by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends
To be honest, I think that "spiritual darkness" is an appropriate subject for this thread.
Alternatively we can take it to this one:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/53763/1.ashx
Love_Truth:
If you aren't going to make in to Dallas, in May, then I guess it'll have to be "Irish" - Guinness!!!
Like every drunken argument, this one is ending with manly hugs and backslapping and agreements to meet and drink some more...
Ah, I love you guys...
CZAR(tman)
Good question about the order of creation, but I?m of the school that says the Bible is not a science textbook.
I agree that the Bible shouldn't be considered a science textbook, but didn't you just ask for someone to show why Genesis was inaccurate?
Bethlehem is a hellhole, but if you can swing by PGH, definitely give me a call...
LOL @ hellhole. You should see where I live.
What's PGH? Pittsburgh? Doubt we'll make it over to that side of the state, but you never know...
The main difference between the Creation myths in the book of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution is that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, whereas creation myths are notoriously non-falsifiable.
Rem, can you please tell us how to falsify the "Theory of Evolution" ? We have had this discussion before and I don't believe that it has yet been shown that the "Theory of Evolution" is a very falisifiable "theory."
Rem, can you please tell us how to falsify the "Theory of Evolution" ? We have had this discussion before and I don't believe that it has yet been shown that the "Theory of Evolution" is a very falisifiable "theory."
Evolution would be falsified if, for one, the fossil record showed no change over time.
Exactly, DrWtsn
Hooberus, as has been stated many times before in our discussion on this topic, a static fossil record would falsify Evolution. The interesting thing, though, is that a static fossil record would not falsify creation - a static fossil record is completely compatible with creation.
rem
Oh, ye who doubst the virtues of fine portuguese port- damn thee to thine own hell hole of a bittersweet belief in philosophies of the moment, only to be proven wrong shortly in thy mindset of inward inspection and outward refusal:
Yo; el otoño
Yo; el vespero
He sido un eco
Seré una ola
Seré la luna
He sido todo, soy yo
Yo; el verano
Yo; el ébano
Soy la soñadora
A guide to circular, endless thoughts:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook3.html
Ye shall be proven wrong verily, indeed:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Anthropomorphization
If you really seek the truth, seek ye here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html#01
Why should I re-invent the wheel? Because I'm an argumentative b*st*rd, that's why:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/#pubs
Ya frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrikkkin' heathens!!!!(emphasis on rolled "r") That's bloody why!!!!!!
I'm a-composin me reply to Rem and Abaddon- those ornrey tarts, they...................)
Love_Truth- Lost in the moment (of feelin' fine...............)
hooberus
Hey, what ever happend to Professer Bergman, or whatever he was called? I was so looking forward to his stunning refutations of my post showing dishonesty, selective quotations and plain old bad science on Creationist websites, and he more or less disappeared after promising to reply... and you've kept clear of threads like this since, bar one or two occasions.
As drwtsn32 and rem indicate, you are asking question that people have answered for you before.
As you have not refuted these answers, one must question the motivation behind the repeated questioning.
I refer you to the following additonal information without any real hope it will change your opinion or behaviour.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html
In fact, if would help if you and any other Biblical apologies [sic.] would check through this list befoe making absurd claims;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Sorry to be blunt hooberus, but pretending you don't know the answer to something to try and make it seem you have a credible argument is only deceiving yourself.
Love_Truth
I await your response, unfortunately without accompanying round of drinks. I have a preferance of Murphy's over Guiness, thank you.
In the meantime you've posted more shite (traditonal Irish spelling, it is St. Patrick's Day after all)..
http://www.doesgodexist.org/#pubs links to http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
I won't go over this bit-by-bit, just enough to show you that once again your inability to detect false 'scientific' arguments has lead you to select information that supports your argument rather than information which is credible.
Their first 'proof' contains the line "The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to." This is a straw man argument.
The second 'proof' is based on an assertion that there isn't enough hydrogen in stars to keep them burning. This is bad maths stacked atop of what must be a 'turtles all the way down' assumption that they glow because of god, or angels, or something.
The third 'proof' is based on the very common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I think that deals with that rubbish...
The website http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html#01 is equally poor. It is headed "Atheists have Proven God Does Not Exist. Right?" Once again, a straw man argument.
'Proof' 1 very amusingly uses theories in physics to support god that actually, without the author realising it, also support and explain the big bang (without a creator).
'Proof' 2 is so funny I have to include it in it's full glory;
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.
This, as my cat could tell you, is not a proof, it is an assertion... once again digging into exotic physics that do away with the need of a creator without realising it.
'Proof' 3 claims one can prove god ontologically and fails to do so, but that is my opinion just as is the author's opinion that he can prove god ontologically, so, no proof, just free exchange of opinions.
'Proof' 4 shows a wonderfully peverse 'understanding' of Occam's razor and no comprehension of the double edge of anthropic principles. Maybe you should e-mail the author the following link which is quite a balanced explanation?
http://www.jimloy.com/science/anthropc.htm
Once again (I've got bored of it now and I'll wait for your proper post) I have shown that your arguments for the existence of god do not represent proof, and that you select sources that can be ripped to shreds over my morning Expresso-Choc.
If that's your idea of 'Truth', I can't conceive how you can Love it; but then I'm quite happy to agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder... unlike objective proof...
Abaddon and Rem,
Ah, the oft? encountered belligerent attitude of scientific elitism is alive and well, I see!
"For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,...so that they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). God has provided to humble observers of the universe ample evidence for His existence, evidence available in every culture and time in history. Thus there is no excuse for rejecting the witness of creation. No wonder the psalms twice declare bluntly, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps 14:1; 53:1).
You argue against God?s existence using ?Occam?s Razor?, yet by that same measure God?s CREATION is the simplest (and most believable) explanation.
Let?s examine the explanations for the following items. Creation explains them very well. Atheistic theories not so well.
Something from nothing. The universe?s mass, whether you believe the big bang theory or not, had to come from somewhere. There are no plausible explanations for how this matter came into being as an atheist. That God created these things is the only plausible explanation.
The appearance of Life itself & Did life begin as simple, single-celled organisms that ?evolved? into increasingly more complex organisms?
"Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It?s certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn?t the random product of unguided nature, but it?s the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. - Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life?s Origin
Biochemist Michael Behe ( Darwin?s Black Box ) says that modern science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin of complex life forms much less believable than it was in Darwin's day. In the 19th century, it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell.
The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:
Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of (p.42):
(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse
(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and
the hammer when the trap is charged
(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied holds the
hammer back when the trap is
(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and charged (there are also
assorted staples to hold the system together)
Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":
"Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it... A mousetrap cannot ?evolve? slowly, bit by bit. All of the parts must be in place at the same time. The same with such things as DNA."
There is not even the remotest chance that life could spontaneously generate itself, in practical terms:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna01.htm
http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.htm Item #4.
More here:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist11.htm
The physical laws that make life as we know it possible on earth, and nowhere else.
The complexities of the human (or animal) body.
The incredible differences between humans and mammals:
Logic
Conscience
Spirituality
Conscious planning, not instinct
Incredible intelligence in humans, compared to mammals.
Humans have sex for pleasure, animals not so (Pigs (possibly) on occasion, but not regularly like humans).
And the gaping holes in the fossil record, with no proof of one species becoming another, only serve to make the theory of evolution outright laughable. It is jumping to a conclusion in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel01.htm
The Dictionary of Modern Biology defines a theory as: ?similar to a hypothesis but usually wider in scope. Explanatory theories for sets of phenomena are developed by observation and experimentation? (1997, p. 367). Stedman?s Medical Dictionary defines a theory as: ?a reasoned explanation of the manner in which something occurs, lacking absolute proof ? (McDonough, 1994, p. 1023). This definition is only slightly better than the one found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which says that a theory is an ?abstract thought? (p. 749), and uses words like ?hypothesis? and ?conjecture? as synonyms.
Experiments thus far have done nothing but show that mutation, subspecies, polyploidy, and hybrids can be produced in the laboratory, as in nature. But generation of new species has never occurred in the lab or in nature, let alone new Genera, Families, or Orders. So there is no real ?proof? of the theory of evolution. It remains a popular opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Calling it a ?theory? is a stretch, indeed.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable." - Sir Arthur Keith, author of the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species .
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." -Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." -Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.
"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin?s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . " -Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed evolution happening, that does not mean that it is impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think that the mere fact that the world has been around long enough suggests that these highly improbable things actually happened.
?If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That?s why even though some people who aren?t educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don?t believe it anymore.? -Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life?s Origin
As for dating methods, K/AR especially, if we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth age as currently believed is questionable. Why? Some of the processes that have been studied that give younger ages for the Earth are continental erosion, sea floor sediments, salinity of the oceans, helium in the atmosphere, carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
The presumed ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurement of these rocks show them to be millions of years old too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.
What is my point in bringing this up? To yet again underscore the fact that science does not have proof of very much at all, just widely held beliefs in theories. Pile theory on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, on top of theory, and you only compound the problem. That is the case with the theory of evolution, and many other highly regarded and widely believed theories.
Then, we can pick on the absolutely laughable, moronic explanations, or lack thereof, for how such peculiarities as the Platypus, the Elephant, the Giraffe, etc ?evolved?. Was this ?survival of the fittest? What purpose did it serve? Are there any fossils that show intermediate life forms? Of course not. Evolution is a frikkin? ?Fairy Tale for Adults?!!
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist10.htm
And what of archaeopteryx? http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist07.htm
The possibility that a pile of sand or a mud puddle could make any living creature is totally remote. It just could not happen.
The truth is that something totally impossible can never happen. If a book is thrown into the air, it will never change into a live pigeon, never, not in a quadrillion years!
The evolutionary error is that, if something is totally impossible, it will eventually happen, if given enough time. Accepting such an error is self-deception in the extreme.
Wysong explains why evolution is totally impossible:
"1 / 10 89190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 10 89190 DNAs would weigh 10 89147 times more than the earth.".
DNA is different in each species. Although it is utterly impossible for DNA to be formed by chance for even one species, the DNA codes for each species is different from another! This only multiplies the odds against all the living creatures in the world having been formed by chance!
Talk about tearing a belief system to shreds!!
Hey, I?ve got some mighty nice swampland in Florida, I?ll sell it to ya real cheap!!
Now, now, I know you?ll keep on finding and posting flimsy ?evidence? to ?support? your silly pet theory- go ahead, this is a blast!
Love_Truth- Somewhat guilty of ?appeal to authority?, but, hey, I?m not going to re-invent the wheel!
P.S.- Some more interesting stuff:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27686
