.

As you can see, if I can point out the holes in such arguments and they strike me as simplistic and unintelligent, then I can't be the one arguing them.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2016 8:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 1:04 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 20 of 75 (803787)
04-04-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 21 of 75 (803788)
04-04-2017 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.

It just takes some time and study before you can see it. Evolution is easy to understand because it is all based on luck and chance, if given enough shakes of the dice, to eventually come up with an amazing combination that just happens to fit in perfectly.

Theres no mathematics to evolution, no science of real beneficial mutations, and no timeline that doesn;t get changed time after time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-04-2017 10:08 PM Davidjay has responded
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 12:58 AM Davidjay has responded
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 22 of 75 (803790)
04-04-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Davidjay
04-04-2017 9:51 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.

And its also wrong in a great many places. The age of the earth, the global flood, and "created kinds" are just three examples.

It just takes some time and study before you can see it. Evolution is easy to understand because it is all based on luck and chance, if given enough shakes of the dice, to eventually come up with an amazing combination that just happens to fit in perfectly.

But some time and study are what creationists fail to apply to evolution. Rather, they rely on creationist literature and websites and construct magnificent straw men to tilt against. They repeat the mistakes that have been disproved for decades (that's where PRATT--point refuted a thousand times--comes from). There are so many PRATTS they've even been numbered! Check out the Index to Creationist Claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Theres no mathematics to evolution, no science of real beneficial mutations, and no timeline that doesn;t get changed time after time.

Do you have a problem with science becoming increasingly accurate over the years? That's what your post really says.

Unlike creationism, when science refines or even refutes an idea it modifies or abandons it.

Creationists are just the opposite: they rely on belief rather than evidence and most won't change a disproved belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence. We can go back to the age of the earth, the global flood, and "created kinds" as examples.

So before you get too enthusiastic about picking on science for changing, perhaps you should examine creationists for not changing even when proved wrong. And don't forget, science relies on evidence while creationism is the exact opposite, relying on belief and ignoring evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Davidjay, posted 04-04-2017 9:51 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:12 AM Coyote has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15921
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 23 of 75 (803793)
04-05-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Davidjay
04-04-2017 9:51 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The biblical record is clear and concise, reasonable and rational when considering science and mathematics, history, and world events from the BEGINNING.

It's reasonable to think that a talking snake outwitted God?

It just takes some time and study before you can see it. Evolution is easy to understand because it is all based on luck and chance, if given enough shakes of the dice, to eventually come up with an amazing combination that just happens to fit in perfectly.

That is not the theory of evolution.

Theres no mathematics to evolution ...

I don't know who told you that, but they were lying.

no science of real beneficial mutations ...

... and lying ...

... and no timeline that doesn;t get changed time after time.

... and lying.

Don't you think you have some sort of moral obligation to find out about the stuff you're talking about before you start giving public lectures on the subject?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Davidjay, posted 04-04-2017 9:51 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15921
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 24 of 75 (803794)
04-05-2017 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
01-28-2017 4:21 PM


This one seems particularly tenous, all you have to do to refute it is swap, "naturalistic" and, "supernatural", like this;

8. The Law of Natural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the former is always better. supernatural bias must be avoided.

What is your swapping meant to prove? If I laugh at someone for saying "Mice are big and elephants are small", would you reply in his defense that if you were to swap the words "big" and "small" you'd produce my own view? So you would, but that doesn't mean that he and I are both equally wrong. I'm right. By changing his false statement to its opposite you would have produced not another equally false statement, but a true one.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 01-28-2017 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:11 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 25 of 75 (803817)
04-05-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2017 1:04 AM


Doc, you're trying to have a rational coversation with someone who believes that the Universe is 6000 years old.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 75 (803818)
04-05-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2017 1:04 AM


Doc, you're trying to have a rational coversation with someone who believes that the Universe is 6000 years old and the moon landings were faked.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:13 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 27 of 75 (803819)
04-05-2017 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
04-04-2017 10:08 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
All three of your examples are provable, as the Flood is true history. (And can be proven mathematically to be significant) Evolutionists claim that Dinosaurs were struck by comets is unprovable and almost on the verge of complete insanity and totally unscientific.

Science and math and design prove creationism. Luck and chance prove nothing except that this concept must be forced on students of real science so there basis is in false science.

Evolution does not abandon its premises of luck and chance even though it has never been proven and they have no evidence. They still go on with it because it is their religion.

I back science, and rational thinking rather than the lucky chances and so called beneficial mutations put forth by religious evolutionists. Science shows design, laws were not created by random chance, no laws are evolving.

Science backs creationism as creationism shows design. Evolution is without design or purpose or clarity, just miraculous miracles of chance and luck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-04-2017 10:08 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Diomedes, posted 04-05-2017 9:48 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:38 AM Davidjay has responded
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2017 10:56 AM Davidjay has responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 28 of 75 (803820)
04-05-2017 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Pressie
04-05-2017 8:11 AM


Actually I am very rational, Please comment on the subject rather than the writer. Be objective rather than subjective.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:11 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 29 of 75 (803821)
04-05-2017 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
As a scientist, I have an obligation to put forth mathematics that you evolutionists do NOT have, and evidence that you evolutionists do not have.

Evolutionists almost never answer questions, hardly ever, they have no answers, so can only try to ridicule, or say they belong to science, even though they have no science.

If evolutionists had proofs they would have put them forward years ago. They have no missing links, they have no transition species, they have nothing. But it is their right to have their religion, I just wish they wouldnt force their religion on their captive students.

Allow them to think. Give them the decision rather than via evolutionary intimidation and force.

If you have specific areas of interest in science or history, a specific title and thread would be best for its discussion

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 9:02 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 33 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:52 AM Davidjay has responded
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 2:13 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 30 of 75 (803833)
04-05-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 8:18 AM


Re: Mathematics of Evolution
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before.

Evolution is purely a supposed chance situation where sufficient magical beneficial mutations take place to develop a supposed better species by luck and chance. Evolutionists get this faith of the almost insanely impossible by sheer chance and luck, that their impossibility could be possible if given enough time.

Statistically its impossible but they hang onto their faith and say just wait another million years, or trillion years, or *********.

Magical beneficial mutations have never been shown to develop complex organisms or simple ones as simple ones are extremely complex as well.

But go ahead and give your math and equations, your claim needs to be proven and substantiated...... otherwise people might question your theory even further..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:18 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2017 2:07 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 04-05-2017 2:15 PM Davidjay has responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017