Creation

[Black Dog]

But this is my argument! You guys don't want me to use these people as evidence because their sudden recanting of atheism after comparison of ID and Random Chance speaks for itself.

Action speaks louder than words.

They aren't evidence of anything.

What "actual" arguments? TalkOrigin rebuttals? Adhominem?

Hypocritical accusations of "quote-mining?"

Personal opinions? Ramblings and rantings?

Circular arguments?

Setting parameters?

How about the fundamental flaw of the argument that complexity demands a designer: who designed the designer?

Or how about this one: why is the possibility of the universe assembling itself by chance less likely than it being assembled by an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient supernatural being?

Ha-ha-ha These smart people are not the type to just be content on reading popular science or consulting with TalkOrigin, nor are they the type to be gullible to accept what is presented to them without much scrutiny and understanding. They have their own individual reputations to uphold! They don't hide behind anonymous identities like posters in online forums! They've placed their credentials/qualifications/reputations on the line when they did swallow their own words and recanted!

Action speaks louder than words.

Evidence speaks louder than both. And there's no evidence of a designer.

[betsy]

They aren't evidence of anything.

Saying it doesn't make what you say is true. You may try to convince yourself - and succeed in doing so since it's what you want to believe. But you can't fool others.

How about the fundamental flaw of the argument that complexity demands a designer: who designed the designer? Or how about this one: why is the possibility of the universe assembling itself by chance less likely than it being assembled by an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient supernatural being?

I know the answer to that already. But of course you guys, understandably, do not want to accept it being the way you are - atheist/agnostic. You want empirical evidences - and some of you are putting a limit as to how , and/or what type of evidences you want to be presented with - by science.

You've put up parameters. You don't want to step out of the box.

You insist on wanting natural explanations - shutting your mind to the fact that if there is no natural explanation, then the only other option is supernatural. You also refuse the science of Philosophy. A moronic idiot pseudo-scientist (Of course, who else - Dawkins), went as far as to conclude, "PHilosophy is Dead!" Then he went on to philosophise...

Well....if you'd been more than happy to wait for a century - and still counting - for science to come up with the evidence of origin, why wouldn't you give the same amout of time (and overwhelming patience) for science to come up with the perceived fundamental flaw of the argument? Why let complexity be a damp towel now....when all through all these years science had struggled - and still is struggling - with the complexity of origin?

How many vestigial organs have science concluded that were not functional? Time proved they are functional - they have a purpose. Science just simply did not understand at the time.

Well, for the complexity of ID/Creator argument.....science is at that time, when they do not understand. Give it time.

That's what I was saying in my response to Bloodymined.

Just be open to the big possibility that the answer may not come during your lifetime.

Evidence speaks louder than both. And there's no evidence of a designer.

You consider "not understanding" an evidence.

A century from now, scientists will probably find that evidence, just like they did with vestigial organs. But of course, you'll be dead and kaput by then.

So it's all meaningless anyway.

Edited April 28, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Creation and evolution are the same thing. It is all about how we percive TIME. In eternal thinking a second is a trillion years and a trillion years is a second. As for intelligent design...if a common seed can sprout a bit of fluff and travel for a hundred miles on the wind - then I am sure if the seed has this intelligence then the endless universe must think! To believe that the universe is not awake and thinging is truely the height of egocentric arrogance. Those that believe existance is some sort of mistake are mistaken - The fact that we as humans with a bit of grey jelly in our heads can concieve eternity is remarkable...it is a miracle - so why do people discount the idea of God - or in other words intelligence in the cosmos?

Frankly it does not matter much if one believes or not - non-belief has no effect - anymore than belief does. On this speck of blue dust floating around that we call earth....is also an astounding miracle - YET people want smoke and mirrors - magic - secular and religious trickery - what's wrong with reality and truth? Surely reality and the embracing of it would be more benefical than saying that there is no God - what is to be gained by the destruction of the God factor? If a human being can live in the flesh for a million years - then and only then would we have authorship and real authority over our existance - but we are temporal creatures and we disappear-----in time - In truth we are so frail that we have no choice but to believe...those that don't believe will have to suffer the terror that is oblivion.

[Saipan]

There's no difference between Creation and Evolution. Both side BELIEVE firmly in their BELIEF.

Difference is only in name and a few details. God, Allah, Mother Nature, The Itself, Great Pumpkin.....

[Smallc]

There's no difference between Creation and Evolution.

[Saipan]

left religion entirely, or may have ended up in one that wasn't such an insult to the intelligence of anyone seeking answers that didn't demand going to war with scientific evidence all the time.

What evidence? There's not even straight answer as to what exactly happen to mammoths not so long ago, never mind millions or billions of years ago..

[WIP]

What evidence? There's not even straight answer as to what exactly happen to mammoths not so long ago, never mind millions or billions of years ago..

First you can inform me as to where you pulled that partial quote from, and does it have anything to do with mammoths?

[Saipan]

First you can inform me as to where you pulled that partial quote from

What quote?

does it have anything to do with mammoths?

Yes, what happen to them?

And why did scientist think coelacanth (for example) was extinct some 60 million years ago?

[betsy]

What quote?

Let me explain. WIP has this thing against "cut-and-paste," (although I don't know why)...and taking quotes from other online sources. He probably thinks you're "quote-mining."

Edited May 15, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

deleted.

Edited May 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Saipan]

Let me explain. WIP has this thing against "cut-and-paste," (although I don't know why)...and taking quotes from other online sources. He probably thinks you're "quote-mining."

That would explain the mysterious request. He may not realize we all "quote" someone to a degree. No one is born with Library of Congress in his head.

It's very likely that both, evolutioninst and creationinsts, are right. For example I can "evolve" a guppie to look like totally different fish in just a few years, never mind my lifetime. But it'll still be a fish, a guppie actually, that doesn't crossbreed with any other fish.

So showing different sizes of such and such dinosaurus and claiming it's an evolution is quite silly. Same goes with notably "unique" Darwin's Galapagos Finch (so often quoted). It's still a Finch that somewhat adapted, not a crow or eagle. And never will be.

Why would shark be still a shark even after tens of millons of years, and never evolved into something else??? After all that time they just 'evolve" into little different sharks - which is in reality just an adaptation.

The scientific answer often is: "well they are such a perfectly adapted that they don't need to evolve any further". Well, then if so perfect then we ought to be sharks and not humans. Carps should be sharks too.

I see species appearing and disappearing - according to a higher intelligence plan FAR beyond our understanding. "Evolving" somewhat over time (adapting really) but not turning into any other species.

Skeletons of St. Bernard and Chihuahua may certainly show huge amount of "evolution" but they are still just dogs. And never will be cats or horses.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Saipan

[betsy]

That would explain the mysterious request. He may not realize we all "quote" someone to a degree. No one is born with Library of Congress in his head.

It's very likely that both, evolutioninst and creationinsts, are right. For example I can "evolve" a guppie to look like totally different fish in just a few years, never mind my lifetime. But it'll still be a fish, a guppie actually, that doesn't crossbreed with any other fish.

So showing different sizes of such and such dinosaurus and claiming it's an evolution is quite silly. Same goes with notably "unique" Darwin's Galapagos Finch (so often quoted). It's still a Finch that somewhat adapted, not a crow or eagle. And never will be.

Why would shark be still a shark even after tens of millons of years, and never evolved into something else??? After all that time they just 'evolve" into little different sharks - which is in reality just an adaptation.

The scientific answer often is: "well they are such a perfectly adapted that they don't need to evolve any further". Well, then if so perfect then we ought to be sharks and not humans. Carps should be sharks too.

I see species appearing and disappearing - according to a higher intelligence plan FAR beyond our understanding. "Evolving" somewhat over time (adapting really) but not turning into any other species.

Skeletons of St. Bernard and Chihuahua may certainly show huge amount of "evolution" but they are still just dogs. And never will be cats or horses.

I agree. Creationists believe in micro-evolution, just like the examples you've given.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

What evidence? There's not even straight answer as to what exactly happen to mammoths not so long ago, never mind millions or billions of years ago..

That's the problem isn't it.

Religion fills the gaps of what we can't explain at this time.

Or are volcanoes still God's wrath?

[Saipan]

That's the problem isn't it.

Religion fills the gaps of what we can't explain at this time.

Really? What is says about mammoths or coelacanth?

[bloodyminded]

That would explain the mysterious request. He may not realize we all "quote" someone to a degree. No one is born with Library of Congress in his head.

It's very likely that both, evolutioninst and creationinsts, are right. For example I can "evolve" a guppie to look like totally different fish in just a few years, never mind my lifetime. But it'll still be a fish, a guppie actually, that doesn't crossbreed with any other fish.

So showing different sizes of such and such dinosaurus and claiming it's an evolution is quite silly. Same goes with notably "unique" Darwin's Galapagos Finch (so often quoted). It's still a Finch that somewhat adapted, not a crow or eagle. And never will be.

Why would shark be still a shark even after tens of millons of years, and never evolved into something else??? After all that time they just 'evolve" into little different sharks - which is in reality just an adaptation.

The scientific answer often is: "well they are such a perfectly adapted that they don't need to evolve any further". Well, then if so perfect then we ought to be sharks and not humans. Carps should be sharks too.

I see species appearing and disappearing - according to a higher intelligence plan FAR beyond our understanding. "Evolving" somewhat over time (adapting really) but not turning into any other species.

Skeletons of St. Bernard and Chihuahua may certainly show huge amount of "evolution" but they are still just dogs. And never will be cats or horses.

You don't have to insist that you undertand nothing at all about evolution. We believe you.

[bloodyminded]

Really? What is says about mammoths or coelacanth?

Creationists would have us believe that Adam and Eve rode around on their friendly pet Mammoth, while the coelacanth lived in peaceful harmony with its future predators and prey, until Satan f'cked it all up. (By fooling Woman, of course.)

As you say, this is just as reasonable as evolutionary theory, and is "probably" just as "right."

Edited May 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Creationists would have us believe that Adam and Eve rode around on their friendly pet Mammoth

Wrong answer.

Not all creationists are fundamental Christians.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Saipan

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Really? What is says about mammoths or coelacanth?

What does the bible say about mammoths?

That's more important. I mean it is a road map to all knowledge, right?

I really want to hear God's explanation. ... Oh wait, I'm sorry. I really want to hear the explanation written by men who claimed to be speaking for God. They know exactly what is going on.

Let's be real though. You'd just find another point to argue if they solved the mammoth mystery.

I mean... the most likely possibility for creationism, at least by the rational minded, is that life didn't start on Earth (if it was created). It arrived here from other source. It could have been dropped off by aliens so advanced they seem like gods... just as we seem as gods to ants. Or we could actually be the science experiment of an advanced race. Infinitely more likely than some God, who never communicates with us and will never communicate with us. 2000 years ago, I'm sure those holy men were convincing. Now we know better.

Technically, it is an equivalent theory to "God Made It". Because we have no way (at this time) of testing it.

Edited May 17, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Sir Bandelot]

Thought I'd throw my hat into the ring here, just to make a little trouble...

Heaven is a fairy tale, says physicist Stephen Hawking

Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said in an interview published on Monday.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

Mr. Hawking sees his brain as a computer, but not one that was created or designed by someone, but rather spontaneously assembled itself by chance, over a long period of time. I on the other hand refuse to believe that IBM exists... A thousands monkeys, given enough time WILL eventually write Shakespeare.

[Saipan]

You don't have to insist that you undertand nothing at all about evolution. We believe you.

We do?

[bloodyminded]

We do?

Absolutely.

[cybercoma]

Evolution is not spontaneous or random.

[Black Dog]

Saying it doesn't make what you say is true. You may try to convince yourself - and succeed in doing so since it's what you want to believe. But you can't fool others.

English, do you speak it?

I know the answer to that already.

Which is?

But of course you guys, understandably, do not want to accept it being the way you are - atheist/agnostic. You want empirical evidences - and some of you are putting a limit as to how , and/or what type of evidences you want to be presented with - by science.

You've put up parameters. You don't want to step out of the box.

I'm still waiting to hear what these other ways of knowing are that don't involve things like actual evidence.

You insist on wanting natural explanations - shutting your mind to the fact that if there is no natural explanation, then the only other option is supernatural.

Not true. In fact, you contradict yourself on this point in a few moments...

You also refuse the science of Philosophy. A moronic idiot pseudo-scientist (Of course, who else - Dawkins), went as far as to conclude, "PHilosophy is Dead!" Then he went on to philosophise..

.

It just wouldn't be a betsy post without a completely irrelevant reference to Dawkins.

Well....if you'd been more than happy to wait for a century - and still counting - for science to come up with the evidence of origin, why wouldn't you give the same amout of time (and overwhelming patience) for science to come up with the perceived fundamental flaw of the argument? Why let complexity be a damp towel now....when all through all these years science had struggled - and still is struggling - with the complexity of origin?

How many vestigial organs have science concluded that were not functional? Time proved they are functional - they have a purpose. Science just simply did not understand at the time.

Well, for the complexity of ID/Creator argument.....science is at that time, when they do not understand. Give it time.

This flies in the face of your earlier statement on supernatural explanations since it indicates that there's evidence of supernatural out there that we just haven't picked up yet. But supernatural phenomena ipso facto defy scientific explanation. Basically, you've set yourself up nicely in a position where you simply can't be proven wrong, even though your position rests upon innumerable contradictions and outright fallacies.

Furthermore, your faith, as it were, that science will one day validate ID/Creationists is ironic in the extreme given your dismissal of any and all evidence science has accumulated over the past 150 years that proves the fact of evolution. There's no reason to believe you would accept any scientific evidence that contradicts your established position. Basically, you're a loon.

Just be open to the big possibility that the answer may not come during your lifetime.

I will go to my grave knowing the truth. My only real regret is that there's no chance to know the thoughts and see the expressions on the faces of the faithful when they die and realize there's nothing beyond.

[Saipan]

Absolutely.

Are you elected to speak for us?

[bloodyminded]

Are you elected to speak for us?

Are you elected to speak at all?