|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 14:42:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, but observing and inhabiting the special creation is an argument in favor of creation and a creator.
|
I'd rather you (or any of your +1600 scientists - by the way, how many are named Steve?) prove to me we live in a creation made by a creator. And once you prove that (hint: no ancient tribesmen's books allowed), you'd have to prove your creator is THE creator, rather than the millions of equally plausible creators humanity has identified over the millenia of its existence.
Then again, for all you know, the universe might have been farted out by a certain African god whose name I now forget, or born from the cosmic egg of a macaw-like bird, as in Amazonian mythology. Or, maybe His Noodly Appendages are at work... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 14:45:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, but observing and inhabiting the special creation is an argument in favor of creation and a creator. |
This assumes that the creation is a special creation, and created by a who rather than a what. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 14:56:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You know what amuses me? The fact that the materialist and atheist have diluted themselves to the point where they actually believe that creationists cannot be scientists and scientist can not be creationists.
|
Somehow, I just don't feel diminished. 
There is no denying that Christians can be scientists, but when their faith, particularly in creation, precludes evidence viewed as contrary are they still capable of producing good science? Science capable of passing the rigors of peer review? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 15:53:52 [Permalink]
|
Easy. We all did not come from a common ancestor. The creator created species. References? I give you the very creation itself as evidence for a creator. GODDIDIT will explain just fine the diversity you see in the species. Again, I offer you the very creation itself as evidence that the creator creates with diversity amongst the different species.
|
 "Goddidit" explains doodly-squat! And trying to support the existence of something that by it's very nature can't be proved is ridiculous, especally when you go: "I know that there is a creator because there is a creation, which, Of course, was created."
That's not word-for-word, but it covers the gist of it. Do you see anything wrong with that statement?
Evolution is a fact that has been observed and recorded in the laboratory, in the field and in the fossil record, as many of the heavily referenced links given you over all this time have shown. That you refuse to accept the information (and might not have even opened the links) can't be laid at anyone's doorstep save your own. You asked, we answered.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 17:20:50 [Permalink]
|
This Bad Astronomy post couldn't be more appropriate:
If Newton were born today, he wouldn't be a creationist. He'd be a cosmologist.
So please, spare me the ridiculous comparisons of smart people who are or were creationists. In Newton's time it was all there was, but today we understand so much more. And of course there is more to see, and always, always more to learn.
But all that we have learned so far is unequivocally at odds with young Earth creationism, and Universities are absolutely right for not wanting to have a YEC teach their classes.
The analogy is ridiculous, and insulting. Newton didn't see far because he was a creationist, he saw far because he was a genius. Asking what it would be like for him today is the wrong question, since it is posed so poorly. But a much more fair question to ask is: how much farther might he have seen had he not been a creationist? And how many Newtons are out there now, but having their vision dimmed by the fog? |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 17:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for posting that, pleco. It was very appropriate.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 18:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Wow! I admonish Bill for misusing a quote of filthy's and he turns right around and does it to me. Gosh.
Bill, just for the record, I asked:
So, your saying creationists have come up with some actual science of their own that is worthy of consideration?
Name it. |
“Creationists.” “A science of their own.” What did I mean by that Bill? I'll tell you what I meant. I meant exactly what you thought I meant. I meant nothing more and nothing less.
You twisted my quote to mean something else. And you did it purposely, in front of everyone.
Bill, I am a very bad liar. I always get caught. So I choose not to lie. It's a bad habit to get in to. Take it from me, it ain't worth it. I have found, as a general rule, that nothing good comes from lying.
Just saying Bill. Far be it for me to remind a person as knowledgeable about the bible as you are about such things as bearing false witness.
No, I prefer a common sense approach that I used on my children. I would sometimes quote Sir Walter Scott who very wisely wrote:
”Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!”
It's so true! Don't you think?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 11:12:54 [Permalink]
|
Kil, Bill (movie pun not intended) has been telling lies for jesus since his first post on these forums. You don't really think he'll change do you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 12:30:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, but observing and inhabiting the special creation is an argument in favor of creation and a creator.
|
I'd rather you (or any of your +1600 scientists - by the way, how many are named Steve?) prove to me we live in a creation made by a creator. And once you prove that (hint: no ancient tribesmen's books allowed), you'd have to prove your creator is THE creator, rather than the millions of equally plausible creators humanity has identified over the millenia of its existence.
Then again, for all you know, the universe might have been farted out by a certain African god whose name I now forget, or born from the cosmic egg of a macaw-like bird, as in Amazonian mythology. Or, maybe His Noodly Appendages are at work...
|
As a design Eng. I have spent years at a profession where I am always looking for the intent of the design. Whether it be drawings for a new project or trying to revamp an older piece of equipment. When I look at the workings and goings on of the human body, vision, respiratory systems, nervous systems, the skeletal system, hearing etc.... It cries out design to me so loud it is deafening. Same with the balance of the eco system, the planet, and the universe we call home. Personally, I see nothing but a designed creation as a possibility, which would require a designer or creator.
It is no different to me then when I sit a stare at a 2007 Z06 Vette. To think of the design hours, all the different histories of each individual part and how it made it's way to that car, and that each of these individual parts, whether it be the cylinder deactivation or the lug nut, was designed for a specific purpose and task and when all these different purposes are brought together and manufactured under rigid requirements you get the Chevrolet Z06 on the other side. A finely honed and precisely calculated engineering design where many design and labor hours went into the end result. The Chevy Z06 shouts from the roof top that special design and care went into this special creation. I would say the person who stands in front of the Z06 Vette and denies the efforts and forethought that went into that machine are just denying reality.
I see the creation/ no-creation debate in much the same way. One look at the human brain, which it's complexity makes the complexity of the Z06 look like a nursery school project, and to deny the obvious design and forethought to come up with such a complex end result is no different to deny the design and forethought put into the Chevy Z06 while standing right in front of it, or worse yet, denying it while driving that beast around Mid-Ohio.
The most convincing issue for me on the "who" question of this creator is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You predict and fulfil your own death and resurrection and you have my attention. If Jesus is God in human flesh, the second person of the Trinity, then Jesus is the creator. Jesus indorses and quotes from the book of Genesis. Now Jesus, being the creator, would not be certifying the Genesis account were it not so, would he? Being the creator this would be in his realm of expertise.
Now what convinces me that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead? Well, one thing is true, it is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html |
You also have the:
BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
EMPTY TOMB
LARGE STONE MOVED
ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
OVER 500 WITNESSES
HOSTILE WITNESSES
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 12:43:22 [Permalink]
|
When I look at the workings and goings on of the human body, vision, respiratory systems, nervous systems, the skeletal system, hearing etc.... It cries out design to me so loud it is deafening. Same with the balance of the eco system, the planet, and the universe we call home. Personally, I see nothing but a designed creation as a possibility, which would require a designer or creator.
|
But what you fail to see is that evolution gives reasons why things look designed, why all these things work out so perfectly. You refuse to even consider the explanatory power of evolution because you already believe in the designer. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 13:07:01 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Ricky |
| But what you fail to see is that evolution gives reasons why things look designed, |
I realize this violates the separation of cosmology and evolution clause but who cares. Evolution does not give me reasons why everything looks designed. Whenever I ask, "Where did the one cell and primordial soup come from?" I am told this is evolution and not cosmology. So now I start with one cell and some primordial soup, that was just there, and I am expected to believe that genetic mutations and 1 billion years manufactured the human brain. Look, you might buy this explanation, but as a designer I don't see it even remotely plausible.
| why all these things work out so perfectly. |
The only complex machines I have ever seen in my years work perfect by design. And even then usually some tweaking will be required even for the most senior of designers. To conclude that the human brain came about through purely materialist and naturalistic processes, to me, is no different then denying the design effort that went into the Z06 as you pass by a 911 T in the s-curves.
| You refuse to even consider the explanatory power of evolution because you already believe in the designer. |
I refuse to believe because I have seen the complexity of the entire creation. I am not going to dismiss the work gone into the 2007 Z06 while I pass a 911 T that costs 40% more money. You refuse to even consider the evidence for the resurrection because your already indoctrinated and a belief in materialism. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 13:47:37 [Permalink]
|
All that says, Bill, is that you don't understand biology well enough to understand how the process of evolution works. Your simple lack of understanding evolution doesn't in any way support the idea that magic is a reasonable explanation for life and its diversity. Well, other than in your own imagination, of course. If you want to propose that magic is the explanation, you'll have to show how that explanation is falsifiable and testable, and provide scientifically based evidence to support it. So far nobody has been able to do that.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a process which occurs. All the time. Pretty much everywhere on Earth. It's a matter of fact. The theories which explain the process of evolution do so according to the scientific method. They are falsifiable, testable, and are supported with evidence, real scientifically valid evidence.
You see, science is the real stuff, Bill. It is the base used to explain why the frame of that Corvette holds up against the torque of the engine, the method that explains how much friction is necessary to stop that Corvette in a given distance from a given speed, the method used to determine how much fuel needs to mix with how much air to create the explosions required to send that Corvette cruising down the highway. And although there are a lot of people who don't (or can't) grasp the design and engineering concepts involved, pretty much no moderately intelligent human being would suggest that, simply because they don't understand internal combustion, that Corvette must scoot along by the power of magic.
The power of magic works equally as well to explain the origin and diversity of life as it does to explain anything about that Corvette.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 13:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
As a design Eng. I have spent years at a profession where I am always looking for the intent of the design. Whether it be drawings for a new project or trying to revamp an older piece of equipment. When I look at the workings and goings on of the human body, vision, respiratory systems, nervous systems, the skeletal system, hearing etc.... It cries out design to me so loud it is deafening. Same with the balance of the eco system, the planet, and the universe we call home. Personally, I see nothing but a designed creation as a possibility, which would require a designer or creator.
It is no different to me then when I sit a stare at a 2007 Z06 Vette. To think of the design hours, all the different histories of each individual part and how it made it's way to that car, and that each of these individual parts, whether it be the cylinder deactivation or the lug nut, was designed for a specific purpose and task and when all these different purposes are brought together and manufactured under rigid requirements you get the Chevrolet Z06 on the other side. A finely honed and precisely calculated engineering design where many design and labor hours went into the end result. The Chevy Z06 shouts from the roof top that special design and care went into this special creation. I would say the person who stands in front of the Z06 Vette and denies the efforts and forethought that went into that machine are just denying reality. |
The only examples of such design that we have - things that we know were designed with forethought and effort - are made by human beings. The logical conclusion, if human beings look designed to you, is that another human being designed them.| Well, one thing is true, it is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history. |
Well, if you can only boil it down to such a choice, why pick one over the other? Actually, given the way you stated that, you cannot now say that it is a fact of history.
Jesus' story represents a singular event which we've never seen the likes of before or since. Hoaxes, on the other hand, we've got lots of evidence of hoaxes, ranging in size from tiny to huge. There has to be a "most wicked, vicious, heartless" hoax, because they're not all equally mean. If the Jesus story happens to be it, so what of it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 13:58:16 [Permalink]
|
| Oh yeah, I forgot to ask again how we would go about testing the ressurection or the creation itself. Got any ideas, Bill? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 16:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Siberia
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, but observing and inhabiting the special creation is an argument in favor of creation and a creator.
|
I'd rather you (or any of your +1600 scientists - by the way, how many are named Steve?) prove to me we live in a creation made by a creator. And once you prove that (hint: no ancient tribesmen's books allowed), you'd have to prove your creator is THE creator, rather than the millions of equally plausible creators humanity has identified over the millenia of its existence.
Then again, for all you know, the universe might have been farted out by a certain African god whose name I now forget, or born from the cosmic egg of a macaw-like bird, as in Amazonian mythology. Or, maybe His Noodly Appendages are at work...
|
As a design Eng. I have spent years at a profession where I am always looking for the intent of the design. Whether it be drawings for a new project or trying to revamp an older piece of equipment. When I look at the workings and goings on of the human body, vision, respiratory systems, nervous systems, the skeletal system, hearing etc.... It cries out design to me so loud it is deafening. Same with the balance of the eco system, the planet, and the universe we call home. Personally, I see nothing but a designed creation as a possibility, which would require a designer or creator.
|
So you're saying that because they look designed, they're designed. Like snowflakes. Well, please show me the designer, 'cause my body was very badly designed indeed - what with arthritis at eight months old and myopic eyes and thyroid problem and all of that. Maybe I can file a complaint.
(and just in case: I don't blame God for my health problems. That wasn't even the reason I became an atheist - I was never a theist, anyway - it's silly to blame something I don't believe exists for something perfectly explicable by, lo and behold, biology and evolution.)
Frankly, I don't see the design of it; if there is such, it's crappy design. It's full of flaws, some lethal, some just annoying, some just really out there. Some design, that is.
See, Bill, I'm a designer too. I'm a webdesigner, as well as a programmer. And I know that some softwares can generate new softwares. There's a whole branch of computer science dedicated to algorithms that change themselves (care to guess the name? That's right - evolutionary computation).
Y'see, even if the world was started by some unseen, magical creator, it probably was left behind by him/her/it once it was started, 'cause we surely don't see his/her/its face around that much.
And still - what guarantees your creator is the creator?
Or rather;
Why the resurrection of Jesus (if the man even existed) is more credible than, say, the immortality of Achilles? Or, what the heck, I'm sure Greek mythology has a dozen stories about resurrection as well, of demigods and mortals alike. As do most mythologies I'm aware of. And I'm sure that with enough study, you'll find as many references and testimonies about those as about Jesus'. Except maybe that history might've erased them - there are too many cults and too many of them like to ignore and obliterate their competitors.
Hell, Jesus claimed to be son of a God. So did Alexander the Great - and we know for sure Alexander existed, unlike, say, Jesus. Jesus - or the people who wrote about him - said he did miracles. Then again, there are several people, even in my country, alive, today, who say they can do miracles. They also have lots of people saying such miracles happened.
Why Alexander's claim, or those people's claims, are not credible, but Jesus' is?
[ edit: I thought something wrong. Corrected it. ] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/25/2007 16:18:52 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
