The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

Shining One

Good Reasoning Itsallgoodnow!!!

>Hmmm. Your "logic" works both ways, doesn't it.

It does indeed work both ways, that's been one of my points! MY belief has one big advantage....the evidence that demands a verdict: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of all Christian belief. Without it there is no Christianity! My belief is not blind faith, though neither is a naturalist's. My faith is based on the person of Jesus Christ, historical and personal.
I see creation all around me; I see the evidence for Christ; I ask Him into my life; He responds and I communicate with Him and He with me every day. Look at Romans 1, Romans 3, Romans 6 and Romans 10, then 1 Corinthians 15 and see what you find. If you have any trouble pinpointing what I have seen, feel free to ask.
Rex
doogie

My belief is not blind faith, though neither is a naturalist's. My faith is based on the person of Jesus Christ, historical and personal.

then let's see a complete skeleton...you know to shut up us laypeople. shoot, how 'bout just a skull cap?
i do however agree that the naturalist's is not a blind belief (i didn't want to say 'faith', since faith by definition is belief without evidence).
tetrapod.sapien

rex,
These are very long lived humans, not another type of man. Also, why do you think a older species would have a bigger brain than 'modern man'? De-volution!
actually, brain size has decreased in humans by 4% in the last 30 000 years. cranium size has not really changed, but the cerebellum has increased (information processing ability). increase in cerebellum, slight decrease in remaining brain size.
sources:
- A breif History of the Mind: From Apes to Intellect and Beyond, William Calvin (Oxford University Press, 2004).
- "Reciprocal Evolution of the Cerebellum and Neocortex in Fossil Humans", Anne H. Weaver in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 102, No. 10, pages 3576-3580, March 8, 2005
Similiarity does not mean 'same species' nor does it constitute proof.
if you would quote what you are replying to, i would understand what the hell you are talking about. so far i agree with you.
otherwise we wpuld hear it trumpeted throughout the world: "missing link found!!!"
the only reason it would be trumpeted is because dumbass creationists actually think there is such a thing as the missing link. it's funny. EVERY SINGLE fossil pointed to in this thread has been your missing link. but either you do not respond to it, or without even thinking about it, post reams of crap from creationist web sites that are full of fallacies and misquotes. you should be as ashamed of yourself as surely jesus is ashamed of you.
Apes are 97% like us in the DNA (as far as our knowledge goes in that) and that still does not make them anyhthing close to 'same species' or even 'previous species'. If you keep telling yourself evolution has been proved you are in a fantasy world of pink, invisible unicorns! LOL
i'm afraid you have just proven yourself a woefully ignorant fundy . i don't have to keep telling myself. the evidence exists whether i am there to interpret it or not. and with regards genomic knowledge, speak for yourself.
but i really am quite amused at how you are able to take the arguments that actually have been used against your position, and just arbitrarily flip them over regardless of whether they make any sense at all. it's like trying to reason with a child who only wants to repeat over and over again: "i'm rubber and you're glue. bounces off me and sticks to you!"
you believe that god created it all, regardless of the overwhelming MOUNTAIN of evidence that you continue to blithely ignore. this is wishful primitive thinking on your part. on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that god has meddled in biological life on earth even in the very slightest. this is evidenced by the fact that you are even here arguing about the evidence in the first place. you so badly want to be special and loved by your daddy in the sky, that you will go to any arrogant lengths to blindly assert that you are right, and the rest of the world, including 99% of scientists are wrong. i pity you...a bit.
TS
itsallgoodnow
from talkorigins.org....
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.

Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.

The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to

Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

Speciation has been observed.

The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
tetrapod.sapien

rexeotch,
That's true but belief is what backs up 'naturalism' just as it backs up 'religion'. In fact, it takes more belief and faith to believe the present 'scientific' claims than it does.......scripture!
LOL, if you say so, if you say so.
ddog,
Did you hear the fairy tale about the polymers that one day just magically decided to replicate themselves?
did you hear the fairy tale about the god who created the earth and humans, and then purposely screwed it all up so that he could fulfill his kinky fantasies? yep, it's in the bible.
it's funny, that you compare evolutionists and the watchtower, when the watchtower are the creationist morons who most closely agree with you. huh.
rexette,
the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of all Christian belief. Without it there is no Christianity!
looks like you're screwed then.
I see creation all around me; I see the evidence for Christ; I ask Him into my life; He responds and I communicate with Him and He with me every day. Look at Romans 1, Romans 3, Romans 6 and Romans 10, then 1 Corinthians 15 and see what you find. If you have any trouble pinpointing what I have seen, feel free to ask.
"i see creation all around me, and i see evidence of Aliens. i ask them into my life, and they respond with anal probes."
TS
itsallgoodnow
It does indeed work both ways, that's been one of my points! MY belief has one big advantage....the evidence that demands a verdict: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of all Christian belief. Without it there is no Christianity! My belief is not blind faith, though neither is a naturalist's. My faith is based on the person of Jesus Christ, historical and personal.

I see creation all around me; I see the evidence for Christ; I ask Him into my life; He responds and I communicate with Him and He with me every day. Look at Romans 1, Romans 3, Romans 6 and Romans 10, then 1 Corinthians 15 and see what you find. If you have any trouble pinpointing what I have seen, feel free to ask.

So, you are saying because you can see things like the sky and trees, that's evidence for Christ? So, he's literally talking to you or "figuratively"?
Oh! here's another good one for shining one from talkorigins. I think he's getting all of his ideas there.
Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.

Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and second, the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.
One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.
tetrapod.sapien

rexilus,
this challenge applies to you as well:
i would like one link from you that proves that we were created by god. i want full proof, not just circular logic. i want evidence that not only turns the theory of evolution on it's head, but also does a better job of explaining the data and answering where we come from, how we evolved, and what we can expect to find in the future.
i await your evidence for creation.
also, while you are at it, please also address each of these questions from talk origins. if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific sense, then you must be able to address these questions in a credible manner:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
i await your answers for creation.
TS
hmike

If we have been controlled, scolded, impugned, ordered about, bullied and stunned into silent awe by the wagging finger of Authority we are apt to slink quietly into our pew and bow our head, whisper our frightened entreaty and crave the ineffable touch of magic that will open our cocoon into butterfly-hood.
Wow, you paint a dismal picture, Terry. Is that how you really see it?

Well, yes.
I invite rebuttal.
Terry

Terry,
Maybe that's the way the Witnesses see it, and maybe some Christians, but not me, nor any I know personally. If what you said was true, I'd agree with your choice.
Shining One

Hi Tetly,

You said:

>rexilus,

>this challenge applies to you as well:
i would like one link from you that proves that we were created by god. i want full proof, not just circular logic. i want evidence that not only turns the theory of evolution on it's head, but also does a better job of explaining the data and answering where we come from, how we evolved, and what we can expect to find in the future.
i await your evidence for creation.

1) First Cause.
2) Irreduciable complexity of DNA, organs, animal and plant reproduction in this ecosystem.
(There is no macro-evolution but there is micro-evolution: adaptations can and do happen, no one has proved that the species make the jump into other species.)
3) The Bible, with reservations:
It is not a science book, nor is that its intended purpose. It is not a geology book. It addresses what 'science' or human reasoning and logic are overwhelmed by: The magnificence of the universe which speaks of the inconcievable wonder of a being that resides in eternity!
4) I am here and I have in fact communicated (and still do) with the person of Jesus Christ. I know He lives and my faith is built on Him.

>also, while you are at it, please also address each of these questions from talk origins. if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific sense, then you must be able to address these questions in a credible manner:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
The above is sufficient for any reasonable person to lose any faith they have in naturalism.

I have not looked at this for years but will do so again.

>i await your answers for creation.

I await your conversion.
R.
Shining One

as far as talk origins and the host of logical traps....

ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT IN! Science is in a constant state of change and in dispute. It is not the 'one, big happy family' of belief that you portray. The turnover and change is constant. Theories are routinely modified and discarded. All of the evidence is not in and it will never be in
Physics is the biggest threat to the hole filled world of the naturalist (First Cause, the slowdown of the universe). Irreducible complexity: the DNA structures, the useless of partially developed organs. Then you have the bias of 'scholars' who preside over fact-think like Big Brother, the tenure of profs that are tied to a political agenda: convincing all who come before them for learning that there is no God, no supernatural....."no, we can't have any of that here.If it doesn't fit into our theories then just throw it out!"

Rex

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

Share this