Shad
Veteran Member
Did you run out of TP? That does not look like ink.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Did you run out of TP? That does not look like ink.
Skwim
Veteran Member
It took some quick talking, but eventually I did sell them on it. Thing is, I don't think they'll ever catch on.
.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Hi @Skwim
Let us play "wrong". Let us say I am wrong. How would you know that? You can't see it, because it is not one of these properties like say color. It is not sensible like in objective empirical evidence nor it is tangible and it has no measurable properties. Further there is no scientific law/theory of wrong.
So my questions to you are these: What is wrong and its ontology? Is there only one kind of wrong? How do you know wrong?
How do I replicate a test for being wrong?
Regards
Mikkel
Let us play "wrong". Let us say I am wrong. How would you know that? You can't see it, because it is not one of these properties like say color. It is not sensible like in objective empirical evidence nor it is tangible and it has no measurable properties. Further there is no scientific law/theory of wrong.
So my questions to you are these: What is wrong and its ontology? Is there only one kind of wrong? How do you know wrong?
How do I replicate a test for being wrong?
Regards
Mikkel
Question #3 contains false claims so it can only be answered in a particular way.
The answer to #3 is, we've only found "1 Lucy" because there is only one fossil that was named "Lucy." It's a false claim that we have found more than 1 of everything else. That's because we've only found 1 of anything. It's impossible to find more than 1 fossil because the remains of one dead animal cannot duplicate itself during the fossilization process to create more than one fossil. Numerous fossils were found that belongs to the same species, but each fossil are of its own.
The answer to #3 is, we've only found "1 Lucy" because there is only one fossil that was named "Lucy." It's a false claim that we have found more than 1 of everything else. That's because we've only found 1 of anything. It's impossible to find more than 1 fossil because the remains of one dead animal cannot duplicate itself during the fossilization process to create more than one fossil. Numerous fossils were found that belongs to the same species, but each fossil are of its own.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sure... what else is there to do during a lock down, but to answer ridiculous internet questions....
1. If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys.
"if americans come from europe, why are there still europeans?"
In the answer, replace "europeans" by "monkeys" and "americans" by "humans" and that will pretty much settle it.
2. If evolution is a theory (like creationism) or the bible why then is evolution taught as fact.
So much fail in a single question...
2a: creationism is not a theory
2b: evolution is a scientific theory and taught as such
2c: evolution theory explains the facts of evolution. There's also a theory of gravity. Disproving said theory won't change the facts of gravity. Gravity will still exist. The theory addresses the mechanisms of the facts. Common ancestry of species, is a genetic fact. Evolution theory addresses the mechanism of that fact (among many other facts).
3. We have found only 1 "lucy"
Bzzzt. Lucy is but one of around 300 specimen of Australopethicus. Lucy is just a famous one. We have around 300 fossils of that species.
4. Examples of "increase" of genetic information
Many. An obvious one would be the e. colli experiment, where 2 mutations (if I remember correctly) allowed for novel metabolic pathways, making the population capable of growing on citrate.
Having said that, technically the question is kind of malformed as well and as such, hints of it stemming from deep rooted ignorance concerning how genetics work.
5. Why do laws of thermodynamics desprove big bang and evolution?
They don't.
6. Because science is a theory (not testable, observable nor repeatable", why do you object to creatoinism / iD being taught in school
The exact opposite is, off course, true. Scientific theories ARE testable / observable / repeatable.
That's why they are taught. Religious beliefs are NOT testable / observable / repeatable. Which is why they aren't taught.
This is why science teaches astronomy but not astrology; evolution but not creationism.
7. What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believ ein salvation?
I do not believe in, nore do I require, any "cosmic" purpose for my existance. Nore is there any reason to believe that there is one. I (and by extension, all of us - even the person asking that question) determine my own purpose throughout my life. That purpose also shifts, as we grow and mature in life.
8. How do you explain a sunset if there is no good?
Euh....... I'm stomped. And not because I have no answer, but rather because the question is so absurd that I don't even think it is uberhaupt answerable.
Sounds like "what does purple taste like?". I don't see what the connection is between a sunset and ethical standards.
9. Is it completely illogical that earth was created mature?
Yes.
About as illogical as saying the universe and everything in it, including us and our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created last thursday.
Moreover, it's not just so that in such absurd scenario the world is created "mature". No no... it's much worse. It's created "mature" and WITH "history".
Imagine you can grow a "mature" human in some kind of incubator machine. So the person would be "born" at age 21. Would that person have scars? Would it have memories of riding a bike at age 8? Would it have blisters from "not" banging the drums the week before being born? Would it have hands covered in callus from working the fields? Would it have anti bodies for deseases it never had?
The answer is off course no, it wouldn't.
But the earth has all these things. It has layers of sediments, filled with fossils, it has canyons, meteor creaters, ancient volcano's etc. It is literally covered in geological scars that it systained over billions of years.
So, yes, the idea that it was "created mature" is absurd beyond belief.
It is no more or less then Last Thursdayism.
Hey! Speak for yourself...
Shad
Veteran Member
Is 1+1=3 wrong or right? Does mixing bronze and tin create gold? Testing is a method to determining correct, incorrect or undetermined
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Is it wrong to claim that there are more versions of wrong than these 2?
So how do we test if a human is wrong?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't think that is it illogical and that was also not, what you did. You made a reduction ad absurdum in the broad sense and a good one at that.
Now I am willing to learn so what did it have to do with logic?
Regards
Mikkel
Shad
Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How?
It depends on what the belief is. You can't test every belief with the same method.
Tom
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I believe in God.
So do I.
But my God image is so different from that of the overwhelming majority of theists that I don't bother going into it, under most circumstances. It's more efficient to just say I'm an atheist.
Am I wrong? Am I wrong for describing myself as a non-theist?
Let's play the "wrong game". Am I wrong for believing that God is far more sophisticated than a sentient being? For believing that the God image described to me by Christian folks is a fictional character from primitive literature? Am I wrong for resenting Christian folks when they try to force me to adhere to their rules, because they think that they understand God better than I do, and they believe that God made the rules that they are trying to enforce?
There's a start in playing the wrong game.
Tom
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, you are not wrong. You are an individual, who stands against people, who claim an objective authority, they apparently don't have. Good for you! You go, human!
Regards and love
Mikkel
But if Christian God, or Exodus God, or whatever, is right, then I am wrong. In an objective* sense of the word "wrong".
Which I would not care about if Christians didn't tell me that they are right and I am wrong. About everything from my sex life to politics to yoga. They insist on this sort of nonsense, because religions teach people to be poor critical thinkers and put high stock in their unsupported Faith based beliefs.
Tom
* By "objective", I mean true for everyone, whether they know it, believe it, prefer it, understand it, or whatever.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, but that could also be the case for them if another God is the case or if no god is the case.
Regards
Mikkel
Sorry if I seem to unfairly single out the assorted versions of Christian God. I don't mean to pick on Christians unfairly. But they dominate both my world and also the Family of Humanity.
Nope.
Not possible.
It is not possible for the lack of a credible God image to tell you any such thing.
Tom
Shad
Veteran Member
Depends on the topic and creativity of the individual. Go buy some bronze and tin, heat it, see if it turns into gold after heating and mixing. Is it now gold? No? The test provide information to determine if a claim is true, false or undetermined.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Could you answer how you would know that another human is wrong?
That is what I asked about.
Regards
Mikkel