Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 2:59 PM
190 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,401 Year: 19,224/29,783 Month: 1,169/2,043 Week: 214/507 Day: 42/83 Hour: 2/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 166 of 173 (548583)
02-28-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by traste
02-27-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Scientific laws
one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith.

You don't think anyone in here has heard of Huxley before, or the account of him being Darwin's Bulldog?

You need to look at it in context. You are viewing it in terms of evolution having been created as a means of repudiating religion, rather than simply being an inference based on certain observations.

Charles Darwin himself didn't much see the comparison either.

"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." -- Charles Darwin

Some people have used evolution as a means of proving to religionists that there is no need of a Creator. That doesn't automatically indict all evolutionists as having a master plan to overthrow the shackles of religion.

It's a pointless endeavor, for any allusion you make for evolution being a belief you invariably indict yourself for going against because of your belief.

Let's be honest here. Evolutionists gain nothing from evolution, but religion as we know it is directly threatened by it, which is why they fight tooth and nail to subvert it.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM traste has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 167 of 173 (548901)
03-02-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-27-2010 2:32 AM


Re: Scientific laws
As you see Darwin observed the difficulties of the evolution of the eye, what we need is a document to show that the eye undergone gradual changes( by means of Darwinian mechanism) but as we see no such document exist, if it really exist then we can observed a partially formed eye. Like for example an eye with out a retina, an eye eye with out a cortex.

Darwin did recognize the problem, AND THEN HE SOLVED IT. Using Articulata as an example he demonstrated that there are transitional stages by which a photosensitive patch can slowly progress to a functional eye.

Here is the problem of this reasoning. "The monophyly of the Articulata (= Annelida + Panarthropoda), proposed by Wgele et al. (1999), is contradicted by all molecular data that support either Ecdysozoa (including Panarthropoda), or Lophotrochozoa (including Annelida), or usually both."

The reasoning is that there exists multiple KNOWN transitional stages through which an eye can evolve.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 2:32 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 168 of 173 (548902)
03-02-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by traste
02-27-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Scientific laws
[Evolution] is [a belief system]. In fact one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith.

Why do creationists continue with this canard? Projection?

Evolution is an APPLIED science. Biologists accept the theory because it is useful in their research and the theory makes accurate predictions. You might as well claim gravity is a belief system held by astronomers in order to deny the actions of gravity fairies.

Im pretty sure that scientist like Behe and Kenyon are not among of your" refutable source."

Since they have not presented original research in the peer reviewed literature which tests their ideas no, they are not a reputable source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM traste has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 169 of 173 (548904)
03-02-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by traste
02-27-2010 11:23 PM


Re: Scientific laws
The fact that there is wide disagreement among elite scientific figures, can be considered that they dont have yet the satisfactory explanation of how life began.

As an analogy, do we need to know where the first germ came from in order to know that germs cause infectious disease? For the same reason, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to know how life changes over time.

Are there still debate, question , argue, that gravity cause objects to fall downward?

There are still huge debates as to the cause of gravity, the actual theory of gravity. Both quantum mechanics and relativity give us different pictures of what gravity is. However, arguments over the THEORY of gravity does not mean that scientists are arguing over the FACT of gravity. As Stephen Jay Gould put it, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome". The fact that life has changed over time and that life shares common ancestry, the fact of evolution, is not disputed by scientists. What is disputed are the finer points of how that change came about, the theory of evolution. Quoting Gould again, "And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered".

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 11:23 PM traste has not yet responded

  
evilsorcerer1
Junior Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 2
From: Las Vegas
Joined: 08-18-2017


Message 170 of 173 (817646)
08-18-2017 11:47 PM


Age of Earth
It seems the only factor that would determine how long it took to create the earth is how much physical matter restrains it. In other words, if the process was sped up, matter be destroyed? So if a god created everything from nothing, he could create each part right where it was. He wouldn't have to create fire and water and wind and dirt and then use them to form the Earth. He could create each planet, sun and so on already formed in its correct position in the universe, with the exact amount of force required to hold it in place. But maybe a creator likes taking basic elements and forming the universe.
Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-15-2017 9:39 AM evilsorcerer1 has not yet responded

    
AlexCaledin
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 41
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 171 of 173 (825471)
12-15-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by evilsorcerer1
08-18-2017 11:47 PM


Re: Age of Earth
After making the "Heaven-and-Earth" system, all the other created things come into being automatically, like the outcome of a perfect CAD/CAM process that takes no time, because God's "computer" is perfect. The Creator just sees the outcome to be good, and those Acts of creative observation make the Days of Creation.

Unfortunately, Adam somehow got his nose inside God's "computer" - and here we are, doomed to observe the simulated evolution...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by evilsorcerer1, posted 08-18-2017 11:47 PM evilsorcerer1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 12-15-2017 11:36 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2017 12:15 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15804
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 172 of 173 (825501)
12-15-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AlexCaledin
12-15-2017 9:39 AM


Re: Age of Earth
AlexCaledin writes:

After making the "Heaven-and-Earth" system, all the other created things come into being automatically....


That isn't how Genesis 1 tells it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-15-2017 9:39 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

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


Message 173 of 173 (825508)
12-15-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by AlexCaledin
12-15-2017 9:39 AM


Silly self-serving arguments that destroy themselves
After making the "Heaven-and-Earth" system, all the other created things come into being automatically, like the outcome of a perfect CAD/CAM process that takes no time, because God's "computer" is perfect. The Creator just sees the outcome to be good, and those Acts of creative observation make the Days of Creation.

And it all happened on Mulberry Street, last night, in a dream. You have no evidence otherwise. Because you have rejected evidence as an indicator of reality.

Unfortunately, Adam somehow got his nose inside God's "computer" - and here we are, doomed to observe the simulated evolution...

Which so perfectly simulates an old earth, an older universe, and evolution that no other reasonable explanation can provide the depth of correlation of evidence to scientific theory.

Doomed? Certainly, if the purpose of your god/s is to befuddle, confuse, mislead and lie to you, then you are indeed doomed to be befuddled, confused, misled and lied to -- about anything you think these god/s tell you as well.

Congratulations, you have made all knowledge superfluous and irrelevant, and any fantasy is now as good as another.

Enjoy


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 171 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-15-2017 9:39 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018