Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How did you know they were laid down over millions of years? Did anyone observe that happening?
how u know god created the earth in 6 days? did anyone or any angels observe that?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
good lord, you have the cheek to accuse others of this and that, and yet you cant see the same for yourself? you should have clear and coherent mind in the first place.
look yourself in the mirror first, lest you are the first to cast the stone at others.
Problem is, you haven't yet demonstrated ONE BIT of anything that is logically flawed or incoherent in my views. For you, so long as the belief involves God it is ruled out as anything but logical right from the start.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
how u know god created the earth in 6 days? did anyone or any angels observe that?
Because God the Creator told us! God is the eyewitness, if you like.
But let me throw back the question at you, to be fair. How you know the universe evolved from nothing 14.7 billion years ago? Did any scientist or atheist or evolutionist observe that?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Because God the Creator told us! God is the eyewitness, if you like.
But let me throw back the question at you, to be fair. How you know the universe evolved from nothing 14.7 billion years ago? Did any scientist or atheist or evolutionist observe that?
The big bang theory from science and the God is the eye witness... both cant be proven a total truth. Why should it be enforced to believe in either one?
-
How about other religions that give claims about how universe was created? You mean all are false too?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
The big bang theory from science and the God is the eye witness... both cant be proven a total truth. Why should it be enforced to believe in either one?
Now you are getting it. It is because both CANNOT be proven, therefore they are BELIEFS.
No one is forcing you to believe in either at gun-point. But the fact is that we are now bombarded with only one view, be it in schools or secular media. People are being indoctrinated that the Big Bang Theory is the ONLY view, to the exclusion of any other view. And even many Christians have been led astray on this.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
How about other religions that give claims about how universe was created? You mean all are false too?
Let's not jump the gun here. We are dealing with atheism and theism here. If the atheist ditch atheism, then it is logical to talk about polytheism or monotheism. Fair?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Now you are getting it. It is because both CANNOT be proven, therefore they are BELIEFS.
No one is forcing you to believe in either at gun-point. But the fact is that we are now bombarded with only one view, be it in schools or secular media. People are being indoctrinated that the Big Bang Theory is the ONLY view, to the exclusion of any other view. And even many Christians have been led astray on this.
Nope i do not think that is the case...in fact many do not even know the big bang theory... -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Nope i do not think that is the case...in fact many do not even know the big bang theory...But surely you do not deny that the Big Bang Theory is the ONLY view promoted in schools and media? Go to the Science Centre and you get thrown this origins story as well.
-
Originally posted by laffin123:
1. Yes. Yes I said fossils is the best evidence for evolution, in my own opinion, and thanks for telling me your views on fossils. It is a time record of what happened in the past, which was X million years long. Let me re-write in clearer statements about our beliefs.
Yours: You believe that fossils were laid down and buried rapidly by a global flood over a matter of months.
Mine: I believe that fossils were laid down by sedimentary rock and slowly formed over millions of years.
You pointed out that organic materials tends to decompose. That's true. Flesh easily decompose. But why fossilizing is an rare occurance? After organic materials decompose, we will have the skeleton structures left. Since they were trapped in the sedimentary layers, they were under pressure and becomes fossilized. Where does your context of "rareness" applies here?
You quoted an evolutionist Mark Ridley. Thank for his input to the scientific community. His input is as valuable as someone proclaiming evolution is a fact. One can never believe in one man's word. Analyze his finding, look at his methodology, what is his research sample size, any assumption made ? One thing is science will never become a fact based on one man work. Contrast that with a bible.
You said you also need rapid burial to quickly lock out air and other things.
May I know how does the a major flood provides rapid locking out of air and other things. Shouldn't be the water washing out stuff? I did see any coherency in your belief unless through your bibilcal lens, which is making people more confused than convinced.
Evolution has produced the most diversity and complexity of genetic information. Natural selection and mutation produce more information and arrangement of the genetic information. Why is my understanding so different from yours ? If you still believe in natural selection and mutation play with pre-existing information, you are half way right. They produce the never ending arrangement of new genetic code. Recall the onset of HIV virus in this world. Recall the bird flu virus, we have H1N1, then later mutates to a strong strain of H1N3 through natural selection. H1N5 comes later. Let me quote a example closer to us. The anti-botic medicine we took is also gradually changing to a stronger dose and newer medicinal power. Your doctor never tell you this ? This is in response to the growing new strain of virus in our body through the time that able to outsmart the drugs. When last year's flu vaccination is no longer effective? We need a newer jab of upgraded flu vaccination to handle this years' occurance of different virus strain.
The above are examples of gene mutation and natural selection. Of course you can say that how can the evolutionists take this as evidence of evolution. This cannot demostrate that the creation of primitive organism and evolve to what we are today. I would tell you to be patience for X millions years and observe. Out of the zillion chemical reactions take place during the young earth, there is one successful reaction that forms the basic building block of living organism. Be patience and observe for some X millions years, bigger and more functional organism forms.
Then you may ask. Where does the moral comes from ? I am most dumdfounded by this. We atheist suppress moral judgement given by god ? I say moral comes from our mind. Full stop. We can think, just like we can make up a god call steve. If moral comes from god, why can a snake in adam's bull story had evil moral, but now snake is deemed an animal and can't have moral now. Some religion will punish anyone who leave the religion. On what moral is this ? What good will religion be if it cannot allow someone who will be happy to go elsewhere.
In my opinion, religion is a good place if you need spirital support. Full stop. Better forget about the creation crap, it is more confusing than convicing.
2. Let me repeat. There is no truth in the context of any religious ideas or whatsoever. Let's not play any word game. No truth.
1. Fossils are simply preserved remains of living things that once lived. There is no age-labels attached when we dig out fossils. So saying that they lived X million years ago is an interpretation imposed onto the data. The only thing we can observe is that they are there. What we want to do is to explain HOW they got there, and by what mechanism. The point is that both our views cannot be proven. I wasn't there when the flood happened and you weren't there millions of years ago either. So it boils down to which view best explains the fossil record.
2. That fossilisation is rare is not my opinion. I am not making it up. I actually quoted from a secular source. Another one is here http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html
3. I think you have quickly dismissed Mark Ridley's quote. He is a noted figure in the world of evolutionary science. Mark was giving his candid opinion on the fossils. Remember this is not operational science. We are dealing with how it should be interpreted and whether the fossil record actually supports evolution.
4. Evolutionary textbooks will say that fossils are formed when living things die and are covered by sedimentary rocks which are simply rocks borne by water. On the scale of a global flood this would explain the fossil record that envelopes our planet. The flood has a beginning phase, a middle phase, and the ending phase. As water engulfs the surface, earth material would be kicked up by the raging waters together with the living things and a lot of these would be deposited repeatedly on top of each other. Mind you a global flood is a rare occurence, but this occurence best explains the fossils which are also a rare occurence.
5. You claimed that evolution has produced diversity and complexity of information. Not only is this committing the fallacy of reification, it also fails to account for the ORIGINS of genetic information. And information presupposes intelligence, a point you should not miss. As for resistant bacteria, they are still bacteria at the end of the day. They are not turning into anything else. Besides, creationists are no enemies of natural selection and mutations. We affirm them, but we do not believe they can turn microbes into microbiologists. You ask me to wait millions of years, but that's precisely the point, isn't it? It is beyond empirical proof since no one can supposedly observe it. So how is this scientific since there is no way to falsify your idea? At the end of the day you only have to rely on faith that evolution happens the way you said it did.
6. If you moral comes from our mind, then it basically means that we make up our own morals. If that is so, then what is good to you may not be good to another. There is no objective moral values. You may think raping is wrong but the rapist think it is not. How do you judge? And why should YOUR view on morals override the view of another? All you have is not moral values, but personal preferences that you enforce by might.
7. To call creationism crap is to commit the fallacy of cavalier dismissal. It reveals your prejudice more than anything. To say that there is no truth is to make a self-refuting statement. Can you see it? It's like trying to prove that laws of logic do not exist. You would have to affirm them in order to deny them.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Because God the Creator told us! God is the eyewitness, if you like.
god told you this lol. if god exists, then we wouldnt be the existence of god now this isnt it. ya ya, to you god exists fair enough, but to me, it doesnt, because god is a figment of men's imagination. god is created and invented by mankind due to ignorance and fear of the unknown and supernatural. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
god told you this lol. if god exists, then we wouldnt be the existence of god now this isnt it. ya ya, to you god exists fair enough, but to me, it doesnt, because god is a figment of men's imagination. god is created and invented by mankind due to ignorance and fear of the unknown and supernatural.You keep repeating the same assertion WITHOUT any evidential support. You haven't yet answered my question of who created man, and the universe for that matter. You want to invoke Stephen Hawkings again? Fine, explain what in the world is "spontaneous creation" as suggested by Hawkings.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You keep repeating the same assertion WITHOUT any evidential support.
as if you have by your god assertions without providing any concrete evidence and proof
you are one extreme xtian which I have already more or less know what you are going to say. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
as if you have by your god assertions without providing any concrete evidence and proof
you are one extreme xtian which I have already more or less know what you are going to say.Shows that you have not been following the debate at all. We are talking about what best accounts for the existence of the universe. My answer is God. Yours is the multiverse. Both cannot be empirically proven but you get to call yours science? Duh!
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
as if you have by your god assertions without providing any concrete evidence and proof
you are one extreme xtian which I have
already more or less know what you are going to say.pls do not label him a christian
he is judas, christ-stabber!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Fossils are simply preserved remains of living things that once lived. There is no age-labels attached when we dig out fossils. So saying that they lived X million years ago is an interpretation imposed onto the data. The only thing we can observe is that they are there. What we want to do is to explain HOW they got there, and by what mechanism. The point is that both our views cannot be proven. I wasn't there when the flood happened and you weren't there millions of years ago either. So it boils down to which view best explains the fossil record.
2. That fossilisation is rare is not my opinion. I am not making it up. I actually quoted from a secular source. Another one is here http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html
3. I think you have quickly dismissed Mark Ridley's quote. He is a noted figure in the world of evolutionary science. Mark was giving his candid opinion on the fossils. Remember this is not operational science. We are dealing with how it should be interpreted and whether the fossil record actually supports evolution.
4. Evolutionary textbooks will say that fossils are formed when living things die and are covered by sedimentary rocks which are simply rocks borne by water. On the scale of a global flood this would explain the fossil record that envelopes our planet. The flood has a beginning phase, a middle phase, and the ending phase. As water engulfs the surface, earth material would be kicked up by the raging waters together with the living things and a lot of these would be deposited repeatedly on top of each other. Mind you a global flood is a rare occurence, but this occurence best explains the fossils which are also a rare occurence.
5. You claimed that evolution has produced diversity and complexity of information. Not only is this committing the fallacy of reification, it also fails to account for the ORIGINS of genetic information. And information presupposes intelligence, a point you should not miss. As for resistant bacteria, they are still bacteria at the end of the day. They are not turning into anything else. Besides, creationists are no enemies of natural selection and mutations. We affirm them, but we do not believe they can turn microbes into microbiologists. You ask me to wait millions of years, but that's precisely the point, isn't it? It is beyond empirical proof since no one can supposedly observe it. So how is this scientific since there is no way to falsify your idea? At the end of the day you only have to rely on faith that evolution happens the way you said it did.
6. If you moral comes from our mind, then it basically means that we make up our own morals. If that is so, then what is good to you may not be good to another. There is no objective moral values. You may think raping is wrong but the rapist think it is not. How do you judge? And why should YOUR view on morals override the view of another? All you have is not moral values, but personal preferences that you enforce by might.
7. To call creationism crap is to commit the fallacy of cavalier dismissal. It reveals your prejudice more than anything. To say that there is no truth is to make a self-refuting statement. Can you see it? It's like trying to prove that laws of logic do not exist. You would have to affirm them in order to deny them.
1. According to your reply, I think you simply have no faith in the various dating technologies the scientist can use to find the age of the fossils. In what way, do you think that the dating technologies can not convince you ? Also, can your bible explain why a seashell fossil can be found in high up in the mountain in south america [can remember the details, can goggle].
2. You have misunderstood the article in that URL. The rareness they referring to is the chance where an animal remains can be preserved as fossil record. [Search for 'rare' in that article, and you can find 2 hits of 'rare'. The 2nd hit talks about this]. You mistakenly equate rareness in fossil event to the rareness in global flooding. Fossil process happens all the time when animal remains trap underground in sedimentry layers. It is only factors such as earthquke, land slides, rain, float, human activities that can disrupt the fossil record.
3. Again, I ask anyone to understand his claim, his assumption, research sample size and methodology. I noted him as a evolutionist according to you. They are plenty of opinions out there, we need to study each and every findings in order to come up with any conclusion.
4. You did not explain why the raging water can lock up 'air and other things' that result in fossilization process. Unless you want to do a U-turn now ?
5.You are not coherent. You said you affirm to natural selection and mutation. Yet, you cannot believe bacteria can turn to anything else.
6. You are saying logically. So far you have never invoke the need for god in your whole paragraph6. Good you are learing now. Then how do I judge? Based on my own experience and upbrnging. Why should my views on moral overriding other people ? Other people have their own judgement. How can I force them to think lke me ?
7. The whole creationism is a good bull story to entice people into the circle. Then it is easier to control the people spiritually, politically or economically . I don't see I make any self-refuting statement by saying there is no truth. I am using simple english only to speak my mind. Are you playing some word game ?
-
Originally posted by laffin123:
1. According to your reply, I think you simply have no faith in the various dating technologies the scientist can use to find the age of the fossils. In what way, do you think that the dating technologies can not convince you ? Also, can your bible explain why a seashell fossil can be found in high up in the mountain in south america [can remember the details, can goggle].
2. You have misunderstood the article in that URL. The rareness they referring to is the chance where an animal remains can be preserved as fossil record. [Search for 'rare' in that article, and you can find 2 hits of 'rare'. The 2nd hit talks about this]. You mistakenly equate rareness in fossil event to the rareness in global flooding. Fossil process happens all the time when animal remains trap underground in sedimentry layers. It is only factors such as earthquke, land slides, rain, float, human activities that can disrupt the fossil record.
3. Again, I ask anyone to understand his claim, his assumption, research sample size and methodology. I noted him as a evolutionist according to you. They are plenty of opinions out there, we need to study each and every findings in order to come up with any conclusion.
4. You did not explain why the raging water can lock up 'air and other things' that result in fossilization process. Unless you want to do a U-turn now ?
5.You are not coherent. You said you affirm to natural selection and mutation. Yet, you cannot believe bacteria can turn to anything else.
6. You are saying logically. So far you have never invoke the need for god in your whole paragraph6. Good you are learing now. Then how do I judge? Based on my own experience and upbrnging. Why should my views on moral overriding other people ? Other people have their own judgement. How can I force them to think lke me ?
7. The whole creationism is a good bull story to entice people into the circle. Then it is easier to control the people spiritually, politically or economically . I don't see I make any self-refuting statement by saying there is no truth. I am using simple english only to speak my mind. Are you playing some word game ?
Hey laffin,
BIC told me before that he trusts dating methods for christian relics and dead sea scrolls but when it comes to fossils and the age of the earth, dating methods cannot be trusted.
He's cherry picking.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Now you are getting it. It is because both CANNOT be proven, therefore they are BELIEFS.
No one is forcing you to believe in either at gun-point. But the fact is that we are now bombarded with only one view, be it in schools or secular media. People are being indoctrinated that the Big Bang Theory is the ONLY view, to the exclusion of any other view. And even many Christians have been led astray on this.
Sure, not gun-point."Well you have a choice, but if you dont go by my wish, you burn eternally."
What a choice.
-
Just to sum up for BIC why I left Christianity:
1. Errors/inconsistencies in the bible, casting doubt on the authencity of the bible and the character of god
2. Trinity concept unclear
3. Simliarities between Christianity and other religions, making it NOT superior to other religions
4. Christians like BIC
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Just to sum up for BIC why I left Christianity:
1. Errors/inconsistencies in the bible, casting doubt on the authencity of the bible and the character of god
2. Trinity concept unclear
3. Simliarities between Christianity and other religions, making it NOT superior to other religions
4. Christians like BIC
LOL at your last point TCMC
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Just to sum up for BIC why I left Christianity:
1. Errors/inconsistencies in the bible, casting doubt on the authencity of the bible and the character of god
2. Trinity concept unclear
3. Simliarities between Christianity and other religions, making it NOT superior to other religions
4. Christians like BIC
good for you, as you have seen the light. to me, it just doesnt make sense the creator conceot, that god created us so that we can worship god. does it makes any sense to you at all?
-
Originally posted by laffin123:
1. According to your reply, I think you simply have no faith in the various dating technologies the scientist can use to find the age of the fossils. In what way, do you think that the dating technologies can not convince you ? Also, can your bible explain why a seashell fossil can be found in high up in the mountain in south america [can remember the details, can goggle].
2. You have misunderstood the article in that URL. The rareness they referring to is the chance where an animal remains can be preserved as fossil record. [Search for 'rare' in that article, and you can find 2 hits of 'rare'. The 2nd hit talks about this]. You mistakenly equate rareness in fossil event to the rareness in global flooding. Fossil process happens all the time when animal remains trap underground in sedimentry layers. It is only factors such as earthquke, land slides, rain, float, human activities that can disrupt the fossil record.
3. Again, I ask anyone to understand his claim, his assumption, research sample size and methodology. I noted him as a evolutionist according to you. They are plenty of opinions out there, we need to study each and every findings in order to come up with any conclusion.
4. You did not explain why the raging water can lock up 'air and other things' that result in fossilization process. Unless you want to do a U-turn now ?
5.You are not coherent. You said you affirm to natural selection and mutation. Yet, you cannot believe bacteria can turn to anything else.
6. You are saying logically. So far you have never invoke the need for god in your whole paragraph6. Good you are learing now. Then how do I judge? Based on my own experience and upbrnging. Why should my views on moral overriding other people ? Other people have their own judgement. How can I force them to think lke me ?
7. The whole creationism is a good bull story to entice people into the circle. Then it is easier to control the people spiritually, politically or economically . I don't see I make any self-refuting statement by saying there is no truth. I am using simple english only to speak my mind. Are you playing some word game ?
1. You really need to understand that all dating methods require the use of UNTESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS about the past. Moreover, the results of the dating methods are not consistent. There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old. Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975! As to the existence of marine fossils high up on mountains, the Biblical account of the worldwide flood not only explains why so many marine creatures came to be buried in layers of sediment, but also how these layers came to be lifted to high altitude. Psalm 104 describes how the Flood ended when "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down", and the waters flowed off the uplifted land into the new ocean basins. The whole process did not take millions of years, but occurred rapidly, marking the end of the Flood, around a mere 4,300 years ago.
2. That fossilisation is rare is a fact, for the simple reason that you need the right conditions for it to happen. Don't forget that you have also conceded that dead things simply decompose quickly. When was the last time you went snorkeling and saw on the sea bed dead things waiting to be fossilised?
3. My point about Mark Ridley's quote is that, contrary to your claim, he came to the conclusion that no TRUE evolutionist uses the fossil record as proof of evolution. Nothing is mentioned about samples or methodology. This is his observation and conclusion about the fossil record. The fossil record only proves that there are billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, which is what we would expect to find if there was a worldwide flood.
4. What U-turn? I'm sticking to the road. I thought it should be obvious to you, considering that I also cited secular sources. The reason why rapid burial is necessary, and a global flood will quickly bury many things rapidly via turbidity currents, is because otherwise it will not be protected from other elements and will not be a candidate for fossilisation.
5. It's not me being inconsistent, it's you being confused and thinking that natural selection + mutations = molecules to man evolution. If you are at all well-read on creationist literature, you would have known that creationists do not deny natural selection and mutations at all. We only disagree with evolutionists concerning what these can accomplish. NS+M can only work on PRE-EXISTING genetic information, and cannot create genetic information, not to say originating them in the first place. All that we have been able to OBSERVE is changes within kinds, but not one kind of living thing changing into another. The former is fact while the latter is fiction. I challenge you to provide one example of a documented and observed instance of one living thing changing into another completely different thing, like a cat changing into a dog.
6. I am not invoking God because I am focusing on your view of morals. And you have just affirmed again what I said earlier. For you, you make up your own morals. You decide what is right or wrong. But then again, in order to be consistent in your thinking, so does another person. So you may think that raping is wrong, but you are in no position to judge the rapist who thinks it is right. But everyone will agree that rape is objectively wrong. It's not that they don't like it, but that they believe it is REALLY TRULY wrong. So in real life you do not live as though there are no absolutes or objective moral values.
7. It is simplistic and false to dismiss creationism as some kind of postmodernistic attempt to control people. If it is indeed so, then it certainly isn't working! It would be far better and easier to compromise with evolution and say God used evolution, which would be more palatable to many people and agreeable with them, and thus bringing them to accept Christianity and control them, than to insist on a 6 day young earth view of creation.
Last but not least, you failed to see the self-refuting nature of your claim. I am not playing word games at all. Let's try again. If you say "there is no truth", are you tjhereby making a true statement?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure, not gun-point."Well you have a choice, but if you dont go by my wish, you burn eternally."
What a choice.
another incoherent and irrational here. why would god want to punish those that doesnt believe in it? who is the creator here? why doesnt it just make us all believe in god then. so what if we believe in god so that we can go to heaven for eternity? does it make any sense to you that, god created us, so that we believe in it and we can go to heaven for eternity? god is not a human, so doesnt has a gender and human form, so god cannot be call him or her, so I call god a it.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Hey laffin,
BIC told me before that he trusts dating methods for christian relics and dead sea scrolls but when it comes to fossils and the age of the earth, dating methods cannot be trusted.
He's cherry picking.
You are being deceptive and misleading people again.
But let me test you, can you use carbon dating to get millions of years?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure, not gun-point."Well you have a choice, but if you dont go by my wish, you burn eternally."
What a choice.
Do you roll your eyes and cynically complain "what a choice" when the government says that you will get a death penalty if you smuggle drugs into Singapore? Is the govt holding a gun to your head to tell you not to smuggle drugs, or is the government telling you of the CONSEQUENCES should you CHOOSE to do the wrong thing? Warnings are warnings, and consequences are bound up with the choices we make. It is absurd to claim that you do not have a choice just because the consequences are spelled out in advance for you. Consequences are there so that you can make a wise choice, not that you have no choice. You can still smuggle drugs if you want to, but then you will have to face up to the law.