The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

Are there scientists that deal with cosmology, and evolutionary biology who don't need to make assumptions?

Of course scientists make assumptions. What's wrong with that?

However, before any decent scientist publishes findings on a subject he goes far beyond assumptions. He studies. He resolves contradictions. Often he realizes his assumptions were wrong and he starts over.

Some folks assume the Bible is the Word of God. When confronted with contradictions to those assumptions, they either deny or hedge.

 

[ecco]

No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created.

Please explain how the designer came into existence without being created.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many scientists believe in God, but they do not include that in their work in the lab.

Yes, and we call that compartmentalization. It's the secret to doing successful scientific work if one is willing to believe some things by faith. Leave that outside the laboratory or observatory door when coming to work on Monday morning.

Why is that necessary? Because faith, by which I mean insufficiently supported belief, is antithetical to science, which is based in rational skepticism, or the principle that nothing should be believed without a rational reason, and empiricism, or the idea that the nature of reality is only learned by consulting it, not ancient lore.

Newton's legacy is a nice illustration of how faith poisons scientific inquiry. Newton did work in areas like mathematics, optics, celestial mechanics, and gravitation that was useful then and is useful now. He assiduously left faith out of the process, and did work of lasting value.

But living on the cusp of modernity, Newton also had a foot in medieval traditions like alchemy, a faith based system. His work there is only of historical interest, and never had any other value.

I see that as a strong endorsement of reason and evidence based thinking as a means of deciding what is true about the world, and a condemnation of faith-based thought for that purpose, which has historically been a sterile method - one that can degrade scientific inquiry if allowed to contaminate its methods.

Look at how faith has harmed the ID people. They began with a faith-based premise - that a god exists - and set out to find evidence in support of that. That's the reverse order than that which is used in science, and the reason that ID is called pseudoscience rather than science.

Science starts with evidence and derives conclusions from it, going where the evidence leads rather than choosing what the evidence will demonstrate - a mistake that introduces a confirmation bias. As a result, they wasted years and millions of dollars generating nothing of any more value than Newton's alchemy.

Confirmation bias is why the ID people keep reporting seeing irreducible complexity that others later show them is not there. ID investigators see what they are expecting or wanting to see, a familiar phenomenon in medical trials, and the reason that clinicians and patients are both kept in the dark as to who is getting the therapy being tested and who is getting placebo (double-blinding the experiment).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All is needed is to demonstrate that a designer was required for life, nothing more.

There's the challenge to creationists - show us why we should inject gods into our scientific theories or our worldview. What problem do they solve, or what phenomena do they account for better than naturalisitic hypotheses. None so far.

The first wave of scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Vesalius, Harvey, Bernoulli, Dalton, Avogadro, Priestly, Boyle, Coulomb, Lavoisier, and Volta first uncovered how the universe works automatically and without supervision or intervention, including the bodies of living organism. Current flows through wires without anybody pushing the electrons, gametes fuse and develop into mature organism, and gases achieve equilibrium without anybody supervising the process.

With this came the rise of deism in the eighteenth century - the idea that there is no god running the universe.

But even if the universe didn't need a ruler god to push the planets around or ensure that water freezes at its predictable freezing point, a god was still needed as a builder of our universe, so atheism wasn't really a tenable position yet.

Then, beginning in the mid-19th century, came a second wave of scientists like Hubble and Darwin, who helped us to understand how the universe could assemble itself from seeds like the singularity and the first living cell without supervision, and atheism became tenable. Still no demonstration of the need for a sentient, volitional designer.

This left us only the twin origins problems - where did this first energy, and much later, the first life, come from? Is a god needed for that? We don't know, but have no reason to assume so. We have naturalisitic hypotheses for each of these that may be the case, not intelligent designers.

Now look back at your comment. Has the need for an intelligent designer to account for life or anything else been established? No. The opposite is more correct. The role for a god has been vanishing throughout the march of science.

Until such a need is demonstrated, the god hypothesis is not necessary or even useful, making invoking it needlessly unparsimonious in the extreme.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How long is the 7th day?

The same as the rest of them - from sundown to the next sundown.

I have an interesting hypothesis for the source of the idea that God labored for six days and then took a day of rest.

Go back in time in your imagination to a time before the advent of Judaism and houses of worship, when presumably every able-bodied person worked every day. There would be no concept of a week or a weekend, as these are not natural cycles like days, months, and years, which correspond to the earth and moon rotating about their axes as they revolve around the sun and earth respectively.

Now fast forward to the time when this changed, when a professional priesthood arose that could be found in synagogues, perhaps several hours journey from one's homestead. You are now asked to come to this gathering place on a regular basis for religious purposes, including tithing the priesthood so that this class of people need not labor in the fields for their sustenance.

You have to convince a people that considers being idle sinful to put down their plows and take the day to come to temple. The priesthood needs to modify the dominant ethos from it being sinful to take a day off to it being sinful not to. How to do this? Create a story where God labors for a certain number of days, then takes one off. How frequently? The shortest natural cycle longer than a day is a month, and that's too long between tithings, so an artificial cycle is invented - the week, seven day cycle, each containing a day of rest.

To cement the deal, make it a commandment to observe this seventh day by resting rather than working the fields. Make it one of the big ten.

I really like this idea. It accounts for the bizarre insertion of a day of rest for an omnipotent god, who obviously would have no need for rest (nor need six days to create reality). I think that that is likely the source of a timeline in the Genesis creation story. When we look at other creation stories, such as the Viking tale involving Odin and his kin creating the world, we don't find that timeline:

• "Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky ... The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths." The Norse Creation Myth

Here's the Mesopotamian version:

• "The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat’s body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." Myth, How Marduk Became King of all the Ancient Babylonian Gods - Mesopotamia for Kids

You don't see "On the first day, Odin or Marduk did this, then on the second day that ... " like you do in the Genesis creation story. It's just their creative acts enumerated in order with no timeline.

So, yeah, the Genesis days of creation are literal days just like mans literal days of laboring for six of them and then resting on the seventh are, that were likely added to the account at a later date to support the practice of putting down the plow, grabbing a few shekels, and making the journey to and from a religious congregation on a weekly basis.

 

[ecco]

Current flows through wires without anybody pushing the electrons

The electrons don't need anyone to push them as can be clearly seen by this actual microscopic picture.

 

[ecco]

I have an interesting hypothesis for the source of the idea that God labored for six days and then took a day of rest.

Your hypothesis proves that God is not benevolent. If God were benevolent, the week would have been six, not seven days long. There would be no Monday.

 

[nPeace]

Generally speaking, we don't.

Listen, as one who has taught religion and science (anthropology) for many years, if you can't tell the difference between the two, it's no wonder that you're "out to lunch" on this. To equate the two is quite delusional as even their basic approach is completely different.

They say "There's no such thing as a dumb question", but you found one.

Science teaches against being gullible, and it's called the "scientific method". And note that there is no "religious method" that equates to that.

Religious beliefs are not generated by objectively-derived evidence, and the fact that you couldn't even began to answer my questions put to you on my previous post, such as the one about Noah, pretty much shows that you actually do understand this inside, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.
.
As I said before, note the context of how "yom" is being used there. If you can't see that, then I think I can safely say that Biblical study is simply not your forte.

And if you cannot even see the difference in the approaches of religion and science, then there's simply no where to go with this "discussion".

It's a bit chilly

around here. Perhaps a nerve was struck.
Indeed the saying is true. A cornered animal is a dangerous animal.

Nowhere to run.
So, right. The day in Genesis 2:4 cannot logically be 24 hours, neither the ones in verse 2, and Genesis 1.

This was the purpose of my so-called Gish Gallop here.
The time is here, when it becomes clear which side of the fence we are on.

 

[nPeace]

Still not explaining how it happened in nature. You're just making an argument known as the divine fallacy. "I can't believe this happened without god, therefore god". It doesn't satisfy your claim of showing HOW ID works in nature, or that complexity necessarily implies a designer.

Hey, if you personally believe "life is really complicated, and I believe it needed a designer", that's fine. That's a perfectly valid belief. It is not a scientific argument, though.

If you disagree, or are unsatisfied, try this. Demonstrate how evolution above the species level happened in nature.
After you do so, I will know what you are unsatisfied with, and can then address it.

Hmm. I'll take that as a "Since I can't demonstrate how evolution above the species level happened in nature, you are free to go."

Thank you. My pleasure.

 

[nPeace]

Well, that would be because I think it is warranted.

Fair enough. Sometimes we think we are right when we know we are wrong.

I still see assertions with no demonstration of their veracity. And logical fallacies.

How did you determine nature is designed?
It is not obvious to everyone that nature was designed (by the God you believe in or some others), and yet you keep making that assertion as well.
How did you determine that life has purpose and what that purpose is?
How did the God you believe in design everything?
Your big argument seems to be that because humans can't create life from scratch then life must have been created by some Designer, because designs only come from designers. But of course, that's just question begging, since your premise assumes the truth of your conclusion.

And let's not kid ourselves, you have a very specific designer in mind. Even if you could demonstrate that intelligent design occurred at the "creation" of the universe, you have a lot of work left to do in order to connect that to the specific God you believe in.

Here we go again.
You are again repeating questions, which you have already clearly stated you don't accept the answer, and you are claiming that I am making arguments, which I have not made.
No. I don't have a lot of work to do, at least not in connection to what you assert.

Unfortunately, your entire argument still amounts to an argument from personal incredulity.

The argument is reasonable and logical, and it requires an irrational argument to deny it.

 

[nPeace]

@It Aint Necessarily
Clearly the evidence hasn't led to the conclusions reached, where the evolution theory is concerned. That's why according to Dawkins, it requires a "leap of imagination". He avoided using the word faith - perhaps rightly so. He used the right expression. ...but beating you over the head a million times won't change your mind, will it?

I haven't suggested anyone change their scientific methods. I am not in that fight.
As I said before. I have no need of Darwin's hypotheses. My fight is on a different level.

Oh. You didn't write Genesis, did you?
I thought so.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

@It Aint Necessarily
Clearly the evidence hasn't led to the conclusions reached, where the evolution theory is concerned. That's why according to Dawkins, it requires a "leap of imagination". He avoided using the word faith - perhaps rightly so. He used the right expression. ...but beating you over the head a million times won't change your mind, will it?

I haven't suggested anyone change their scientific methods. I am not in that fight.
As I said before. I have no need of Darwin's hypotheses. My fight is on a different level.

Oh. You didn't write Genesis, did you?
I thought so.

Maybe one day, even you might wake up and realize that science has nothing to do with validating or challenging your supernatural beliefs. Science can't explain, or examine anything that does not or cannot exist within reality. Science is not perfect or absolute, and is always evolving. The evidence is certainly consistent with the Theory of Evolution. What evidence can you posit that falsifies the Theory? I thought so. It is always easier to criticise than to create.

Instead of simply dismissing the facts, data, and evidence by posters, why don't you posit your own creation or ID-specific evidence? Science is never going to return to the Dark Ages, where all beliefs were based on ignorance. All you have to demonstrate is just one miracle, just one supernatural or paranormal activity. Just one resurrection or an example of the power of prayer. Or, just one example of when and how any of the laws of physics were ever violated. If you could do any of this, you would have demonstrated that your narrative is at least possible. But you can't, can you? Maybe you can explain why all life is related to their environment and themselves? Did you write "On the Origin of Species"? I thought so.

 

[ecco]

It's a bit chilly

around here. Perhaps a nerve was struck.
Indeed the saying is true. A cornered animal is a dangerous animal.
Nowhere to run.
So, right. The day in Genesis 2:4 cannot logically be 24 hours, neither the ones in verse 2, and Genesis 1.


The time is here, when it becomes clear which side of the fence we are on.

In other words, you pick and choose what to take as literal and what to take as allegory. In other words, you make stuff up to suit your own needs.

Nothing new here folks. All theists do it.

 

[ecco]

Fair enough. Sometimes we think we are right when we know we are wrong

On the other hand, theists believe they are right even when all the evidence says they are wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fair enough. Sometimes we think we are right when we know we are wrong.

I've been on these forums for years. I know what a Gish Gallop is. I'm sorry you don't want to acknowledge that you've been using it. It won't stop me from pointing it out.

Here we go again.
You are again repeating questions, which you have already clearly stated you don't accept the answer, and you are claiming that I am making arguments, which I have not made.

You seem to think you've answered a lot of things that you actually haven't. The fact that several people here are all still trying to get this information out of you speaks to the truth of my statement. Notice how here again, you haven't even attempted to answer my questions that I've posed in order to better understand where you're coming from.

No. I don't have a lot of work to do, at least not in connection to what you assert.

Of course you do. You've made a lot of assertions.

For instance, you simply declare that life has a purpose and that you know what it is. Do you not expect people to question such assertions? Just take your word for it, instead?

The argument is reasonable and logical, and it requires an irrational argument to deny it.

No, the argument from personal incredulity is neither reasonable nor logical. Hence the reason it's a logical fallacy and shouldn't be used by anyone looking to make a logical, reasonable argument.

P.S. If the argument from personal incredulity were logical and reasonable we'd end up having to just believe everything we hear from anybody, no matter how outrageous or silly.
Good thing it's not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Instead of simply dismissing the facts, data, and evidence by posters, why don't you posit your own creation or ID-specific evidence?

I'm sure that you know the answer to that. There is no positive argument or supporting evidence for ID, so the effort has to be to attack the alternative, and hope that that leaves supernaturalism as the last idea standing.

But frankly, even if the theory of evolution could be falsified, the accumulated evidence suggesting that the theory was correct doesn't go away, but would need to be interpreted in the light of the falsifying discovery, which could only be understood as a massive deception. That idea contradicts the idea that a good, loving god that wants to be known, trusted, believed and worshiped assembled our world.

Also, even if creationism were in some sense more correct than the scientific theory, it remains a useless idea. I have yet to get an answer to my question posted earlier on this thread and elsewhere :

Why would we toss out a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, for an idea that presently lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful?

So, I answer it myself. We wouldn't.

Clearly the evidence hasn't led to the conclusions reached, where the evolution theory is concerned.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the evidence always supports the conclusion reached by the scientific community because of the way that the conclusion is shaped by the evidence. The conclusion, which is always tentative and amenable to revision if new evidence surfaces making it necessary, is derived from that evidence, and is the simplest explanation that accounts for all of it..

This is different from the faith-based process of starting with an unsupported claim and sifting through the evidence trying to fit it to the faith-based premise, then retrofitting that to look like it leads to a conclusion that was never a conclusion, but a premise - what I call a pseudo-conclusion trying to masquerade as a conclusion.

This is, as I mentioned earlier, what the ID people do, and why they are just spinning their wheels looking for a god that is probably not ever going to be found whether that's because it doesn't exist or doesn't want to be found. If one starts with the evidence and an open mind able to properly evaluate a sound argument and willing to be convinced by it if it seems compelling. That is the method of science, and it has worked stunningly well. What the ID people are doing is pseudoscience, and not surprisingly, their movement has been sterile.

That's why according to Dawkins, it requires a "leap of imagination".

I also don't know what that means, but I do know that Dawkins is an rational skeptic and empiricist, not a faith-based thinker, and that his beliefs are compatible with the consensus of evolutionary scientists.

Also, Dawkins doesn't speak for anybody but himself. I only quote him when I agree with his comments, not because he said them. If he says something with which I disagree, absent a compelling argument, I remain in disagreement.

• "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

Of course, that's what all the fuss from the creationist community is about. This theory and Big Bang cosmology made atheism realistic. I'd probably have been a deist in the eighteenth century, but not today. We don't need a designer or builder god to account for the construction of the stars and galaxies, nor any of the life that may be orbiting them.

beating you over the head a million times won't change your mind, will it?

Unsupported claims have no effect on the rational skeptic, who doesn't care what others believe, but what they know and can demonstrate. Present evidence better explained by invoking an intelligent designer, and you may be able to convince a reason and evidence based thinker that you are correct. But not with less.

Oh. You didn't write Genesis, did you? I thought so.

Then you were correct. I didn't write Genesis.

 

[nPeace]

I've been on these forums for years. I know what a Gish Gallop is. I'm sorry you don't want to acknowledge that you've been using it. It won't stop me from pointing it out.

I'm sorry that you believe being on a forum for years somehow gives you special knowledge, or understanding. Perhaps that's due to the techniques you learn from the crowd you keep. So I understand that rules out admitting that you are wrong.

You seem to think you've answered a lot of things that you actually haven't. The fact that several people here are all still trying to get this information out of you speaks to the truth of my statement. Notice how here again, you haven't even attempted to answer my questions that I've posed in order to better understand where you're coming from.

It's as I said above. Those several people seem to be doing the same thing you have been doing from day one, I met you.
However, I understand why you say you haven't got an answer.

Of course you do. You've made a lot of assertions.

For instance, you simply declare that life has a purpose and that you know what it is. Do you not expect people to question such assertions? Just take your word for it, instead?

Perhaps you can show me where I

simply declare that life has a purpose and that you know what it is.

Then let's start there.

No, the argument from personal incredulity is neither reasonable nor logical. Hence the reason it's a logical fallacy and shouldn't be used by anyone looking to make a logical, reasonable argument.

Since I did not make an argument from personal incredulity, as you again wrongly claim, then these words are really not necessary. So why use them?
Perhaps you can also point out where I made an

argument from personal incredulity

Let's deal with that too.

P.S. If the argument from personal incredulity were logical and reasonable we'd end up having to just believe everything we hear from anybody, no matter how outrageous or silly.
Good thing it's not.

 

[nPeace]

There is no positive argument or supporting evidence for ID, so the effort has to be to attack the alternative, and hope that that leaves supernaturalism as the last idea standing.

This is simply not true.

But frankly, even if the theory of evolution could be falsified, the accumulated evidence suggesting that the theory was correct doesn't go away, but would need to be interpreted in the light of the falsifying discovery, which could only be understood as a massive deception. That idea contradicts the idea that a good, loving god that wants to be known, trusted, believed and worshiped assembled our world.

It seems to me you are making an argument like most atheist, God haters, and Bible bashers make.

The argument goes like this...
Steps...
1. Why is A
2. I don't understand A
3. Therefore I'd rather B

Sort of like the so-called God-of-the-gap, they exchange - the truth for a lie.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. - Charles Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray (1860)
It is the general rule that larvae possess a centre of innervation for each segment. This is so in particular with the Grey Worm, the sacrificial victim of the Hairy Ammophila. The Wasp is acquainted with this anatomical secret: she stabs the caterpillar again and again, from end to end, segment by segment, ganglion by ganglion. - Darwin's French contemporary Jean Henri Fabre described similar behaviour in a digger wasp, Ammophil
As Darwin clearly understood, blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection, although on other occasions he tried to play down the cruelty, suggesting that killing bites are mercifully swift. But the Devil's Chaplain would be equally swift to point out that if there is mercy in nature, it is accidental. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent.
Source: The Devil's Chaplin - Richard Dawkins

It's just an exchange. Hence why persons are willing to believe in fairy stuff.
[GALLERY=media, 8806]Just Believe by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 3:52 PM[/GALLERY]

A Biblcal writer puts it in perspective...
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.

Despite the evidence all around them, that confirms that God is, they suppress that truth in an unrighteous way.
Rather than have the proper fear of God - not a morbid fear, but a reverential fear, which leads to wisdom - they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened - they dishonor God.

Also, even if creationism were in some sense more correct than the scientific theory, it remains a useless idea. I have yet to get an answer to my question posted earlier on this thread and elsewhere :

Why would we toss out a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, for an idea that presently lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful?

So, I answer it myself. We wouldn't.

No you didn't.
Oh wait! Sorry. You gave yourself the answer you wanted to hear.
So even though I saw Deeje distinctively give you an answer, and I gave you an answer, you really did not want the question answered, unless it's answered with what you specifically want to hear.
Could you explain this to @SkepticThinker, so that she might see what I am trying to get through to her.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the evidence always supports the conclusion reached by the scientific community because of the way that the conclusion is shaped by the evidence. The conclusion, which is always tentative and amenable to revision if new evidence surfaces making it necessary, is derived from that evidence, and is the simplest explanation that accounts for all of it..

..but you have convinced yourself otherwise, so ...

This is different from the faith-based process of starting with an unsupported claim and sifting through the evidence trying to fit it to the faith-based premise, then retrofitting that to look like it leads to a conclusion that was never a conclusion, but a premise - what I call a pseudo-conclusion trying to masquerade as a conclusion.

There you go. You just described your belief, exactly.

This is, as I mentioned earlier, what the ID people do, and why they are just spinning their wheels looking for a god that is probably not ever going to be found whether that's because it doesn't exist or doesn't want to be found. If one starts with the evidence and an open mind able to properly evaluate a sound argument and willing to be convinced by it if it seems compelling. That is the method of science, and it has worked stunningly well. What the ID people are doing is pseudoscience, and not surprisingly, their movement has been sterile.

Well, at least you described true science, and not the faith based science being promoted as scientific fact.

I also don't know what that means, but I do know that Dawkins is an rational skeptic and empiricist, not a faith-based thinker, and that his beliefs are compatible with the consensus of evolutionary scientists.

Also, Dawkins doesn't speak for anybody but himself. I only quote him when I agree with his comments, not because he said them. If he says something with which I disagree, absent a compelling argument, I remain in disagreement.

• "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

Of course, that's what all the fuss from the creationist community is about. This theory and Big Bang cosmology made atheism realistic. I'd probably have been a deist in the eighteenth century, but not today. We don't need a designer or builder god to account for the construction of the stars and galaxies, nor any of the life that may be orbiting them.

Well, you apparently have decided on your particular god, as I said before, an exchange, because you omit all of the evidence for an intelligent creator, and designer, and accept theories that cannot be tested, and break all the rules of observable science.
They support your worldview, of course.

Unsupported claims have no effect on the rational skeptic, who doesn't care what others believe, but what they know and can demonstrate. Present evidence better explained by invoking an intelligent designer, and you may be able to convince a reason and evidence based thinker that you are correct. But not with less.

Then you were correct. I didn't write Genesis.

It may surprise you to know that many skeptics are seeing the evidence for an intelligent designer, and are convinced that this is the only reasonable explanation for the evidence they see.
Hundreds of people are seeing this, on a regular basis.
Anthony Flew was just one.
Do you know why?
They investigate for themselves, rather than swallow what they are told, by those who would have them believe without real evidence.
[GALLERY=media, 8807]DarWine by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Deeje]

Maybe one day, even you might wake up and realize that science has nothing to do with validating or challenging your supernatural beliefs.

Perhaps you can explain why the evolutionists here need to launch such strong and often demeaning defence for something they believe in without reservation? It seems to me when reading the responses of the evolution devotees that their 'religion' (beliefs) is being pitted against ours and with equal religious fervor. If it's proven beyond all doubt, then why the need to fill these forums with what often amounts to pure vitrol, demeaning accusations about educational qualifications, and very little actual evidence?

If you were all truly confident about your beliefs, why do you all go to such great lengths to defend it? Are you afraid that we might point out some obvious inconsistencies? It seems that way.

Science can't explain, or examine anything that does not or cannot exist within reality. Science is not perfect or absolute, and is always evolving.

So why does it pretend that it can't be wrong? It evolution was taught as a "possible" explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then no one would complain. It's the way it's promoted and the way it infiltrates the school system and the minds of young children without giving them any way or reason to question its validity. By the time they reach university age, they believe it without question....but it is not proven or even provable. It is an assumption based on other assumptions. If that truth was included, then perhaps, this conflict would be deemed unnecessary by both opponents. All we really need is the truth to be told.....both are belief systems. People should be free to decide for themselves based on the real evidence, not on what is supposed to be real.

The evidence is certainly consistent with the Theory of Evolution. What evidence can you posit that falsifies the Theory? I thought so. It is always easier to criticise than to create.

The evidence is "consistent" not because it is conclusive, but because of the way it is interpreted....who interprets the evidence? What do you think the evidence will point to when interpreted by biased sources?

Instead of simply dismissing the facts, data, and evidence by posters, why don't you posit your own creation or ID-specific evidence?

We have a belief system based on scripture and what we see in nature. We see purposeful creation, not an infinite series of fortunate accidents.
Science has a belief system too, but it cannot admit that is what it is.

Science is never going to return to the Dark Ages, where all beliefs were based on ignorance. All you have to demonstrate is just one miracle, just one supernatural or paranormal activity.

See.....here is what always comes out in the conversation....insinuating that what comes from the past has to be outdated or the product of ignorant humans who thought the world was flat. Did it ever occur to you that when humanity was in its infancy, that the Creator would educate his human creation much like we educate our own children. We don't give them information that they can't process. As they gain knowledge and ability to comprehend deeper concepts, then the education is stepped up to the level achieved. It's a continual process.....you honestly think science has achieved all it knows any other way? Most of its scientific knowledge has been accumulated in the last couple of centuries.....compared to how long humans have existed, we still have a lot of growing up to do. We are still infants, with much to learn.

Maybe you can explain why all life is related to their environment and themselves? Did you write "On the Origin of Species"? I thought so.

That is easy....all life has a common Creator who used the same basic materials in the creation of all things. He implemented many of the same basic skeletal frameworks too.

The environments were created long before the creatures that occupied them were brought into existence. That is just logical. We build a house with the intention of living in it. We include all we will need to make life comfortable. We purposefully put things in that house that we plan to use once we move in. The same is true when a builder builds a house for someone else. No one expects that a house will just naturally construct itself. Planning is required and those plans are given to a builder who follows the instructions given to him. The plans did not drop out of thin air, just as the code for our DNA did not drop out of thin air. Information of that complexity could never be an accident....unless you have a vivid imagination.

Life itself is a miracle. Unless you are blind? Can you not see why evolutionists run a mile when you mention abiogenesis.....eager to separate themselves from that inconveniently unsuccessful branch of science?

Perhaps the evolutionists need a lesson in logic.....and appreciation for what is the genius behind Intelligent Design?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, you apparently have decided on your particular god

I'm an atheist. I don't need a god.

you omit all of the evidence for an intelligent creator, and designer

I asked you to provide your argument and evidence. All I got was the claim that you had already done that. So, that discussion died in the womb.

It may surprise you to know that many skeptics are seeing the evidence for an intelligent designer, and are convinced that this is the only reasonable explanation for the evidence they see.

That wouldn't matter to me. I'd have to see that evidence myself. I keep hearing about it, but it's never produced.

It evolution was taught as a "possible" explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then no one would complain.

Sure they would. Macroevolution, remember? Creationists say it's impossible.