[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/denisova[/quote]
Great links, thanks.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Here, do some reading push. I linked this to you previously, but it appears that you ignored it.
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
I know it’s wiki but here’s a starting point Push
I think it’s likely that you won’t be reading any of this with an open mind, if that is the case, then this isn’t a discussion. Also, the manner in which you gloss over or outright ignore what the other side is presenting to you is very similar to Tiribulus’ methods.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< What I am about to say may result in me being looked down as a simpleton but the words in which you choose to use, which do show what an impressive vocabulary you possess, fail in conveying any meaning to me. In other words, we have a fail to communicate. >>>[/quote]No Matty. I don’t look down on you in the least and I’ll give ya credit for being honest and taking this time. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Keep it simple stupid! [/quote]I may have to proceed from here. My entire epistemological worldview is so simple an infant can grasp it. It is also so foreign to finite sinful man that an actually simple means of conveying it can appear extremely complex. Ya surprised buddy. Took me off guard. EDIT: BTW, maybe you have the link I’m looking for further up this page?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]
Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]
Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]
Dealing with Kamui’s statement. If God brought a 4.5 billion year old Earth into existence, say, 6k years ago, the Earth would be 4.5 billion years old.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
Homologous structures. I recognize the graphic. Is this from a textbook of yours.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
Homologous structures. I recognize the graphic. Is this from a textbook of yours.
[/quote]
There’s a similar one in my text.
On a side note :
i don’t see any inconsistency in this statement :
“In the Dreamtime, the Rainbow Serpent moved across the Earth, formed all the features of the land, created all living things and set down the laws of the natural and social order”
And i don’t any empirical evidence against it either.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Matty:
Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
pat wrote:
That is a component of morality. [/quote]
For him, not harming others unnecessarily has nothing to do with being ‘morally good.’ Or, that the other has an inherent right not to be harmed, which he is morally obligated to acknowledge. It’s simply too risky. For him, at least.
[/quote]
Admitting there is an ultimate ‘good’ by which things are measured is a risky proposition for an atheist.
And that’s what I don’t understand about atheism. To justify it, you are forced to take untenable positions, like moral relativity, otherwise you leave the door open for God to exist and they know it.
It’s why Dawkin ans Hitchens attack false propositions of theism as an argument against God, except there is a problem. It’s not honest and therefore not true.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”
I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
To answer this Kamui, I am going to copy what I posted on page 8. I think you will understand it perfectly looking at it this way:
[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…
Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.
So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.
So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.
Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!
Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.
Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…
Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.
Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.
The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.
I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.
Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason. [/i]
[quote]kamui wrote:
On a side note :
i don’t see any inconsistency in this statement :
“In the Dreamtime, the Rainbow Serpent moved across the Earth, formed all the features of the land, created all living things and set down the laws of the natural and social order”
And i don’t any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
There’s no empirical evidence against it, because it’s not an empirical proposition.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :
“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”
I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]
History classes, to be fair, must include stories about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. How do we know that those beings aren’t historical? No one knows. The people who wrote those stories long ago are trustworthy though.[/quote]
They are historical. There is just no logic to support it. There is logic to support the existence of God. That’s a big difference.
I don’t think you are capable of understanding these matters but others are.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]
You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a ‘kind of God’, by logical necessity there can only be one. Evolution is evidence for the existence of God, not proof against it. It may be proof against a literal interpretation of Genesis, but not God.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Matty:
Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
pat wrote:
That is a component of morality. [/quote]
For him, not harming others unnecessarily has nothing to do with being ‘morally good.’ Or, that the other has an inherent right not to be harmed, which he is morally obligated to acknowledge. It’s simply too risky. For him, at least.
[/quote]
Admitting there is an ultimate ‘good’ by which things are measured is a risky proposition for an atheist.
And that’s what I don’t understand about atheism. To justify it, you are forced to take untenable positions, like moral relativity, otherwise you leave the door open for God to exist and they know it.
It’s why Dawkin ans Hitchens attack false propositions of theism as an argument against God, except there is a problem. It’s not honest and therefore not true.[/quote]
What makes that position and moral relativity untenable?
These words are new to me.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]
You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a ‘kind of God’, by logical necessity there can only be one. Evolution is evidence for the existence of God, not proof against it. It may be proof against a literal interpretation of Genesis, but not God.[/quote]
I’m not trying to use the evolution theory as proof against God, God is used as proof against evolution and has been since Darwins unhappily named book was published. Maybe God gave the spark and supports us all the time (and in a metaphorical way it’s true), but it has no bearing on the theory.
I don’t know about necessity, but I know that people mean different things with the word god, even when it’s supposedly the same.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Matty:
Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
pat wrote:
That is a component of morality. [/quote]
For him, not harming others unnecessarily has nothing to do with being ‘morally good.’ Or, that the other has an inherent right not to be harmed, which he is morally obligated to acknowledge. It’s simply too risky. For him, at least.
[/quote]
Admitting there is an ultimate ‘good’ by which things are measured is a risky proposition for an atheist.
And that’s what I don’t understand about atheism. To justify it, you are forced to take untenable positions, like moral relativity, otherwise you leave the door open for God to exist and they know it.
It’s why Dawkin ans Hitchens attack false propositions of theism as an argument against God, except there is a problem. It’s not honest and therefore not true.[/quote]
What makes that position and moral relativity untenable?
These words are new to me.[/quote]
Well first, it plain doesn’t exist. We know moral relativity doesn’t exists because it breaks down quickly real scenarios. For instance, was slavery ok even when it was an accepted practice? If society condones rape, is it morally ok? What about the victim?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are correct that my mind is not as open as I think you’d want it to be. Is yours open enough to where you have earnestly explored the creation theory? If not then by your own definition “this isn’t a discussion” from your perspective as well. Could you look me in the eye and assure me you have done exactly what you are wishing from me?
[/quote]
I’m open to your presentation of evidence. Yesterday, I went through 25 pages of epistemology thread even though Tiribulus’ tactics of argument became apparent after the first 5 pages.
Can you provide a link for a reputable source of common design? I’m just getting hits about fashion.