hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  5

  90.9% of Intelligent Design trial Judges' ruling copied from ACLU

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  .

  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewdb/filesdb-download.php?command=download&id=1186.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186
• 
  45

  HOW MANY BEETLES WERE THERE ON NOAH'S ARK?

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  any ideas?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From a similar question:

  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4474/

  but do you think that he had all 350,000 documented species of beetles?

  No, because beetles and other invertebrates were not among the animals that Noah had to take, because they could survive off the Ark. Our core literature such as The Creation Answers Book explains this in ch. 13.

  Or did speciation occur after this time?

  Of course, and quicker than you think, but as shown, irrelevant to the first question. But it doesn’t look like you have anything more than an ill-informed strawman about what creationists mean by ‘kind’.
• 
  32

  Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)

  by marmot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "is evolution compatible with the bible?

  the opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "is it possible that god used evolution to create men from beasts?

  did god direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.icr.org/article/3518/
• 
  22

  Science v Creationism

  by Mr Ben in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  science v creationism.

  i keep popping back here every now and then to see whats going on, and i have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when i first came here.

  for example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,

  1) the book you are referring to is NOT scientific.

  2) That book makes completely false and ignorant statements of very well known genetic dynamics.

  3) Your pseudo-scientific book contains opinions that in no way debunks any aspect of the biological evolution theory phenomena.

  Have you read it?
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Believing things based on evidence is different to believing them based on blind faith and religious indoctrination. I know the best you can do is to try and equate the two (as your belief system is unsupported by any evidence), but you must realise by now what a pathetic waste of time it is.

  Are such beliefs as I listed really "based on evidence":

  As I stated previously, "Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held by faith about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)? Well written criticism of such beliefs are available, and well documented. Persons who believe such things would do well to examine their beliefs from such resources, keeping in mind the claim (made by most non-theists) that the "burden of proof" is on the advocate of any belief system), not on the critic. One can then determine (perhaps) if the non-theistic belief system advocates have really proven their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt, or if they are instead speculative, or even against the evidence."

  The following are some of the resources:

  The Book The Biotic Message:

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  Preface

  The preface gives background about the book and its author.

  1. Evolution vs. the Biotic Message

  • Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
    • Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
    • Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
    • Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
  • Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
  • Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.

  2. Naturalism vs. Science

  • Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
  • Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
  • Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.

    The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.

  • Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
    • Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
    • Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
    • Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
    • Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
    • Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection. more: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  A critique of the RNA hypothesis by former prominent evolutionist author Dean Kenyon:

  http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

  Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

  by Kevin L. Anderson

  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

  The book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome" (written by a Cornell professor)

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  "The central axiom of evolution is that natural selection acts upon mutations to provide the genetic mechanism for common descent. However, Dr. Sanford, a former researcher at Cornell University, challenges that there are many reasons why this axiom is not a reasonable mechanism for evolution. He demonstrates that various phenomena, such as Haldane’s dilemma, show that mutations create a genetic burden that natural selection cannot compensate. Furthermore, because there are many more mutations than previously thought, the health of organisms is steadily declining, not evolving. This well written book is geared toward the educated layman and deals with many current aspects of genetics."
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  You defined a non-theistic belief system as belief in science in your first post.

  No I didn't.

  Belief in science is a rational based belief that is based on evidence.

  I think that everyone here believes in science, and also that beliefs with evidence are preferable to those without, however this does not mean that the things that I presented in the first post that non-theists believe in are therefore "science".

  Belief in a deity is a non-rational based belief that is based on human tradition.

  I disagree, howver this thread is not about belief in a deity.
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I would also like to say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems.

  If you are a person who merely claims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and no other belief system at all, then this thread is not about you, (since apparently you have no beliefs to discuss).
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I would also like to politely say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems. If you are a person who merely calims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and claims no worldview belief system at all, then you do not have a "non-theistsic belief system"

  UNDER CONST
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I once saw Dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system". Indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:

  Actually they haven't "been generally forced" to belief the subsequent points you list. They have come to accept them as likely accounts of what has happened in the past based on alot of tangible objective evidence. Evidence they can assess for themselves and also raise further questions about and debate about with peers.

  I disagree, and I think that the evidence supports such disagreement. For example the idea that "life came fom non-life" by unintelligent natural processes has never been observed, and faces overwhelming scientific problems (even given genereous time, trials, and space considerations). This has been widely acknowledged. In reality the real reason why it it is believed is not because its a "likely account" "of what happened in the past based on alot of tangible objective evidence", but instead because the concept is demanded by the philosophy/methodology demands of "naturalism", which materialists (like non-theists) hold.
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)?

  Wouldn't you agree that when our universe began there was no life in it? Wouldn't you also agree that there is now life? So doesn't it seem logical to conclude that something happened which made it so that life started? Life is made up of the same elements found in the universe, such as stardust, which is non living. We don't know what the exact process was. Even the Biblical story of life coming about when God breathed into dirt is a life from non life process. I don't know of any evidence that goes against thinking life came from non life, because the universe has not always had life in it. So something happened.

  Um, ... I was refering to the belief that life came from non-life by purely unintelligent natural processes [I thought that everyone would get that].