Nation of Israel and God

Page 7 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 9:52 pm

Haha, I'm an hour into my Dawkins/Lennox debate DVD, and Dawkins angrily says, "Well, of course an eye couldn't come about by sheer chance. It has to come about by a gradual, incremental process from simple beginnings -- exactly the same is true of anything complex."

So... what in the second sentence is different than sheer chance?

Even if one imagines that there is a mechanism driving evolution forward (contra the evidence of the fossil record, of course -- i.e. the "Cambrian Explosion"), absent a Creator, that mechanism would have to have come about by sheer chance.

Things which obviously have a complex design to them do not come about without a designer. Not once has anyone discovered a machine, and thought, "Ah! Spontaneous evolution from time plus matter plus chance!" (Is this just too obvious or something? Not obscure and convoluted enough to seem like the "real" science of evolution?)

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2011, 10:04 pm

Ragtime wrote:

I never said I didn't believe in a creator - I refer to myself as a theistic evolutionist.
I'm not an advocate of the teaching of intelligent design, though, as God is unprovable by science, and science is what is only provable.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2011, 10:09 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Strictly speaking evidence that supports a theory or hypothesis does NOT prove the theory of hypothesis. However evidence that refutes a theory or hypothesis definitely proves the theory or hypothesis is wrong. Only negatives can be -proved-. Positives can only be corroborated and supported. Just because a theory has been supported up to this point does not preclude the possibility of some refuting evidence showing up tomorrow.

ruveyn

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2011, 10:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

True.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 Nov 2011, 10:27 pm

I'm sorry, I'm just going to have to go back and question Lecks about his declared inability to watch videos over 30 minutes, even when such videos are on a subject which clearly interests him.

Also, his assertion that text which presents only one side of an argument is somehow more conducive to learning, weighing matters, and drawing correct conclusions than is a two-sided debate on the same topic seems quite odd to me. I mean, I'm watching an evolution debate as I'm typing this (it's on pause, of course), and my brain is totally lit up with weighing this and that which is being said by both sides, because I'm hearing more information -- and most important, there is a dynamic contest going on among all this information -- about the question of origins, than I would from just reading a one-sided take on it. Maybe Lecks can enlighten me as to how it isn't lame to say he can't watch a video. As perhaps I implied, Lennox clearly wins against Atkins (it's a little sad by how much, really), and Craig clearly wins against Hitchens. If reading those two claims of mine makes you bored, rather than curious to find out for yourself and perhaps prove me wrong, it seems to me like taking a pass on a challenge deemed to be too difficult.

Both Jakob and Lecks have opted out of watching any of the videos based apparently on their length. Well, don't you think the theory of evolution is complex and grand enough to deserve 2 hours of discussion, especially if the intent is to systematically show how the whole thing breaks down into nonsense? I'm guessing you proponents of the Theory would think it would be quite a feat indeed to do that in merely 2 hours! Again, Craig destroys Hitchens, then Dawkins says "No thanks" to Craig. If I believed in evolution, THAT would really get my attention.

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

14 Nov 2011, 7:44 am

Ragtime wrote:

There's too much information to process in videos, my mind goes blank after a while and eventually I stop thinking about what I'm hearing and seeing. I could do it in small intervals, but I honestly don't have the time to watch a 2 hour debate with breaks thrown in.

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Nov 2011, 7:50 am

Ragtime wrote:

I would like to go on record that opted out one the inanity of the participants and because they are debates.
I do not care what philosophers say about biology including Dennet I would rather read papers.
Hey Ragtime have you read Rock of ages by Gould yet? or is it too long. :lol:

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

14 Nov 2011, 8:04 am

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me. I haven't seen evolution happen, I'm not looking for it.

Quote:

I find that profoundly unpersuasive. Not nearly enough fossils have been found to support a theory of life evolving upward to the degree necessary to turn an ancient lizard into a human today. And "not nearly" is putting it mildly. You know this is true.

So you expect transitional fossils for every single step from "lizard" to "human"? That's just not going happen, as Kraichgauer has pointed out, the conditions for fossilization are rare and the likelihood that we'll find a complete lineage of such an enormous transition is close to nil.

Quote:

And please don't ask questions you don't want answers to, without making that clear in the way you phrase the question or comments.

As I said, it was only half in jest.

Just to make this clear, I'm obviously not an expert on evolution, I'm barely qualified as a layman. I don't have the answers and my interest in the subject varies. I don't see the validity of evolution as a debate, however, that matter has long been settled to my satisfaction. I'm curious about the details, the possibilities not about debates concerning matters I've lost interest in long ago. If it's convincing enough to warrant attention from the scientific community then I'll read it eventually.

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

14 Nov 2011, 9:00 am

Ragtime wrote:

1) It is rude to expect people to download and watch whole videos that prove your point. Downloading videos takes ages. Watching videos takes ages.

Reading and typing is something that can be done incredibly fast in comparison (unless you are bad at reading and haven't really learned to type).

2) This shows exactly one of the most stupid premises within creationists/evolution deniers. That a debate is actually evidence for them. It is no wonder creationists care only about the subjectivities of a debate and try to make everyone focus on it. However as science is not debate club, it is not about winning debates. In science, being able to articulate an argument better and win audiences with charm does not make your argument truer. Science is 100% about evidence and requires falsifiable theories. Creationism is neither falsifiable nor a theory. Evolution in comparison is a sound theory that has earned enough evidence to support it that it is now scientific fact. Subjective success in a debate won't change it.

Quote:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/lucy.htm

This is proof of how anti-reality have creationists been forced to become.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

It is pathetic, anyone with a willingness to actively use his brain would be ashamed of having even relatives that are creationists.

_________________
.

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Nov 2011, 9:14 am

Ragtime wrote:

I find that profoundly unpersuasive. Not nearly enough fossils have been found to support a theory of life evolving upward to the degree necessary to turn an ancient lizard into a human today. And "not nearly" is putting it mildly. You know this is true.

I can trace a quite obvious line of evolution back from today quite far. Saying that there isn't enough fossil evidence to prove evolution is bumpkis, balderdash, rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-magnon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

We come right back to the start of the Human line and that is a little section, a slither of Human evolution from its earliest ancestors, and there are already incredible changes. Now, to go back to reptiles. Furthermore we are not descended from lizards. Lizards are Reptiles of the order Squamata, a long way off from our ancestral reptile lineage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierolapithecus
Closest to Great Ape common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_africanus
Relative of Ape common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadanius
Now we move in to the Monkeys with this ape and Catrrhine ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpolestes_simpsoni
Primitive Primate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eomaia
Now we move back to the Eutherian ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynognathus
And here we get to the cynodonts or mammal-like reptiles. Around this time mammal ancestors first form mmal-like jaws and the neocortical region of the brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelycosaur
The Therapsids are Pelycosaurs are the first reptiles to form truly mammalian characteristics. They are a part of the Synapsid clade I believe, and they are where Mammals get theyr Temporal Fenestrae, which only the mammalian or mammal-like lineage ever had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylonomus
Andd here we come back to Hylonomus, the probable close relative of all reptilian ancestors. Hylonomus has A-keratin, which birds and reptiles use for claws and mammals use for hair. It has a profile that shows no features only particular to mammals, archosaurs or squamates.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

14 Nov 2011, 10:40 am

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me. I haven't seen evolution happen, I'm not looking for it.

Quote:

So you expect transitional fossils for every single step from "lizard" to "human"? That's just not going happen, as Kraichgauer has pointed out, the conditions for fossilization are rare and the likelihood that we'll find a complete lineage of such an enormous transition is close to nil.

Making it unfalsifiable.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Nov 2011, 10:59 am

AngelRho wrote:

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me. I haven't seen evolution happen, I'm not looking for it.

Quote:

Making it unfalsifiable.

Natural selection has been observed in populations of bacteria and in -real time-. No fossils required.

For instance see http://www.enotes.com/bacterial-adaptat ... adaptation

resistance to anti-biotics is transmissible to the next generation of bacteria. Which is why there are so many penicillin and tetracycline resistance strains today.

variation and natural selection is as real as rain and can be observed in some rapidly generating species. In species with a longer reproduction cycle it is difficult to track by direct observation.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

14 Nov 2011, 12:40 pm

Ragtime wrote:

I believe Lucy was found to be a fake -- a composite of different creatures.

You are mistaking Lucy for Piltdown Man, which was scientifically demonstrated to be a fraud in 1953.

As for the specious comment:

Quote:

Now it's "Lucy," the alleged prehistoric skeletal remains of a woman, most of which is plaster of Paris.

That is, quite simply, an unvarnished lie. The remains of Lucy are preserved in the National Museum of Ethiopia. A plaster replica is displayed because the original is too fragile. Plaster casts are also on display in other museums. At no time has any part of the original skeleton been supplemented with plaster.

I have no objection to faith, and to faith ascribing divine motivation for the function of the observable universe. That a Creator is responsible for our existence through the mechanism of evolution is not a belief to which I personally subscribe, but it is a belief that is consistent with what I believe to be true (and I use the word "believe" deliberately) from my scientific education. But a belief that 5,772 years ago God called the universe into existence is, simply, inconsistent with incontravertable evidence.

When faith seeks to repudiate science, rather than reconcile itself with science, then faith literally moves from the sublime to the ridiculous.

_________________
--James

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

14 Nov 2011, 1:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

I believe Lucy was found to be a fake -- a composite of different creatures.

You are mistaking Lucy for Piltdown Man, which was scientifically demonstrated to be a fraud in 1953.

As for the specious comment:

Quote:

Now it's "Lucy," the alleged prehistoric skeletal remains of a woman, most of which is plaster of Paris.

Many of the famous artifacts of culture on display are actually copies, the real ones are considered either to fragile or valuable to be on public display, Light is a killer for fragile documents especially.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

14 Nov 2011, 2:10 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Lecks wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Really? Have you seen evolution happen?

"See it to believe it" is an expression, it just has to make sense to me. I haven't seen evolution happen, I'm not looking for it.

Quote:

Making it unfalsifiable.

Very good point; I forgot about that. It's "scientific fact", "absolutely true", and unfalsifiable.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

14 Nov 2011, 2:24 pm

Ragtime wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Lecks wrote:

Making it unfalsifiable.

Very good point; I forgot about that. It's "scientific fact", "absolutely true", and unfalsifiable.

He has no point, a complete lineage is unnecessary to confirm evolution.

Once again: Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is and always will be a work in progress.

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

Page 7 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

Nation of Israel and God Post Reply New Topic

Nation of Israel and God