Posts by hooberus

16

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 12 - The Flood

by RunningMan in

well, i've been waiting for a long time to post this one.

it's my personal favorite.

some angels became inflamed with lust for human women and took on human form.

hooberus

I am an atheist, so I put no stock in it, but as a kid I had some children's bible books that had pictures in them, in the chapter(s) that dealt with the flood, the picture that went with the story showed not only rain, but geysers bursting forth from the ground like Old Faithful. Does anyone know if there is a biblical basis for picturing geysers, or were they just trying to make up for the inadequacies of a purely rain-based worldwide flood? (Or even more likely, simply a paid artist's rendition that had more to do with the artist's imagination than anything else.)

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11 KJV http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

Almost Atheist said:

without getting into who says something so wildly improbable has therefore never happened, let me instead ask about the probabilities about evolution. Which things in particular are you referring to as improbable?
Creationists make a habit of starting with some bad assumptions, then building huge mathematical refutations based on them. For instance, they might talk about the probability of life ever starting at all. They talk about such and so chemicals needing to be in this and thus order in the presence of whatever. That life might begin in any one spot with any one shoebox of chemicals would be quite improbable. But they forget that whatever processes were involved were going on all over the planet, for a billion years. It only had to happen once to get the whole thing kicked off.
After all, how likely is it that a lightning bolt will set a particular tree on fire? And yet forest fires start this way. How? Because there are a bazillion trees and scores of years for it to happen in.

You are mistaken in that:

1. The calculations done by many creationist scientists (and non-creationist scientists who have pointed out the problems as well) do in fact allow for the possibility of large areas as well as long timespans (such as a billion years).

2. Due to numerous factors even if such events did somehow "happen once", this still would not at all mean that the whole thing would then still be likely to get kicked off. For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).

Mathematical problems not only affect abiogenesis but other following evolutionary scenarios as well: see for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_proteins.pdf http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

hooberus

The reason I still have a problem with an unaided process and mechanisms is because the numbers don't stack up. When calculating probabilities for this and that to happen the numbers always indicate a requirement of nonsensical faith to continue belief in such an unaided process. Scientist consider the prob of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as a non event. Evolutionary probabilities go astronomically beyond this number. I know you've asked me not to go down the road of is it faith or not but I can't help myself . I don't want to go down another faith based system.

Imagine that there's a lottery in China every month. Everybody (1 billion people, or 10^9) gets entered into it and one name is drawn out of the hat each month (and presumably given some money or what would be the point?). After a year there will be 12 names. Now, for whatever list of names you have at the end of the year, it's quite obvious that the chances of getting that exact list are astronomical (10^108 which is not as you might think, around half as likely as a 10^50 event but is 10^58 times less likely). And yet, there you stand with the list in your hands. What's gone wrong here? The problem is with measuring the likelihood of a particular event after the fact. Given that an event happened, the odds of it happening after the fact are 1.

Your point above is not nesessarily parallel with all probability calculations in the debate in which we are attemting to scientifically discern wherether or not intelligent imput was required (using mathematics) for past events unobserved by humans.

(see also:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/skeptics.asp)

While the odds of evolution taking the particular path it did would have been mind-boggling if anticipated, calculating them after the fact is pointless - unless you want to deliberately deceive people, which may well be the goal of creationists who come up with such numbers. Evolution by natural selection is something that given a certain broad range of initial conditions - not only can occur, but must occur.

I agree to an extent in that that it errant to attempt to disprove evolution by using calculations of the odds of generating exact specific sequences by chance (such as a specific tomato protein coding sequence 1,000 nucleotides long). However, it is not errant to attempt to disprove evolution by examining for example mathematically the relatively narrow range of possible functional protein sequences compared with the much larger amount of potential non-functional sequences, or to calculate the odds of getting any functional proteins, or other bio-molecules in an abiogenesis scenario with known laws of chemistry.

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

hooberus

http://www.creationresearch.org

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

http://www.trueorigin.org

http://naturalselection.0catch.com

21

Noah's Arc and the flood....

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

does anyone have any links to sites that have all the evidence that the arc and the flood couldn't have happened?

i'm debating someone who feels that neandertal man was actually the nephalim, which really i feel is quite laughable but i'll say (in typical jw fashion) whenever i'll bring up older specimens of early humans (i.e.

homo-erectus) they'll undoubtedly say "that's not a full skull in this picture" when right next to it in the picture is a nearly full skull or next to that is a full skeleton...really annoying.

hooberus

hooberus

Will you knock it off?
You plainly do not care in the least bit about the quality of the information you provide, the competence of those you quote, or the fact you have shown yourself incapable of responding to a critical analysis of your own beliefs.
You continue to quote websites that you've been shown are unreliable, often quote 'authorities' who have no real qualifications for subjects they claim expertise in (as they demonstrate), and say you will respond to things and then don't.
Every regular poster here knows this, and new posters realise it the first time they read a thread on evolution you take part in.
Have you no regard for your fellow human or respect for yourself?

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

49

What was "it" that opened your eyes?

by jiggulz in

like so many people, i'm (very carefully)trying to convey the obvious "truth" about the wtb&ts to some of the members of my family.

is there any key point that "stands out" in your memory as pivotal in the opening of your eyes?

or any particular point that may have opened the eyes of your loved ones?

hooberus

i have already responded to many answersingenesis threads on this board in the last year. it's always the same story. i read it. i find the fallacy contained in the implicit assumption of the article. i shed light on it, and it's motives. then i move on to the technical stuff, explaining why it is a misrepresentation of evolution, and why what they are saying flies in the face of modern biology, or paleontology or anthropology or genetics. then i leave some smart-alec remarks, because i need to laugh a little as the previous exercise is always extremely boring. the creationists either do not understand/comprehend the replies, or they will not admit that they are cornered because they think jesus is watching, and frankly they have more allegiance to him than some atheistic human. and i am tired of doing this. tired of it, because i am not an evangelist for science. and i haven't even done half as much as alanF or abaddon or funky derek or sng or leolaia or midget. but it just gets tiring because it is a big old merry-go-round with creationists. you respond to one answersingenesis article, and a day later they post a different one. the evolutionists do all the work, and the creationists just sit back a chuckle at their impressive cut and paste abilities. and then 4 months later, the same article appears again, and the merry-go-round resumes.

good night,

TS

Here are some thread dialogues that I have had with tetrapod that readers can view to decide the truth of tetrapods claims: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1.ashx http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/100588/1.ashx

21

Noah's Arc and the flood....

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

does anyone have any links to sites that have all the evidence that the arc and the flood couldn't have happened?

i'm debating someone who feels that neandertal man was actually the nephalim, which really i feel is quite laughable but i'll say (in typical jw fashion) whenever i'll bring up older specimens of early humans (i.e.

homo-erectus) they'll undoubtedly say "that's not a full skull in this picture" when right next to it in the picture is a nearly full skull or next to that is a full skeleton...really annoying.

hooberus

Discussion of Neanderthal DNA claims

http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html

21

Noah's Arc and the flood....

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

does anyone have any links to sites that have all the evidence that the arc and the flood couldn't have happened?

i'm debating someone who feels that neandertal man was actually the nephalim, which really i feel is quite laughable but i'll say (in typical jw fashion) whenever i'll bring up older specimens of early humans (i.e.

homo-erectus) they'll undoubtedly say "that's not a full skull in this picture" when right next to it in the picture is a nearly full skull or next to that is a full skeleton...really annoying.

hooberus

http://www.creationresearch.org

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

http://www.trueorigin.org

http://naturalselection.0catch.com

37

Jesus' Human Body

by UnDisfellowshipped in

have you noticed that when jesus christ, the son of god, the lord of lords, said something in the bible that the watchtower society disagrees with, the society will either (1) ignore it almost completely or (2) talk about that scripture, but then, they will twist it around to mean the exact opposite of what he plainly said?.

a good example of this is the insight book (volume 2), page 1,083 ("temple"):on one occasion, when the jews demanded a sign from jesus, he replied: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

" the jews thought he was speaking of the temple building, but the apostle john explains: "he was talking about the temple of his body.

hooberus

I strongly believe that Paul taught a resurection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15 (as the rest of the scriptures teach).

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67303/1.ashx

3

Some Creation/ Flood Resource Arcticles

by hooberus in

the following are some interesting creationist online arcticles which i think may prove helpful for those for those with a serious interest in the subject:.

"the paradigm of naturalism compared with a viable alternative: a scientific philosophy for the study of origins": excerpt: "i heard a prominent scientist state that 'even if creation was right i would have to deny it to be a scientist.

' to understand why a reputable scientist would make such a statement, it is necessary to understand the role of naturalism in science.

hooberus

The following are some interesting creationist online arcticles which I think may prove helpful for those for those with a serious interest in the subject:

"The Paradigm of Naturalism Compared with a Viable Alternative: A Scientific Philosophy for the Study of Origins": excerpt: "I heard a prominent scientist state that 'even if creation was right I would have to deny it to be a scientist.' To understand why a reputable scientist would make such a statement, it is necessary to understand the role of naturalism in science. . . .": http://www.grisda.org/origins/23006.pdf

"Implications of Paraconformities": http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf

"Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials Confirming the Young-Earth Creation and Flood Model": http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf This paper -written by 4 qualified scientists- gives both independent evidence for the recent creation and global flood (the presence of significant quantities of 14C throught the geological record indicates a recent age for all samples -which additionally would also thus indicate/require a recent global catastrophe for their deposition), as well as an explanation for the ratios within the catastrophic paradigm (for the additional possibility that much of the observed amount of 14C could have been possibly generated by a recent period of accelerated decay of sister materials see the more recent RATE results books by same authors.) . see also: "Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radio Carbon in Coal": http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstr...stracts41-2.htm This arcticle was written to refute the claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could at current rates produce the quantities of 14C observed. excerpt discussed by Fred Williams: "Rotta showed in a long, detailed analysis that 'The concentrations observed in coal are at least a factor of 100,000 more than what could be generated by neutron activation within the coal, and this is the best case. There is just not enough C-14 generated by the low-probability radium decays, spontaneous fission or neutron activation of the coal. The anomalous concentrations of C-14 in coal cannot be explained by any of these generating processes.' BTW, Rotta also cited evolutionists who admit that contamination is a toothless excuse, since the examples of in situ carbon-14 are so abundant." excerpt from William's site.