Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...

[Deeje]

No, it is not the "same way in any organization." If your boss asks you to do something immoral or illegal, you do not have to follow their orders.
I urge you again to review the Nuremberg Trials. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse to just do whatever.

Who said anything about doing something immoral or illegal? My point was if the boss tells you to do something that is in accord with your job description and you fail to carry it out, you will not stay employed unless you do as you are told by someone who is your superior in that company. Why are you moving the goal posts?

If your god is upset with me for disrespecting his amoral "system" of morality, then he should take it up with me already. So far, nothing.

Be patient....in his word, God says that all of his intelligent creation will account to him....it's called judgment day. According to scripture, for all our lives we are making a record about the way we live this life that the Creator has given us. He will not interfere with our choices because they are ours to make.
At that judgment time, I don't believe that anyone will be left in any doubt about what it means to disobey his laws.

That's why we're having a discussion.
You think something is moral just because somebody says so because that somebody supposedly is the author of morality, even though you can't demonstrate that. That's not enough for me. To me, morality is about weighing the consequences of actions based on what effects they have on myself and those around me. Blindly following whatever orders are commanded doesn't fit with that. If you're not weighing the consequences of our moral decisions, how are we actually exercising morality at all?

Morality is expected of human kind because they are the only creatures with a moral sense that is dependent on personal choice, by free will.

Morality is not a uniquely human trait. Dogs know when they've done wrong, for instance.

Nonsense. Dogs respond to their owners tone of voice. They act guilty because their owner is displeased with them...it's a submissive response. I have been a dog breeder for over 40 years.

That's what they are to you. Because you haven't made an effort to understand what has been explained to you over and over.

I understand perfectly well.....the explanations were simply bogus. I just call out those who try to pass off assertions and assumptions as facts. There is NO proof that evolution, as in a slow progression from amoebas to dinosaurs, ever took place except in the imagination of those who want to believe it.

Scientists are not gods and they are not worshiped as gods. If you think they are, then you'd need to demonstrate that in some way.

Richard Dawkins and his ilk, do a good impersonation.

Scientific publications are not scripture, and they're not taken as the Gospel's truth, as scriptures are. In fact, they're subject to scrutiny and criticism and are not accepted until they are shown to be verifiable and repeatable and have followed rigorous and sound methodology.

What is "sound methodology" exactly? It seems to me that "sound" simply means that scientists agree with each other and the methods they use to assume what they want to believe is true. They share these beliefs and hold them in common, so they interpret their findings collectively because they all believe them to uphold their assertions, as if they were facts.

Science is not a religion; it's a tool. You can tell yourself it's a religion, if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make it so. It doesn't fit the criteria. If you think it does, you'll need to demonstrate that.

I have demonstrated it many times. This "tool" is used to discredit the Creator, so it's not as innocuous as many seem to think it is.

Science is the study of creation, finding out how and why it all works. They then put forward all manner of suggestions based on what they "know" to invent the things that they "assume". By utilising the brilliance of design in nature, they bring forth their own 'creation'....taking full credit for their plagiarism.

What carefully controlled studies/experiments have you carried out to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims? What carefully controlled studies have you carried out to demonstrate that the god you worship exists? Your "senses" don't coordinate with verifiable reality and you have, as of this date, not once provided any empirical evidence backing up your beliefs.

"Carefully controlled" by whom? Anyone who dares to step outside of what is "carefully controlled" to promote a different opinion about what is observed, becomes a 'leper' in academia.

Notice how you had to throw the word "faith" in there? Science doesn't require faith in order to accept it, because it's demonstrable. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you had evidence, you'd give that instead. Anything can be believed on faith so it can't be a reliable pathway to truth.

Evolutionists have as much "faith" as we do. They have the same evidence as we do, but they attribute the intelligence demonstrated in all of it to blind forces, devoid of intelligence or intent. That complex systems and the transmission of information just 'happened' through chance mutations and 'natural' selection. Where does "science fact" stop, and "science fiction" begin? The line is so blurred that even the scientists have lost sight of it.

To me, that is the same as saying someone found a house in the woods.....fully furnished, with plumbing and solar electricity, air conditioning, an abundance of food and water and a "Welcome" sign on the door.....then assuming that it just got there through "natural" means.....no architect needed....no engineer or builder required....no plumber...no electrician....no benevolent provider....that would be a ridiculous assumption! The "evidence" speaks for itself IMO.

Then stop trying to drag science down to religion's level. You're the one who keeps trying to put it where it doesn't belong.
We don't have different opticians. I have an actual optician, and you have a guy claiming that everything we know about the human eye is wrong because an old book written by people who had never inspected eyeballs before says so.

That "guy" designed the eyes of all creatures. Each one suited to their individual needs. Just an accident of evolution? I think your optician needs a reality check.

God is not religion.....religion does not represent him.

You accept all science that you think agrees with your preconceived religious notions and throw out the science that you think doesn't match those notions. That's not how science is done. That's how religion is done.

No, actually....I accept what science can prove......not what science assumes. You can't tell the difference?

We've been over this proof thing too many times to count. I seriously cannot believe that you are still trying this line. You know very well by now (or at least you should since you've been told umpteen times), that science deals in EVIDENCE, not proofs. Which of course does not mean that it's faith based. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

This is classic. "Evidence" requires interpretation.....when the one doing the interpreting has an agenda to uphold (if they wish to maintain any credibility in the hallowed halls of academia) they will find their evidence interpreted to match the views of the majority. We have all seen what happens to those who stray from the status quo.

There is more evidence that supports evolution than any other scientific theory in existence, including gravity. Funny how you accept the existence of gravity. But then again, you accept evolution too, you just have to call it something else ("adaptation") in order to deal with your cognitive dissonance on the subject.

What a ridiculous comparison. Who can deny gravity? Seriously....."cognitive dissonance" is alive and well in evolutionary ranks as well IMO.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“1.3 Fine-Tuning in Biology
Biological organisms are fine-tuned for life in the sense that their ability to solve problems of survival and reproduction depends crucially and sensitively on specific details of their behaviour and physiology.”

In just the same way, a body of water is "fine-tuned" to fit the hole or cup it finds itself in.

Bio organisms are "fine-tuned" for their habitat because that's exactly what natural selection does: it makes creatures fit their habitat like a glove since that maximizes survival and reproductive success.


But hey, don't let reasonable logic get in the way of your asanine arguments....

“....Barnes (2012: sect. 4.2) gives an overview of various studies such as Barr and Khan 2007 and Tegmark et al. 2006 that explore the complete parameter space of (segments of) the Standard Model and arrives at the conclusion that the life-permitting range in multidimensional parameter space is likely very small.”

So?

“Biological fine-tuning has a long tradition of being regarded as evidence for divine design (Paley 1802), but modern biology regards it as the product of Darwinian evolution....”

Exactly.
Take a hint.

The lesson here is that just saying "god-dun-it" when you don't understand something, is not smart and will likely just result in getting it wrong.

Just about every phenomenon that has been tackled and explained by science, was once attributed to some god or another.

Lightning, volcano's, sea storms, tides, the sun, the moon cycles, the seasons, the birds and the bees, earthquakes, thunder, rain, drought, shooting "stars", asteroids, comets,................................... etc etc etc.

Not once did the god-dun-it "explanation" turn out correct. Not once.

So, the article agrees that there is fine-tuning!

You're just incredibly misrepresenting the implications and explanations.
But we know that intellectual honesty isn't your strong side.

 

[Jose Fly]

Deeje's latest post illustrates one of the reasons I find creationists so fascinating. She says...

Evolutionists have as much "faith" as we do. They have the same evidence as we do, but they attribute the intelligence demonstrated in all of it to blind forces, devoid of intelligence or intent. That complex systems and the transmission of information just 'happened' through chance mutations and 'natural' selection.

Now, compare that to what she wrote earlier in this thread about the organism in the OP and its ability to cause river blindness...

"For those of us who are believers in an Intelligent Creator, it seems obvious that this lifeform is not a direct creation of God...

...How and why do creatures adapt?...a change in environment is often the trigger. When humans were evicted from their paradise home, their environment changed dramatically. Humans themselves became victims of genetic changes as a result of the penalty imposed for their defection. Both may have contributed to the way creatures adapted for their own survival.

In that setting, many species may have been created simply as an adaptive response to changed conditions. Humans chose this route and its consequences.....God did not interfere."​

So on one hand she complains about "evolutionists" attributing "complex systems" and their information to undirected mutations and natural selection (IOW, processes not controlled by God), even though she clearly stated earlier that all the things the worm needs to inflict river blindness came about without "interference" from God.

As we've seen before, creationists just jump from one argument to another with no thought or care at all as to whether it's consistent with their previous arguments. And IMO, that's a very good indicator of the vacuousness of creationism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, actually....I accept what science can prove......

Science by very nature of how it works, can't prove anything concerning explanatory models of reality.
So I guess that means that you don't accept any scientific explanatory model of reality.

On the other hand, an iron age book filled with unsupportable assertions, is not only accepted by you, it's even dogmatically accepted. To the point that if there is evidence contrary to it, you're going to assume that the evidence is incorrect.

Your double standard is showing.

Perhaps you should hold your own religious assertions to the same ridiculously impossible high standard as you do with science....

not what science assumes. You can't tell the difference?

Science supports.
Which isn't the same as proving or assuming.
Can YOU tell the difference?

This is classic. "Evidence" requires interpretation.....

So does the english language.
But strangely enough, you understand this sentence.

I could say "I'm going to the toilet". And you could interpret that to mean that I'm going to make a cheese sandwich. And you'ld be wrong.
So what is your point? That all evidence is useless because anyone can "interpret" it in any way as they please? If that is not what you mean, then state what you mean.

And here's the kicker: if you're an italian speaker ignorant of the english language, you won't be able to "interpret" the english words correctly. Now consider being ignorant of biology and then trying to interpret biological evidence. Let your brain process that concept for a bit.​

when the one doing the interpreting has an agenda to uphold (if they wish to maintain any credibility in the hallowed halls of academia)

Fame and glory in the halls of academia is reserved for those people who showed all their collegues wrong. To a scientist, nothing is more boring then to find evidence that only upholds the status quo.

You don't know the names of the physicists who did some experiment in some particle accelerator who merely confirmed Einstein's theories. Or of a physicist who recalculated the work of Hawking and concluded that Hawking was correct about Hawking radiation.

But you DO know the name Einstein. And the reason is because showed how Newtonian physics in the mainstream was wrong (or incomplete, if you wish).

You DO know the name Darwin.
You DO know the name Hawking.
You DO know the names Curry, Faraday, Maxwell, Feinman, Higgs, etc

NONE of these people merely upheld the status quo. NONE of these people merely confirmed what people aleady knew.

No Nobel prize has ever been handed out for confirming what the mainstream already accept.


Now if you are a geographer and claim the earth is flat, you indeed WILL be losing credibility among peers. And the same goes for an embryologist who proposes Stork Theory, a geologists who believes in Noah's physically impossible flood, a biologists who rejects evolution in favor of christian fundamentalist nonsense, a medical scientists who thinks demons make you sick instead of germs etc.

And I'ld say that that is a good thing

they will find their evidence interpreted to match the views of the majority

It's almost as if you don't realise that when a scientist sets up an experiment to test his hypothesis, he actually sets it up in such a way to try and refute his hypothesis. Almost.

In the paraphrasing words of Lawrence Krauss: "The greatest thrill for a scientist is finding out that (s)he is wrong about something... because that's an opportunity to learn something and advance the field. A field that doesn't progress is a field that stands still and the goal of science is to learn more, not to uphold the status quo. If we already knew everything, there would be no point in doing science."


It seems you are heavily projecting.

It is actually YOU who has an apriori beliefs that you dogmatically have to uphold. It's YOU who has the agenda. It's YOU who'll try to force-fit evidence into your twisted and warped view of the world. It's YOU who has this emotional need for "interpretation" of the evidence.

To a scientist, turning his field upside down is the highest accomplishment he could ever achieve.
To a religious person, turning his religion upside down is the greatest horror.

If a scientist learns that what he tought was true concerning his field is in fact wrong, that is an enormous success story.

If a religious person learns that what he thought was true concerning his religion is in fact wrong, it means a faith crisis and apostacy - which is actually taught as being among the biggest of "sin" one can commit.

In science, trying to prove your collegues wrong earns you a medal of honor. Succeeding earns you a nobel prize and fame and glory.

In religion, the equivalent earns you being socially outcast and an eternity of torture.

puh-lease!

We have all seen what happens to those who stray from the status quo.

Yeah. They get nobel prizes and have towns, streets, buildings, universities, etc named after them and in some cases they even have statues build in their honor, while their names live on through the centuries.

Off course, it goes without saying that you need to challenge the status quo with better science. Not with "interpretation" of evidence to suite some religious agenda.

What a ridiculous comparison. Who can deny gravity?

He's talking about the explanatory model of gravity.
Gravity is a fact just like evolution is a fact: things fall down to earth and biological organisms change over time.

Einstein's and Darwin's theories are the respective answers to the question "how does that happen?".

Seriously....."cognitive dissonance" is alive and well in evolutionary ranks as well IMO.

Says the guy who just blatantly projected his own psychological flaws upon the entire scientific community.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Nope....as a fact.
.

nope. What you did? Is known as QUOTE MINING.

That is you take a TINY PART of the whole article, to re-edit it to LIE about what it actually says.

The Universe is NOT "finely tuned for life on earth".

Exactly backwards-- Life on Earth? EVOLVED to match the conditions of the Universe.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But we know that intellectual honesty isn't your strong side.

Resorting to ad Homs, just makes your argument look week. Keep it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Resorting to ad Homs, just makes your argument look week. Keep it up.

That's not an ad hom.
An ad hom, is when you say something like "your argument is wrong because you are ugly".

What you did though, is a fallacy known as a strawman. You falsely pretend as if that one statement was my only point (by only quoting that part and calling it ad hom) and completely ignore everything else I said, and I was raising several points in that post.

While that one statement you quoted was just an observation at best and an accusation at worst.

Now that not only makes your argument look weak... it makes your argument look non-existant. Keep it up.

 

[Audie]

Deeje's latest post illustrates one of the reasons I find creationists so fascinating. She says...



Now, compare that to what she wrote earlier in this thread about the organism in the OP and its ability to cause river blindness...

"For those of us who are believers in an Intelligent Creator, it seems obvious that this lifeform is not a direct creation of God...

...How and why do creatures adapt?...a change in environment is often the trigger. When humans were evicted from their paradise home, their environment changed dramatically. Humans themselves became victims of genetic changes as a result of the penalty imposed for their defection. Both may have contributed to the way creatures adapted for their own survival.

In that setting, many species may have been created simply as an adaptive response to changed conditions. Humans chose this route and its consequences.....God did not interfere."​

So on one hand she complains about "evolutionists" attributing "complex systems" and their information to undirected mutations and natural selection (IOW, processes not controlled by God), even though she clearly stated earlier that all the things the worm needs to inflict river blindness came about without "interference" from God.

As we've seen before, creationists just jump from one argument to another with no thought or care at all as to whether it's consistent with their previous arguments. And IMO, that's a very good indicator of the vacuousness of creationism.

Liars always have a big problem.
Telling the truth is easy, you can tell it backwards and
forwards, in your sleep. You wont slip up.

The liar, though, has a constant effort. Watching the
inquisitor to see if they are buying it, thinking up more
and more backstory that all has to fit together.
"What a tangled..."

Every single freaking thing a creationist has to say
against evolution is a lie, that they either think up
for themselves, or, more often, they are lazy and repeat
what someone else made up for them.

That latter group are the most blatant with their ad hoc
"explanations". (lies)

One of my favourite exchanges was with a creo who decided
that polar ice does ot disprove the flood, as the ice would have floated
up, sure, but circumpolar current kept it in place, and it just settled
back down as the water receded. "And it went back just so, fit right
back onto the mountains and into the valleys right where it had been?"

That was too much for him so he decided it had not bloated because
it was stuck down. You know, pour some water on a rock,let it
freeze, put the rock in a bucket of water, the ice wont float off the
rock.

I calculated for him the buoyant force of five miles of ice, per square foot.

He insisted that it was stuck down.

Too bad it was not a big dollar court case, I'd like a contingency fee
on that.

Liars are in a very poor position when the spotlight is put on them.

 

[Audie]

That's not an ad hom.
An ad hom, is when you say something like "your argument is wrong because you are ugly".

What you did though, is a fallacy known as a strawman. You falsely pretend as if that one statement was my only point (by only quoting that part and calling it ad hom) and completely ignore everything else I said, and I was raising several points in that post.

While that one statement you quoted was just an observation at best and an accusation at worst.

Now that not only makes your argument look weak... it makes your argument look non-existant. Keep it up.

See my post on tangled webs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Liars always have a big problem.
Telling the truth is easy, you can tell it backwards and
forwards, in your sleep. You wont slip up.

The liar, though, has a constant effort. Watching the
inquisitor to see if they are buying it, thinking up more
and more backstory that all has to fit together.
"What a tangled..."

Every single freaking thing a creationist has to say
against evolution is a lie, that they either think up
for themselves, or, more often, they are lazy and repeat
what someone else made up for them.

That latter group are the most blatant with their ad hoc
"explanations". (lies)

One of my favourite exchanges was with a creo who decided
that polar ice does ot disprove the flood, as the ice would have floated
up, sure, but circumpolar current kept it in place, and it just settled
back down as the water receded. "And it went back just so, fit right
back onto the mountains and into the valleys right where it had been?"

That was too much for him so he decided it had not bloated because
it was stuck down. You know, pour some water on a rock,let it
freeze, put the rock in a bucket of water, the ice wont float off the
rock.

I calculated for him the buoyant force of five miles of ice, per square foot.

He insisted that it was stuck down.

Too bad it was not a big dollar court case, I'd like a contingency fee
on that.

Liars are in a very poor position when the spotlight is put on them.

Very true. Perhaps the biggest factor too is that when it comes to creationists, because they're defending their religious beliefs, they just plain don't care that they have to repeatedly engage in dishonest tactics. That's why it's not just that they lie, it's that they do so repeatedly and without shame. If honesty mattered to them....well, they wouldn't be creationists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Reposting to @TagliatelliMonster without the terribly offensive third-party mentions....

I've read some material on the psychology behind fundamentalism, but I haven't been able to find anything specific to creationism. So while there's definitely overlap between the two, I'd love to see something specific to creationists. Lately I've been reading about faith-based thinking and fact-based, empirical thinking. It's helped to explain some things, but there's still certain things I see that make me think "What the heck are they doing, and why can't they see it?"

Overall, it seems faith-based thinking is primarily about how certain things make people feel. So for Jehovah's Witnesses, since their church is telling them that life has no meaning and purpose if evolution is true, and that if they were to recognize evolution as real they would be subject to social ruin, obviously that generates some deep associations between evolution and strong negative feelings. Perhaps that explains their massive blind spots to their own behaviors and contradictions. For them, it's not about being consistent or whether or not the evidence supports them; instead it's about how they feel and maintaining a sense of emotional security. If they have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to do so, then so be it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who said anything about doing something immoral or illegal? My point was if the boss tells you to do something that is in accord with your job description and you fail to carry it out, you will not stay employed unless you do as you are told by someone who is your superior in that company. Why are you moving the goal posts?

We have been talking about the ability to distinguish between good/right and bad/evil actions and still are. Remember I said, “So just follow orders and shut up about it because the boss says so.”

To which you replied, “That's the same in any organization. Disobey the boss and you lose your place in that company. Shocking isn’t it!

What the boss says...goes. Why should God be any different? He is THE authority figure....there is no one that outranks him. He doesn't make rules for no reason. Disrespect them at you will regret it.

And now you say, “why are you talking about illegal things? I was talking about things that are ‘in accord with your job description.’” You’re the one trying to change things here. Remember, God is the “boss” in this analogy. That’s where we started with this conversation. According to your logic about how “might makes right,” whatever the boss says must go, because well, he’s the boss and he knows best. I’m disagreeing with that and am pointing out that just following orders is not an exercise in any kind of morality.

Be patient....in his word, God says that all of his intelligent creation will account to him....it's called judgment day. According to scripture, for all our lives we are making a record about the way we live this life that the Creator has given us. He will not interfere with our choices because they are ours to make.

Sure, sure. Let me know when that finally happens. You guys have been unsuccessfully predicting this stuff for years and years. Like I said, nothing so far.

At that judgment time, I don't believe that anyone will be left in any doubt about what it means to disobey his laws.

Lots of people believe lots of things.

Morality is expected of human kind because they are the only creatures with a moral sense that is dependent on personal choice, by free will.

Of course this isn’t true, because other social species have their own systems of morality.

But I fail to see how this addresses my point. The same point, it should be noted, you have avoided every single time I have brought it up to you. I didn’t ask why you think humans should care about morality. I’m asking you how your “system of morality,” which I don’t think is actually a system of morality at all, given that there is no exercise in morality being done when orders from an authority figure are just blindly being followed.

To me, morality is about weighing the consequences of one’s actions and how they affect not only oneself, but also those around us. Taking an order and following it doesn’t accomplish this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense. Dogs respond to their owners tone of voice. They act guilty because their owner is displeased with them...it's a submissive response. I have been a dog breeder for over 40 years.

I have a hard time believing that you were ever a dog breeder if you are saying this.

Dogs know when they’ve done wrong. My dog used to munch on cardboard while I was out, and as soon as I walked in the door, before I even saw the bits of cardboard, I would already know she’d done something wrong just by the way she was behaving.

My mother’s dog designed a scheme where she would trick my mother into thinking she wanted to go outside to do her business, and then as soon as my mother got close to the door, the dog would run back to my mom’s plate and steal her entire meal right off it. Why? Because she knows that stealing food from her human masters was wrong.

The other great apes have their own systems of morality as well. Though they aren’t the same as ours are.

I understand perfectly well.....the explanations were simply bogus. I just call out those who try to pass off assertions and assumptions as facts. There is NO proof that evolution, as in a slow progression from amoebas to dinosaurs, ever took place except in the imagination of those who want to believe it.

They weren’t bogus at all. You just refuse to accept them based on your preconceived religious beliefs.

There are mountains of evidence that support evolution. More than there is for atomic theory, germ theory and gravitational theory combined. I’m guessing you accept atomic theory and germ theory while simultaneously rejecting evolutionary theory.

Richard Dawkins and his ilk, do a good impersonation.

How so?

Can you show anybody who worships scientists as gods?

What is "sound methodology" exactly? It seems to me that "sound" simply means that scientists agree with each other and the methods they use to assume what they want to believe is true. They share these beliefs and hold them in common, so they interpret their findings collectively because they all believe them to uphold their assertions, as if they were facts.

Sound methodology is the scientific method of observation, experimentation, testing, repetition, etc. You know, the methodology that has been explained to you umpteen times now.


Scientists have to publish their findings and have them criticized and picked apart by their fellow scientists.

I have demonstrated it many times. This "tool" is used to discredit the Creator, so it's not as innocuous as many seem to think it is.

You have never, not once demonstrated that science is a religion. You’ve baldly asserted it over and over though. I am currently refuting your assertions on that subject
I have no idea have you haven’t noticed by now that not one single person arguing with you about evolution has ever said that it negates any god(s). In fact, evolution says nothing whatsoever about the existence of god(s).

As I’ve also told you several times before, there are millions of people who call themselves Christians who also believe that the god they worship created evolution.

But this sentence is very telling about where you are coming from, in my opinion.

Science is the study of creation, finding out how and why it all works. They then put forward all manner of suggestions based on what they "know" to invent the things that they "assume". By utilising the brilliance of design in nature, they bring forth their own 'creation'....taking full credit for their plagiarism.

You know calling it creation, doesn’t just make it so. You’d have to first demonstrate that it’s created. But you knew that already because I’ve pointed it out before. Nice try though.

The rest of this paragraph is just kind of bizarre. Plagiarism? What?

Is this seriously one of your points that is supposed to demonstrate that science is a religion?

"Carefully controlled" by whom? Anyone who dares to step outside of what is "carefully controlled" to promote a different opinion about what is observed, becomes a 'leper' in academia.

Carefully controlled by people who spend their lifetime studying science and know what they are doing. If you produce a paper with errors in it, you can expect it to be picked apart by other scientists.

I don’t know why at this point you are still talking about lepers and all this being kicked out of the scientific community for questioning things nonsense when I’ve pointed out to you another umpteen times that if someone could successfully demonstrate (using EVIDENCE) that say, evolution is false, that person would win a Nobel Prize and become famous.

The point here is that scientific publications are not considered gospel that can never be questioned, as your Bible is. On the contrary, scientific publications are always scrutinized and questioned and criticized and also abandoned if they are not repeatable by anybody else. So there’s yet another point against your assertion that science is a religion. You can throw out that Kent Hovind talking point now.

Evolutionists have as much "faith" as we do. They have the same evidence as we do, but they attribute the intelligence demonstrated in all of it to blind forces, devoid of intelligence or intent. That complex systems and the transmission of information just 'happened' through chance mutations and 'natural' selection. Where does "science fact" stop, and "science fiction" begin? The line is so blurred that even the scientists have lost sight of it.

Nope, and already addressed. But thanks for repeating the exact same thing that was already addressed again, instead of actually responding to what I said.

To me, that is the same as saying someone found a house in the woods.....fully furnished, with plumbing and solar electricity, air conditioning, an abundance of food and water and a "Welcome" sign on the door.....then assuming that it just got there through "natural" means.....no architect needed....no engineer or builder required....no plumber...no electrician....no benevolent provider....that would be a ridiculous assumption! The "evidence" speaks for itself IMO.

We know human beings build houses. So, finding a fully furnished house in the woods with plumbing, electricity, etc. would definitely point to humans as the builders, because we have experiences with reality that point to the fact that humans design and build houses and that fully built homes with all the amenities aren’t naturally occurring.

Notice how you wouldn’t assume that God built the house. Or that it was a naturally occurring house. I wonder, how did you distinguish the house from the trees and the flowers and the birds and the bees, given that you think they are all designed as well?

That "guy" designed the eyes of all creatures. Each one suited to their individual needs. Just an accident of evolution? I think your optician needs a reality check

God is not religion.....religion does not represent him.
.

So you claim, but cannot demonstrate. Nor can this explain why say, eagles have better vision than humans. Why did god think that eagles deserve to see farther than his favorite creatures?

Evolution is demonstrable. Eye evolution has been demonstrated.

No, actually....I accept what science can prove......not what science assumes. You can't tell the difference?

Except that you don’t. As demonstrated by your very own posts. You just say you do.

This is classic. "Evidence" requires interpretation.....when the one doing the interpreting has an agenda to uphold (if they wish to maintain any credibility in the hallowed halls of academia) they will find their evidence interpreted to match the views of the majority. We have all seen what happens to those who stray from the status quo.

The agenda is yours, because you MUST believe that God designed everything and cannot think outside of that box. I am not tethered to any such belief. I go with the evidence, no matter where it may lead because I want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe false things. You apparently just want to believe what you want to believe.

Also, as noted above and countless other times, if someone were to falsify evolution they would become famous and win a Nobel Prize. This is another point you never remember and never address.

Remember when I pointed out to you before that Darwin himself challenged the status quo when he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection?

What a ridiculous comparison. Who can deny gravity? Seriously....."cognitive dissonance" is alive and well in evolutionary ranks as well IMO.[/QUOTE]

It’s an apt comparison given that there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravitational theory. Or germ theory. Yet you reject the first while accepting the latter. We are talking about the explanatory models here. Both evolution and gravity themselves are facts of reality.

The cognitive dissonance is still yours. You have to deny mountains of evidence in order to adhere to your religious beliefs. You’ve said as much yourself.

 

[night912]

Have you read Genesis at all? I mean really read it, not just skimmed over the words? There is a lot of information between the lines if your mind is not closed.....and if you use other scripture to fill in the blanks.

What amazes me is when the closed minded Christians can't accept the reality that non-christians have also read the bible and still disagree with them.

Actually, if you read the Genesis account, a lot of the issues that people (who are are ignorant of the Bible's teachings) raise, are settled.....the trouble is, flawed humans think that they can judge their Creator.....its a nice illusion.....but they will find out soon enough what "sovereignty" means.

I'm just going by what you said about your creator and how you judged him.

"Adam did not need to determine the difference between right and wrong because God placed that responsibility on himself. All Adam had to do was obey one simple command and no evil thing would ever have intruded on their idyllic life in paradise."

It amuses me to no end that people will support their governments in their military actions but never criticize their treatment of their enlisted people who may disobey a command. If you step out of line in the military, what happens? That is what sovereignty means. A sovereign is your ruler and lawmaker.....you answer to him (them) for any disobedience to stated laws. Penalties apply that are well known before any disobedience takes place. What is unfair about that?

Of course you are referring to those who knows what is right and wrong. That's why on occasions, there are soldiers who disobey immoral orders and/or actions conducted by their superiors. And the people with a sense of morality criticised those actions. The Wounded Knee and My Lai massacres, to name a few.

As their Sovereign, God had the right to set the limits of their tenancy here. He created this home for them......perfect in every way...he also created their bodies, which were marvelous in their design and construction and amazing in their capacity for knowledge and planning ability. As the only creatures on earth who were made in the image of their Creator, having his moral capacity and attributes, they were assigned as caretakers of God's Earth. They were responsible to their 'Landlord' to take care of his property and all the creatures who would share life with him here.

Not according to you. I'll remind you again.
"Adam did not need to determine the difference between right and wrong because God placed that responsibility on himself."

It is of interest that the first rebel was not human. This wannabe 'god' saw an opportunity to fulfill an unnatural ambition of his own, using the only creatures who were intelligent enough to worship him as a god. By hijacking the human race, he created a situation that needed a long term strategy to resolve. All of God's intelligent creation were involved in this, so at the end of the day, every one of them will have proved either their loyalty to God or their loyalty to his adversary. Each will 'reap what they have sown'.

The evil one, correct? The evil one that entered paradise and told a "lie," a sin by the way, before Adam and Eve committed their own sin of disobedience. So in other words, you were wrong when you said...
"All Adam had to do was obey one simple command and no evil thing would ever have intruded on their idyllic life in paradise."

Had God ever given them reason to distrust him?
Had the serpent ever given them a reason to distrust him?
Had he ever demonstrated mean -spiritedness towards them?
Had the serpent ever demonstrated mean-spiritedness towards them? They wouldn't know regardless of whether god or the serpent ever did because they were ignorant of good and evil remember?
All they needed to do was obey him, and trust that he always had their best interests at heart....they failed to do that, because someone told them a convincing lie......
They were ignorant of right and wrong because it was god's responsibility for that. Don't you remember what you said? I'll remind you again.

"Adam did not need to determine the difference between right and wrong because God placed that responsibility on himself."

Instead of wiping them out and starting again, and perhaps having the same thing happen, God used the rebellion of his angelic sons and his human children to establish the pros and cons of independence from God. He would allow them all to make their decisions and reap the consequences of making their own ill considered decisions.

At least he allowed them to keep their knowledge of good and evil, knowledge of what's right and wrong, which he neglected to teach them in the first place.

So far all we have experienced is trouble....we have never lived in the world that God first created for his children....but in our hearts, we desire it. Paradise locations all over the world are sought out...even for a short vacation because we all know that these are the conditions we were meant to live in. It is programmed into us.......God has promised to bring us back to paradise. He is the only one who delivers on his promises. (Isaiah 55:11)

Apparently this world and god's "paradise" are the same except for one thing. Both of the worlds had good and evil things in them, the only difference is that in this world, we know what's good and what's evil, what's right and what's wrong. A world where we know that there is still good out there where we can avoid evil, is a lot better than a world where evil is acting on us and we openly let it continuously let it happen because we are ignorant of it. Or a world where we have no sense of morality and don't know what is right and what is wrong. A world where the sovereignty can abuse us while brainwashed us to believe that it's wrong to be treated as such.

 

[Deeje]

What amazes me is when the closed minded Christians can't accept the reality that non-christians have also read the bible and still disagree with them.

You think all that is necessary is to read the Bible? That statement is itself, close minded. Its not that kind of book. It requires understanding about what you read including knowing a good bit about its author.....like trying to read a article on astronomy that is full of jargon, not comprehensible to someone untrained in the terminology. Once you understand the terminology the concepts become clearer, especially if they are explained in plain and simple terms.

Of course you are referring to those who knows what is right and wrong. That's why on occasions, there are soldiers who disobey immoral orders and/or actions conducted by their superiors. And the people with a sense of morality criticised those actions. The Wounded Knee and My Lai massacres, to name a few.

Human conscience has to do its job. God does not require anyone to go against their conscience.
If God's law stated that a certain crime deserved capital punishment, did the executioner stand condemned before God as a murderer? No...because he carried out the requirements of the law under the authority of his Sovereign. Its not a nice job, but someone has to do it. Eliminating the perpetrator means one less criminal in the world...guaranteed not to re-offend.

Not according to you. I'll remind you again.
"Adam did not need to determine the difference between right and wrong because God placed that responsibility on himself."

You have completely misunderstood the meaning of what I said....

If we are created in God's image, then as free moral agents, we have the capacity to choose between right and wrong...but we also have the capacity to mess up the definition. To some people, right is wrong, good is evil, and vice versa. To override that possibility, humans were never given the option to decide for themselves what was right and wrong...good or evil....that is what God placed in his own jurisdiction. If they had just simply obeyed their Creator, (and it wasn't as if the command was difficult) nothing evil would ever have touched them.

The evil one, correct? The evil one that entered paradise and told a "lie," a sin by the way, before Adam and Eve committed their own sin of disobedience. So in other words, you were wrong when you said...
"All Adam had to do was obey one simple command and no evil thing would ever have intruded on their idyllic life in paradise."

The "evil one" was not evil in the beginning, and he was "stationed" in paradise. He was a Guardian Angel (which is what Cherubs were) posted in a position of responsibility, but who began to harbor ambitions that were not in keeping with his status.

His traits and defection are described in Ezekiel 28:13-17....
"You were in Eʹden, the garden of God . . . I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub. . . .You became filled with violence, and you began to sin. . . .So I will cast you out as profane from the mountain of God and destroy you, O covering cherub . . .
17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty.
You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor
You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones.
15 You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you..."

So, no one is created evil.....both the devil and the humans choose to practice it, even when they are warned not to. The dire consequences did not seem to disturb them...because the 'evil one' lied to them about it.

We have free will...so do the angels, apparently. God is not just a punisher...he's a teacher. Life lessons are better experienced than simply stated.

At least he allowed them to keep their knowledge of good and evil, knowledge of what's right and wrong, which he neglected to teach them in the first place.

Again you misunderstand his motives.....its not unusual for atheists to condemn anything about God on flimsy evidence. Yet they will believe in evolution, which also has very flimsy evidence IMO...Go figure.

God allowed them to experience first hand, what happens when you misuse your knowledge and abuse your free will.....when you go against the commands of your Sovereign. You think there should have been no consequences? Do you have children? Do you let them do whatever they want? Do you discipline them? What happens if you don't?

The first humans were not children...but they were somewhat inexperienced, so if they chose to "experience" evil, then God, as a good parent, allowed them to see what happens when you disobey someone in authority, who is infinitely wiser than yourself.

Apparently this world and god's "paradise" are the same except for one thing. Both of the worlds had good and evil things in them, the only difference is that in this world, we know what's good and what's evil, what's right and what's wrong. A world where we know that there is still good out there where we can avoid evil, is a lot better than a world where evil is acting on us and we openly let it continuously let it happen because we are ignorant of it.

You see how that makes no sense? If the first humans had simply obeyed God's command, mankind would only have experienced good things. They would never have experienced evil because God would never have allowed it to enter their lives. What would you rather have...a world where evil is perpetrated every day by people who don't give a damn about you....where you can be the victim of a random crime or accident....or a world where the people who perpetrate such things did not exist? Its a bit of a no-brainer, if you ask me.

What makes paradise "paradise"? It isn't just nice surroundings.

Or a world where we have no sense of morality and don't know what is right and what is wrong. A world where the sovereignty can abuse us while brainwashed us to believe that it's wrong to be treated as such.

The Sovereign is not capable of abuse....he is the epitome of love. Its hard to be brainwashed by love, generosity and good will unless there is an ulterior motive....God does not have ulterior motives.
It is easy to be brainwashed by evil though, because the world demonstrates that on a daily basis.

If evil had never entered the world, I don't believe that we would be having this conversation.

 

[Astrophile]

No, actually....I accept what science can prove......not what science assumes. You can't tell the difference?

Do you think that scientists have proved the existence of atoms, or that the planets are not being pushed along their orbits by angels?

 

[Deeje]

Do you think that scientists have proved the existence of atoms, or that the planets are not being pushed along their orbits by angels?

I believe that they have ascertained the existence of atoms and gravity and germs in a much more convincing fashion that they ever have with their assumptions concerning macro-evolution. The theory is full of phantoms, the existence of common ancestors, which can never be proven.

As for the rest of the question....I'll pretend that you are more intelligent than that.

 

[Valjean]

I believe that they have ascertained the existence of atoms and gravity and germs in a much more convincing fashion that they ever have with their assumptions concerning macro-evolution. The theory is full of phantoms, the existence of common ancestors, which can never be proven.

As for the rest of the question....I'll pretend that you are more intelligent than that.

Why can't endless micro changes eventually accumulate into a macro change? Why is this hard to believe?

 

[Deeje]

Why can't endless micro changes eventually accumulate into a macro change? Why is this hard to believe?

Because the micro changes never go beyond their taxonomy. One creature can never morph into another entirely different family, no matter how much time you throw at them. e.g. four legged furry land dwellers would never become whales......Single celled organisms could never become dinosaurs. You cannot use adaptation to prove macro-evolution....they are not the same at all IMO.

That is all utter nonsense. If you believe that is true, then it makes Intelligent Design look way more logical.

 

[McBell]

Why can't endless micro changes eventually accumulate into a macro change? Why is this hard to believe?

ore importantly, IMO, is why can't a single person explain why microevolution is stopped before it becomes macroevolution.