Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,595 Year: 4,852/9,624 Month: 200/427 Week: 10/103 Day: 10/0 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
candle2
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1846 of 1864 (910958)
05-29-2023 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1842 by Tangle
05-22-2023 11:21 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Tangle, I understand that there are theistic evolutionists,
but you are not one of them. You have stated that you are
a hard atheist.
A hard atheist does not believe in God. An agnostic does
not totally deny the existence of a Creator God, but an
atheist, especially a hard to the core atheist, does.
A hard atheist cannot fall back on just evolution; the
hard atheist has the extra burden of defining how life
began.
The complexity of the simple cell is completely
devastating to atheists. Most atheists will not admit this,
but deep inside they know this to be true.
Furthermore, the lack of transitional fossils is fatal for
theistic evolutionists.
TE's are insultinly dishonest when they insist that there
are many intermediate fossils.
If the fossils were there, they would be craming them
down our throats. But, they are not there.
Even Darwin, who believed that the simple cell was made
of jelly, understood that the lack of transitional fossils
would relegate his theory to fantasy.
God creates by design, not by chance. God spoke the
plants and animals into existence. He created Adam and
Eve with His own hands.
TE's are not helping God's cause by substituting lies for
His truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1842 by Tangle, posted 05-22-2023 11:21 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1847 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2023 1:33 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1848 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2023 2:27 PM candle2 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1847 of 1864 (910959)
05-29-2023 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1846 by candle2
05-29-2023 1:23 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
quote:
TE's are insultinly dishonest when they insist that there
are many intermediate fossils
Telling the truth is not dishonest. Perhaps you meant “insultingly honest” - in opposing the lies of the Creation Cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1846 by candle2, posted 05-29-2023 1:23 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1848 of 1864 (910963)
05-29-2023 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1846 by candle2
05-29-2023 1:23 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
A hard atheist cannot fall back on just evolution; the
hard atheist has the extra burden of defining how life
began.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times it's said, you guys still don't get it. An atheist does not believe in god(s). That's it it doesn't mean that we believe in something else instead, nor does it require us to ​come up with a fantasy alternative to how life started. It just means we don't believe in god(s).
The complexity of the simple cell is completely
devastating to atheists. Most atheists will not admit this,
but deep inside they know this to be true.
I'm an atheist and I am not devastated. Can you accept that? I'm just not at all devastated. Nor am I troubled or even disquieted. So you can forget that line of discussion can't you?
Furthermore, the lack of transitional fossils is fatal for
theistic evolutionists.
Nope.
TE's are insultinly dishonest when they insist that there
are many intermediate fossils.

If the fossils were there, they would be craming them
down our throats. But, they are not there.
I wonder if you know what a transitional fossil would look like? Can you tell us?
Even Darwin, who believed that the simple cell was made
of jelly, understood that the lack of transitional fossils
would relegate his theory to fantasy.
Well that's basically wrong, even if we had no transitional fossils - and of course, we've got plenty (tho' in fact all fossils are transitional) -
​the ToE would still stand.
God creates by design, not by chance. God spoke the
plants and animals into existence. He created Adam and
Eve with His own hands.

TE's are not helping God's cause by substituting lies for
His truth.
How old is the earth candle?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1846 by candle2, posted 05-29-2023 1:23 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1853 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 11:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1849 of 1864 (910987)
05-30-2023 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1837 by PaulK
05-20-2023 5:12 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Paulk, if you Google Douglas Axe, you will find that he
gives the odds of many random events.
What I touched on was just tip of the iceberg.
I never associated time with distance.
I simply quoted the odds of a random event happening.
The other was given in the the number of years.
And you hit the nail on the head. 13 billion years,
according to Axe and Gauger, is not likely to be
enough time.
You call me irrational because I do not believe that
cells are not made of jelly.
It sounds as though you agree with Darwin concerning
the cell.
There is no need for anyone to be upset with me simply
because I can see through the evolution crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1837 by PaulK, posted 05-20-2023 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1850 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2023 2:58 PM candle2 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1850 of 1864 (910988)
05-30-2023 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1849 by candle2
05-30-2023 2:45 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
quote:
Paulk, if you Google Douglas Axe, you will find that he
gives the odds of many random events.
Which does not mean that those probabilities are either correct or relevant.
quote:
I never associated time with distance.
You said:
… even if the universe is 13 billion light years old
And I correctly pointed out that a light year is a measure of distance.
I note also that you provide no reference for the claim that you attributed to Gauger and Axe, so I can only suppose that you did make it up.
quote:
You call me irrational because I do not believe that
cells are not made of jelly.
No, I call you irrational because you believe obvious nonsense and spout stupid lies, like the above.
quote:
There is no need for anyone to be upset with me simply
because I can see through the evolution crap.
If you could see through crap you wouldn’t spew so much of it. Ron Wyatt, Anglo-Israelitism and the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1849 by candle2, posted 05-30-2023 2:45 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1851 by candle2, posted 06-05-2023 10:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1851 of 1864 (911048)
06-05-2023 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1850 by PaulK
05-30-2023 2:58 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Paulk, what does Ron Wyatt have to do with this?
He was one of the sources I used for the route of the
Exodus, but nothing else.
If memory serves me correctly, you stated that the
Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds, instead of the Red
Sea.
The Bible states that the water where they crossed was
waters of the great deep.
Furthermore, the separated water formed great walls of
water on both sides of the Israelites.
Isn't it highly irrational, even delusional, to classify the
marshlands of the Sea of Reeds as " the great deep"?
Even when parted the wall of water at the Sea of Reeds
would only reach three or four feet in height.
In James 1:1, the Apostle James states that the twelve
Tribes of Israel were scattered abroad (Diaspora). To
distribute in foreign lands.
In Deuteronomy 33 and Genesis 48 & 49, the twelve
Tribes are spoken of as separate and unique nations.
Both their blessings in Deuteronomy and their last days
prophecies in Genesis are not referring to the twelve
Tribes constituting just one single small nation.
It is ludicrous for one to even suggest this, much less to
try and defend it.
Ephraim was to become a company/multitude of nations.
Ephraim's prophecies alone defies logic that the small
land area called Samaria could fulfill all that applies to
Ephraim in the last days.
Moreover, Manasseh was to become a single great nation.
If Samaria were that single great nation, the other eleven
tribes could not be counted as being in that nation.
Or else, what applies to one tribe would apply to them
all.
It has been the modern nation of Israel (both GB & the U.S.)
that has spread the words of God and His Holy Bible to
the world.
God does not use Gentiles to spread Him and His word
to the rest of the world.
The Holy Bible is a Book about God and Israel. The only
mention of other nations is when they come into contact
with Israel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2023 2:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1852 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2023 12:25 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1852 of 1864 (911049)
06-05-2023 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by candle2
06-05-2023 10:30 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
quote:
Paulk, what does Ron Wyatt have to do with this?
You fell for his crap, that’s what. I said that, can’t you read?
quote:
He was one of the sources I used for the route of the
Exodus, but nothing else.
Well I don’t think that his misunderstanding of satellite data really makes him a reliable source for that. And that’s where he got the idea of the crossing at Nuweiba - his imaginary “land bridge”.
quote:
If memory serves me correctly, you stated that the
Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds, instead of the Red
Sea.
If it happened at all, it makes more sense that it happened there.
The terrain would actually be passable to chariots for one thing.
quote:
The Bible states that the water where they crossed was
waters of the great deep.
Not in Exodus 14.
quote:
Furthermore, the separated water formed great walls of
water on both sides of the Israelites.
Exodus 14 doesn’t say it was that great. Ten feet would be fine.
quote:
Ephraim was to become a company/multitude of nations.
Ephraim's prophecies alone defies logic that the small
land area called Samaria could fulfill all that applies to
Ephraim in the last days.
I agree. Obviously the prophecy is a complete und utter failure.
quote:
It has been the modern nation of Israel (both GB & the U.S.)
that has spread the words of God and His Holy Bible to
the world.
They aren’t the “modern nation of Israel”. That’s just you spouting silly Anglo-Israelite crap again. (And I think that Rome had an awful lot to do with spreading Christianity - after Constantine)
quote:
God does not use Gentiles to spread Him and His word
to the rest of the world.
I don’t think that the Bible agrees. The author of Luke and Acts was a gentile. Acts describes the conversion of large numbers of gentiles? Do you think that they did nothing to spread Christianity further?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by candle2, posted 06-05-2023 10:30 AM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1853 of 1864 (911065)
06-07-2023 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1848 by Tangle
05-29-2023 2:27 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Tangle, you ask if I would know what a transitional fossils
would look like.
I am 100% certain that no one does. There are none.
You know that there are none. I know that there are none.
I'm just honest enough to admit this.
I do not know how old the earth is.
My understanding from Genesis, and elsewhere, is that
the creation week was a renewing of the earth, which had
been devastated by Lucifer's rebellion.
Even the weakest of the angels (fallen and faithful) would
possess more power than earth's strongest hurricane.
Many of the planets and moons in our solar system (there
is no reason to believe the war wasn't universal) still carry
the scars of that war.
However, man and animals have only existed for roughly
6000 years.
Interestingly, God is allowing humanity 6000 years of
life under Satan's rule.
During this time humanity will have tried every form of
government that can be devised. We will fail miserably.
We will fail so badly that if Christ does not intervene,
which He promises that He will do, all life would be
completely destroyed. Matthew 24.
God wanted Adam and Eve to listen to Him. He alone
know the way to true peace and happiness.
They chose to trust in themselves.
God is giving humanity the time and opportunity to find
this out for ourselves (that without Him and His ways of
"give" instead of Satan's way of "get" that complete
peace and love for each other will never be realized).
God will then show humanity His way, with Christ here
to lead us.
He did not give up on the earth. He will install His
Kingdom on this earth.
Via this Kingdom all humans who have ever lived will
be resurrected and shown God's ways. There are
exceptions though. But, the vast majority will fully
embrace our loving Savior.
Those who do will become the very sons of God. As
His sons and daughters we will then become the
family of God. Ourselves God Beings, with far greater
power than Satan ever possessed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1848 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2023 2:27 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2023 11:50 AM candle2 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1854 of 1864 (911066)
06-07-2023 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1853 by candle2
06-07-2023 11:12 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
I am 100% certain that no one does. There are none (transitional fossils)
All life is transitional - you are not the same as your parents and your children are not the same as you. When we talk about transitional fossils though we mean those fossils that have traits common to different groups of organisms; their ancestors and their descendants.
Classically we have transitional fossils between ancestral dinosaurs and modern-day birds.
There's a whole list of examples here:
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
I do not know how old the earth is.
Science does. It's 4.5 billion years old.
However, man and animals have only existed for roughly
6000 years.
Yes, well, there's little point continuing discussions on stuff like transitional fossils if you're stuck believing that life has only been around for 6,000 years. You are aware of the enormous amount of evidence supporting this I suppose?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1853 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 11:12 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1855 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 3:21 PM Tangle has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1855 of 1864 (911074)
06-07-2023 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Tangle
06-07-2023 11:50 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Tangle, No one knows how old the universe is.
It is impossible for humans to date the age of the earth.
Any and all dating methods are not only flawed, but
highly flawed.
And, they are manipulated to fit the paradigm of the
administrator.
An offspring inherits traits from both parents. He cannot
be anything other than what he inherits from them. This is
not evolution.
Dr. Carl Werner, in his book "Living Fossils" relates that
it is quite common for fossil researchers to unearth
modern bird fossils among dinosaur bones.
Museums do not display them. It doesn't line up with
their agenda.
To withhold this information from the public is to
suppress the truth, and it is dishonest.
Ducks, loons, flamingos, parrots, and fossils of many
other modern day bird fossils are found alongside, and
even below, dino bones.
Dr. Werner is not the only scientist stressing this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2023 11:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1856 by Theodoric, posted 06-07-2023 3:26 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1857 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2023 3:41 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1858 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2023 5:26 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1856 of 1864 (911076)
06-07-2023 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by candle2
06-07-2023 3:21 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Stop asserting. If you are going to make a claim present the evidence. What are the "flaws" in dating methods?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 3:21 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1857 of 1864 (911077)
06-07-2023 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by candle2
06-07-2023 3:21 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Tangle, No one knows how old the universe is.
We KNOW - from multiple sources of evidence - that the Earth is £4.5bn years old. We KNOW for absolute certainty that 6,000 years is utterly ludicrous.
And, they are manipulated to fit the paradigm of the
administrator.
The Administrator? Fascinating; who is the Administrator?
Dr. Carl Werner
Dr Carl Werner is a religious nut job, a chiropractor apparently. Why are you listening to unqualified crackpots like this instead of the entire scientific community?
Dr. Werner is not the only scientist stressing this.
What? There are more unqualified religious fanatics that think that the earth is 6,000 years old. What a surprise. Is it also flat?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 3:21 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 1858 of 1864 (911078)
06-07-2023 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by candle2
06-07-2023 3:21 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Tangle, No one knows how old the universe is.
Here are a few of the evidences for old earth.
Radiometric dating
Lunar samples
Fossil record
Ice cores
Tree rings
Sedimentary rock layers
Isotopic ratios in meteorites
Seafloor spreading
Coral reefs
Impact craters: Impact craters on Earth
Geochronology
Stellar evolution
Varves
Stellar nucleosynthesis
Paleomagnetism
Cosmogenic nuclides
Continental drift and plate tectonics
Fossilized stromatolites
Coral reef growth rates
Ice sheet layering
Radiohalos
Astronomical observations
Geothermal gradients
Geologic erosion and weathering
It's not an exclusive list but it's pretty much all of science a stake here. You're basically declaring that great chunks of physics, geology, biology, archaeology, chemistry, palaeontology, astronomy and god knows what all are wrong and that your personal interpretation of a the anonymous mythology of a bronze age tribe is right.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by candle2, posted 06-07-2023 3:21 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1859 of 1864 (911079)
06-08-2023 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1840 by candle2
05-22-2023 10:22 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Sorry for the delay, but I've been occupied with many things. I'm also splitting up my reply.
Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. Either that or you are deliberately lying. Since you are a creationist, it's hard to tell which it is. It's most likely both.
The basic question that you never address remains: What are you talking about? In the four decades I've been discussing "creation science", I have yet to encounter a creationist who will answer that question. Indeed, it causes most creationists to flee in terror of it.
Why do you feel that you must oppose evolution?
Do you think that evolution somehow conflicts with creation? Why and how?
What do you think that evolution is? Or how it works? Everything you post about "evolution" demonstrates that your misunderstanding is immense.
Every time you make any statement about "evolution", you're talking about something completely different from evolution. It puts you into the position of not even being wrong; id est (ie, "ie"), your statements cannot even qualify as being wrong because they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion. You are not talking about the subject.
So just what the hell are you talking about?
 
And with all these degrees you cannot figure out that
the beliefs of Darwin are diametrically opposed to that
of God and creation.
What are you talking about? Whatever would the personal beliefs of Charles Darwin have to do with anything, let alone "God and creation"? You are not making any sense.
If you are trying to say that evolution is "diametrically opposed" to "God and creation", then that is even more ridiculously false. Evolution is what happens naturally when life does what life does. Evolution exists because life exists. As long as life exists, it evolves.
Note that evolution is not equivalent with change, even though change is also involved, but is also responsible for stasis. Because of drift, selection is needed to keep a species constant. We see the same thing in a ship at station-keeping: in order to maintain the same position, the ship must use its engines or thrusters to counter the effects of drift. We also see the same thing in any negative-feedback control loop, such as a voltage regulator: maintaining a constant output voltage requires active and constant monitoring and control, otherwise any change in input voltage or the load would change the output voltage. Maintaining zero change is not nothing.
Also, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life began, nor does how life began have anything whatsoever to do with evolution. Regardless of how life began, whether through natural processes or supernatural means, as soon as life came into existence and started doing what life does (ie, survive, reproduce, rinse and repeat ad infinitum) then evolution started happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by candle2, posted 05-22-2023 10:22 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1860 of 1864 (911080)
06-08-2023 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1840 by candle2
05-22-2023 10:22 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
There is only two ways for life to begin. It is either by
blind luck, or it is by creation.
YASCFD ("Yet Another Stupid Creationist False Dichotomy"), just like the stupid, false, and deliberately-designed-to-deceive Two Model Approach that is the foundation for that deliberately crafted deception, "creation science."
From that link:
quote:
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.
Creationists through their "creation science" and Two Model Approach deliberately use false dichotomies in order to deceive, as you have done here.
You see, you left out the other ways for life to have begun, like natural processes, which are not "blind luck":
When water is formed by the burning of hydrogen and oxygen, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
When particles in water settle out with the larger heavier particles on the bottom of the sediment and the finer particles on top, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
When any chemical reaction or physical process occurs, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
You left out the third way for life to have begun. And the fourth way, the fifth way, etc up to and including the n'th way. By excluding all those other ways from consideration, you chose to try to deceive us.
Before you try to claim a broad interpretation for "creation", please consult your dogma, the Two Model Approach (TMA), whose "creation model" is explicitly restricted to a YEC interpretation. Since the TMA divides origins into "two mutually exclusive models", it consigns to its "atheistic" "evolution model" all explanations that are not part of YEC, including (according to Dr. Henry Morris) "much of the world's religions, ancient and modern". That makes most of the supernatural explanations "atheistic evolution", about 288,000 in number, along with non-YEC Christian teachings. Congrats, you have declared the vast majority of Christians to be atheists, but then what else could we expect from a "true Christian".
Obviously, your Two Model Approach and the rest of your false dichotomies are nothing but a crock of BS.
 
Now, there is such a thing as a true dichotomy, but all the possible options must be presented and be testable so that all can be eliminated except for one. Just remember that for that one remaining option to be true through this method, absolutely ALL the possible options must be known.
Your "blind luck/creation" options list fails because there are so many other options possible -- I only had to give a third one to prove that.
Still, the most common uses (eg, math's Proof by contradiction) is to prove something by trying to prove its exact opposite, thus by finding that the exact opposite is false you prove the proposed thing to be true. But they must be exact opposites with no possibility of a third outcome.
The best correction I can think of for your false dichotomy would be "natural vs supernatural", such that you could try to argue for the origin of life being either through natural or supernatural means. However, even there we can see at least one more option, that is was through a combination of natural and supernatural processes. And even if we find that life originated purely through natural processes, an actual believer in Creation (unlike you fake believers) would recognized that their Creator would have created those natural processes.
Thus even abiogenesis through natural processes would not disprove that Creator -- indeed, science has nothing to say on the matter and most certainly does not try to "disprove God", rather just tries to learn how everything in the universe works.
Or do you believe that if natural processes are found to have done it, then that disproves your god? Seriously, do you really think that Nature disproves God? That belief comes right out of God of the Gaps thinking.
You mention that Darwin has contributed much to the
scientific community.
No, he has not. A belief in evolution contributes nothing
to science.
What the hell is "a belief in evolution" supposed to have to do with anything? Or even mean? You're talking total nonsense!
OTOH, an understanding of evolution does indeed contribute much to science. Indeed, except through an understanding of evolution, all the disparate little facts, factoids, and observations in biology make no sense. I've related Dr. Eugenie Scott's story of biology seniors with no training in evolution taking her physical anthropology class which, unlike their biology classes, did teach about evolution and she would watch as one by one they would suddenly start to understand what their biology classes had tried to teach them.
Darwin has indeed contributed much to the scientific community. You should try to learn something about it.
Darwinianism is the evolutionary science (it isn't really a
science) of the gaps.
What the hell is that supposed to be? Do you even know, or are you just mindlessly repeating a bit of creationist nonsense that you thought sounded cute?
Since none of your creationists will tell us what it's supposed to be (so what else is new?), I have to offer what I think it might be. If you wish to excoriate me for guess wrong, then you must give us the correct definition.
It appears to be an attempt at creating a false equivalence with your practice of "God of the Gaps". In "God of the Gaps", you use gaps in human knowledge as "proof" of "God"; basically, "goddidit" becomes an excuse for your ignorance. Resorting to "goddidit" not only puts an end to any and all further attempts to solve that mystery (and hence perpetuating your ignorance) but it also gives you justification for attacking anyone who does continue to try to solve that mystery on the grounds that "You're trying to disprove God!"
For example, in J. Richard Wakefield's article about his research into Robert Gentry's radiohalos in "Genesis rock" (actually in an igneous intrusion within metamorphic rock, so far from "Genesis rock"; turned out that Gentry didn't know what he was looking at), "Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" (Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32), Wakefield concluded with:
quote:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
So creationists' "Science of the Gaps" appears to be an accusation that scientists confronted with not knowing the answer "stubbornly refuse to accept that God is the obvious answer" and insist that there must be a natural explanation instead of resorting to "goddidit".
But what you criticize as a fault is actually a virtue. By continuing to seek an answer, we still have a chance to find the answer, and to decrease our ignorance and learn something new. If instead we were to do as you demand of us and resort to your "God of the Gaps", then we will remain in the perpetual darkness of ignorance.
This example is from Sherlock Holmes (The Hound of the Baskervilles):
quote:
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
So just what the hell are you talking about?
... (remember that Darwin is the father of the
"jelly-like substance-I get a good laugh out of this) ...
I bet that you also laughed all through Titanic at those idiot passengers who took a boat instead of a jet airliner.
What did you just say? That jet airliners didn't exist back then? Well, when Darwin had written that (if indeed that was the case) all anyone could see in a cell's cytoplasm was a lack of any distinct features. Staining microscope specimens dates from the late 1800's, decades after Darwin would have written that.
So just what is it about that questionable quote that you find so funny? Or are you still nothing but a fucking idiot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by candle2, posted 05-22-2023 10:22 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024