Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2018 10:59 AM
201 online now:
Diomedes, GDR, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,200 Year: 19,023/29,783 Month: 968/2,043 Week: 13/507 Day: 13/85 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3213
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 16 of 41 (761630)
07-03-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.

So what is your point here? Why would anyone ever expect a canine to give birth "to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal"? Do you think that anybody exists who would seriously expect a canine to give birth "to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal"? If you do think that, then who do you think would expect that and why?

I have been studying "creation science" since 1981 and discussing it with creationists since 1985. I have seen that claim presented many times, but whenever I would try to discuss it with a creationist he always accusing me of making it up -- or else he would refuse to respond at all. Now here you are making that same claim, so you cannot use the typical tactic of denying that any creationist would make that claim. And hopefully you will not refuse to respond to my questions at all.

I am quite serious about those questions and I do want to get your answers and to discuss them with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 17 of 41 (761631)
07-03-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


Rocky.C. writes:

It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists.


Ducks stereotype themselves by walking like ducks and talking like ducks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 18 of 41 (761666)
07-03-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists.

If you wish to dispel negative stereotypes of creationists, you could try behaving with a modicum of intelligence and integrity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 19 of 41 (761668)
07-04-2015 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists. It is something that they have become very good at. It is more or less the only weapon they have in their arsenal. They certainly don't have science on their side.

Well, scientists say that we have science on our side. You, a non-scientist who is completely ignorant of science, say that we don't. Hmm ... who knows more about science, scientists or you?

In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. Both group must have faith. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.

What a curious notion. I notice that you have advanced no arguments in its favor.

He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.

Furthermore, he predicted that cockroaches will produce only cockroaches, and that crocodiles will produce only crocodiles. He said that his descendants could verify his predictions by a process called science. In this case, he called it "operational/observable science."

How is that a prediction? It's merely an observation, everyone knows that.

My 4greatgrandfather, Mr. Common Sense, accepted, as fact, that all animals were created six thousand years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all air breathing birds and land animals.

Mr. Common Sense was certain that the global flood, which covered the entire earth, would have quickly buried billions of organisms, and that this event would have left millions of fossils that would be discovered in time.

He predicted that the flood would have sorted and deposited the plants and animals by buoyancy , density, habitat, and mobility. He firmly believed that trilobites, crabs, some fish and bottom dwelling animals would be found in the lower layers of sediment. My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers.

And this is not what the fossil record looks like, as you would know if you'd ever taken an interest in it. But now that you know that this key prediction made by creationism is false, I presume you will abandon creationism, yes?

He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish.

Yeah, sure, the sloths raced to the top of the hills while the sluggish velocirators were left behind. Presumably something similar accounts for the distribution of plants in the fossil record: the nimble oak trees outpacing the slower cordaitales. You were saying something about common sense?

Based upon his understanding of the nature of humanity, as revealed within the pages of that wonderful Book, the Bible, he predicted that people would gradually come to accept a process called "evolution." And, that they would intentionally distort and misrepresent the fossils in order to achieve their goal. I don't know how he knew this, but that man had it going for him.

I am sad to say that my 4gg was right when he predicted that dishonest men would subvert the fossils and the story that the fossils told.

Common Sense (and, I don't know how he could have known this--but he did) wrote with all capital letters in his journal that unscrupulous men would devise a system of dating the fossils by the rocks they were found in. And by dating the rocks by the fossils that were found in them. He called it "circular reasoning" at its most extreme. It was, according to him, absurd, and against true science.

No. The application of five minutes' research or of five seconds' common sense would have told you that this isn't how fossils and rocks are dated. Again, you'd know this if you'd ever taken an interest in the subject.

He was furious that this trickery (or, I can't quite make it out. it could be quackery) went against (pardon the pun) common sense; reliability; integrity; but most of all science, especially "operational science."

So if you were less wrong, you'd also be less furious. Wouldn't that be nice?

Common Sense wrote that the only point that everyone will be able to agree on is that all these fossils died. We do not know whether any of them had reproduced or not. And, he was absolutely right in saying that if any of them did, there is no reason to believe they were capable of doing what animals today can't do; and that is to produce offsprings that are not of their own kind.

That's why no-one does believe that.

Wow, this is some exciting stuff, but I have promised to take my lovely wife to dinner. I know everyone is as excited as I am to see how much insight and foresight my g44, Common Sense, had. He was a remarkable man ...

"Remarkable" is perhaps too tactful a way of putting it. "Egregious" might describe you more aptly. There is nothing remarkable about learning to recite a few items of creationist nonsense. Any fool can do that. The only mildly interesting thing about this little exhibition is the way you have attributed your second-hand second-rate errors to a mythical being, and that is interesting only because it is suggestive of how in the old days men may have invented their gods.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(3)
Message 20 of 41 (761701)
07-04-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


Hi Rocky.C and welcome to the fray

These articles are nothing but filth!!

Nice friendly, charitable opening.

It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists. It is something that they have become very good at. It is more or less the only weapon they have in their arsenal. They certainly don't have science on their side.

Curiously I find that people stereotype themselves by how they behave and say.

In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. ....

It always amuses me when religious people think the worst insult they can hurl at evolution is that they think it is religion.

For the record, though, I don't believe in evolution, I understand that it provides the best explanation for all the evidence, from the fossil record to the genetic record to the record of life around us.

... Both group must have faith. ...

Wrong: religion needs faith, belief needs faith; science needs - and has - evidence. There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution. If you are interested this can be pursued further.

... Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.

Isn't making false statements is not being honest? You make several false statements in your post, apparently due to under education of what evolution actually entails.

My great-great-great-great grandfather (his name was Common Sense) had faith, and he believed in creation. And based on the Holy Bible and that unwavering belief he made several startling predictions.

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.

He must be a "believer" in evolution then ...

Curiously that is what evolution predicts. That is what the fossil evidence shows. That is what the genetic evidence shows.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution."

Furthermore, he predicted that cockroaches will produce only cockroaches, and that crocodiles will produce only crocodiles. He said that his descendants could verify his predictions by a process called science. In this case, he called it "operational/observable science."

Evolution predicts that offspring of any breeding population will always be offspring of that population and not offspring of some other population.

My 4greatgrandfather, Mr. Common Sense, accepted, as fact, that all animals were created six thousand years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all air breathing birds and land animals.

Curiously there is no evidence of a young earth, but there is mountains of evidence of an old earth. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some of the evidence.

Just accepting something as fact does not make it so. In science that is taken as an hypothesis to be tested. Science tests hypothesis to see if they actually reflect reality, rather than rely on blind faith ... or "common sense" (which is nothing more than opinion).

Mr. Common Sense was certain that the global flood, which covered the entire earth, would have quickly buried billions of organisms, and that this event would have left millions of fossils that would be discovered in time.

And yet there is no evidence of a single world wide event.

He predicted that the flood would have sorted and deposited the plants and animals by buoyancy , density, habitat, and mobility. He firmly believed that trilobites, crabs, some fish and bottom dwelling animals would be found in the lower layers of sediment.

Sadly, for you, this hypothesis is invalidated by the actual fossil evidence -- we do not see crabs with trilobites, nor do we see trilobites with crabs.

My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers. He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish. Not being covered quickly with sediment, he believed that they would leave few fossils. He (I believe more from prophecy that prediction) stated that more than 400 mammals would be found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Wow!!! Talking about insight.

But more than the failure of the fossil record to show his predicted animal patter, this hypothesis fails to explain the fossil evidence of plants (unless you think plants can run to high ground?

Based upon his understanding of the nature of humanity, as revealed within the pages of that wonderful Book, the Bible, he predicted that people would gradually come to accept a process called "evolution." And, that they would intentionally distort and misrepresent the fossils in order to achieve their goal. I don't know how he knew this, but that man had it going for him.

The curious thing is that (a) there are two records that are used by evolution to test the validity of the theory -- fossil evidence and genetic evidence -- and they agree ... and (b) this would require a world wide conspiracy of scientists to misrepresent facts -- a sure way to become discredited as a scientist (all science is peer reviewed and the goal is to show the previous person was wrong or mistaken).

I am sad to say that my 4gg was right when he predicted that dishonest men would subvert the fossils and the story that the fossils told.

Amusingly I am sure that if I as you for evidence of this, that I can predict several pratts that you will spout ...

Common Sense (and, I don't know how he could have known this--but he did) wrote with all capital letters in his journal that unscrupulous men would devise a system of dating the fossils by the rocks they were found in. And by dating the rocks by the fossils that were found in them. He called it "circular reasoning" at its most extreme. It was, according to him, absurd, and against true science.

This is a falsehood. The rock layers are dated by their relative position to other rock layers. Certain fossils are only found in certain layers of rocks, so when those fossils are found in different locations in rock layers a testable hypothesis is that they are of the same general age.

By conflating two different locations into one rock layer to date "the rocks by the fossils" you have created an appearance of circular reasoning when there is none.

Rocks layer (1) is dated by relative position to other rock layerss
Rock layer (1) has fossils (A) embedded in it
Rock layer (2) has fossils (A) embedded in it
conclusion: Rock layer (2) may be the same age as rock layer (1)

He was furious that this trickery (or, I can't quite make it out. it could be quackery) went against (pardon the pun) common sense; reliability; integrity; but most of all science, especially "operational science."

Amusingly the actual process as described above uses common sense, and it can be replicated time and again in the time-honored tradition of science (in this case geology).

Common Sense wrote that the only point that everyone will be able to agree on is that all these fossils died. We do not know whether any of them had reproduced or not. And, he was absolutely right in saying that if any of them did, there is no reason to believe they were capable of doing what animals today can't do; and that is to produce offsprings that are not of their own kind.

Actually we have some means to test fossils with DNA and determine their relationships by that evidence.

And again, evolution predicts that offspring of any breeding population will always be offspring of that population and not offspring of some other population. It would seem that you have some mistaken belief about what evolution says: this can be corrected by education, if you are willing.

Wow, this is some exciting stuff, but I have promised to take my lovely wife to dinner. I know everyone is as excited as I am to see how much insight and foresight my g44, Common Sense, had. He was a remarkable man, but I must put his journal up for tonight.

I will publish some more of his journal at a later date.

Perhaps if you selected what you consider is your *best* argument against evolution we can start with that to see who is more correct when it comes to metching the evidence of reality.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 07-10-2015 12:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Phat
Member
Posts: 11632
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 41 (761836)
07-06-2015 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 8:51 PM


Re: Nonsense ^2
So we have Faith, Common Sense, Reality, and...what else?

God created war so that Americans would learn geography. –Mark Twain
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 8:51 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2015 11:05 AM Phat has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 11632
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 22 of 41 (761838)
07-06-2015 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 8:51 PM


Re: Nonsense ^2
Rocky writes:

My 4gg said that one day discussion groups would be started about this very topic. He also said that people who know very little about creation would post meaningless links.

How does one study and learn about creation?

God created war so that Americans would learn geography. –Mark Twain
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 8:51 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 23 of 41 (761867)
07-06-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
07-06-2015 8:21 AM


Re: Nonsense ^2
So we have Faith, Common Sense, Reality, and...what else?

The pretense\conceit that one's own opinion is a person of authority that knows about reality?


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 21 by Phat, posted 07-06-2015 8:21 AM Phat has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3213
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 24 of 41 (761920)
07-06-2015 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rocky.C
07-02-2015 5:27 PM


Rocky.C, I am about to depart for two weeks during with I will be off-line. I honestly and truly want an answer to my question about your use of the "but they're still MOTHS!" claim. I honestly and truly want to know you would think that anybody would believe that a canine should ever be expected to give birth "to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal". And I honestly and truly want to know who you would think that anybody would be. It's just that it will be two weeks from tomorrow until I could respond to your answer.

It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists.

Actually, we are merely relying on decades of bitterly earned direct experience with actual creationists. Very bitterly earned. I've been doing it since 1986, so it's coming up on three full decades for me.

Every single time I encounter a new creationist, I try to get honest answers from them, answers which are never forthcoming. You see, I'm a pessimist about this, which should make me the happiest person in the world since 99% of the time I'm right and 1% of the time I'm pleasantly surprised. I keep hoping to be pleasantly surprised about creationists. Hasn't happened yet. Think you could break that streak and pleasantly surprise me by honestly answering my questions about your claims? Standing by not bothering to hold my breath.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rocky.C, posted 07-02-2015 5:27 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 25 of 41 (762078)
07-08-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
07-04-2015 12:18 AM


In 1966, astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were just two important criteria required of a plant in order to support life: "the right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star."

Extrapolation estimates using these two criteria put the number of such planets in the universe at or about a septillion. This is a 1 followed by 24 zeros.
In other words, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets capable of supporting life.

We were told this by scientists. Some of them might even be as smart as you guys on this board!

Armed with this vital and (scientific) information that supported them with spectacular odds, both the public and private sectors funded projects that searched for intelligent life (SETI).

The years rolled by and we heard absolutely nothing but deafening silence. Congress finally defunded SETI in the mid 90's. However, private funding continues into 2015, but still no intelligent signals from space.

Over the past fifty years our knowledge of the universe has increased. And it has become abundantly clear that there were /are far more factors necessary for life than what Sagan imagined.

From his 2 parameters (right star-distance) we jumped to 10, then 20,then 50. All the while the number of planets capable of supporting life dwindled to a few thousand and dropping.

As factors continue to be discovered, the number of planets capable of supporting life has shrunk to zero. These same scientists, who were so eagerly searching for alien life in the past, say that even we shouldn't be here.

As of today scientists acknowledge that there are more than two hundred known parameters necessary for a planet to support life. Each of these parameters must be perfectly met or it all falls apart.

Astronomer and scientists also agree that "the fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all."

Astrophysicists now know that values of the four fundamentals forces (gravity, the electromagnetic force, 'strong" and "weak" nuclear forces) were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist.

For instance, "if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all." Wow!!!

Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism has been "greatly shaken" by these developments.

Hoyle has stated that "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming."

Oxford professor and atheist Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."
Atheist Richard Dawkins "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Yet, he refuses to believe what his mind and his instinct tell him is true.

These are those God spoke of in the first chapter of Romans, but they are not all. There are many more like them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2015 12:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 07-08-2015 3:22 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2015 4:13 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 4:10 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Rocky.C, posted 07-09-2015 7:53 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 26 of 41 (762081)
07-08-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rocky.C
07-08-2015 2:21 PM


Rocky.C. writes:

Extrapolation estimates using these two criteria put the number of such planets in the universe at or about a septillion.


Please show your work.

In the meantime, here's an example of how unreliable extrapolation can be:

I weighed 8 pounds at birth. In 1972 I weighed 190 pounds. In 2002 I weighed 220 pounds.

When was I born?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 27 of 41 (762083)
07-08-2015 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rocky.C
07-08-2015 2:21 PM


Please start a new thread with your single best argument
This is not a site for one sided posting or discussion, it is a Links and Information forum thread.

So far all you have is opinion parading as a person of assumed authority .. not a good start.

If you want to discuss evolution, please take what you think is your best argument against evolution and start a new thread.

See Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : per admin


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 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 28 of 41 (762114)
07-09-2015 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rocky.C
07-08-2015 2:21 PM


It is hard to see how your ramblings about extra-terrestrial life fit in with your creationism. Could you explain?

In future please give citations for any quotations, as creationists have a distressing tendency to make stuff up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 29 of 41 (762125)
07-09-2015 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rocky.C
07-08-2015 2:21 PM


Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

If living things look as though they were designed, how do evolutionists know they were not designed?

Dawkins could see the truth without admitting the truth. Yet, he still needed a natural mechanism from an evolutionary point of view to explain what his own eyes told him about living things. He latched onto "natural selection."

His conclusion: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

What Dawkins fails to understand is that "natural selection" is not a creating process. It selects from information that is already present in the organism. Who designed the information? Information cannot be created from non-information.

How do minor beak changes explain the origin of either finches or their beaks?

How does pre-existing information explain the origin of the information itself?

Doesn't Dawkins sound like God's description of a fool? Doesn't Crick also?

Romans 1:19-22

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Again, if an organism gives the appearance of having been designed, how do we know that it was not?

{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

http://todayinsci.com/...Francis/CrickFrancis-Quotations.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pressie, posted 07-09-2015 8:05 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2015 8:07 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 1:55 PM Rocky.C has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 30 of 41 (762129)
07-09-2015 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rocky.C
07-09-2015 7:53 AM


Rocky.C, are you here to preach or to discuss? If you intend to keep on preaching you're on the wrong forum.

Go back and answer those questions asked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rocky.C, posted 07-09-2015 7:53 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018