hooberus

Joined

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

Posts by hooberus

• 
  13

  Is Evolution "Scientific" ?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  is evolution scientific ?.

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Is evolution scientific ?

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155
• 
  98

  Another fossil link found

  by Caedes in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7736786.stm.

  the earliest turtles known to live in water have been discovered on a scottish island.. the 164 million-year-old reptile fossils were found on a beach in southern skye, off the uk's west coast.

  the new species forms a missing link between ancient terrestrial turtles and their modern, aquatic descendants.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  Creationists at least have a certain naive honesty where they simply deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for the history of our universe and declare their holy book to be true. The ostensibly more rational theists or deists have a more insidious approach, where they simply find a gap in our current knowledge and assert that the only thing that can fill that gap is a god, an intelligent complex entity whom they further declare - to avoid the infinite regress - to be an exception to the very rule that supposedly requires his existence.

  And what "rule" would that be?
• 
  64

  "NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

  they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

  is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Here is how atheists like Dawkins construct their "reasoning" against legitimate probability arguments (fine tuning; origin of life, etc.).

  • First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation.
  • Then they claim that threfeore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing (fine tuned universe; origin of life, etc.) arrising without a designer.
  • Finally they conclude that (given such a vast improbability) therefore "God almost certainly does not exist".

  Therre are several variations of this type of argument (which are not always as explicit). The arguments are full of fallacies:

  • First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation. -This argument relies upon the equivocation of the definition of complexity. However, even if is assumed vaild the following reasoning chain is still invalid.
  • Then they claim that therefore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing arising without a designer. -The central problem with argument is that it is only valid against hypothetical designers that had to themself "come into existence"; "pop into existence" etc. It says nothing whatsoever ever against the probability of a God that has always existed. For atheists to attempt to use this as an argument against the existence of an eternal God is dishonest argumentation.
  • Finally they conclude that (given such as vast improbability) therefore "God almost certianly does not exist". -Having assumed that any God must have an equivalent type of complexity, and having assumed that such a God could not be eternal, and must have come into existence they then proclaim God's non-existence by the same or greater mathematical odds used against fine tuning, origin of life, etc. Such reasoning equates improbability of coming into existence by chance with improbability of existence -even for beings not believd to have come about by chance!)

  They never do present a real probability argument against an eternal God, (let alone against an eternal God not composed of "part" componets). Instead, they (Dawkins and his parrots) use the above reasoning and claim to have shown the improbability of the existence existence of any creator God.

  If they do discuss the issue of possiblity of an eternal creator (or ones not composed of componet parts), they will generally dismiss such a creator God without any legitimate probability argumentation, and then shift to a discussion of "why can't they propose an eternal universe?". (which of course is not the subject directly under debate).

  Anyway, the concept of an eternal fine tuned universe, or life without an origin, has been suggested and rejected by even most atheistic scientists for many reasons (such as thermodynamic evidence for a beginning to this universe). Instead (to try to escape the testable design inference), they invoke the multi-verse "explanation" -which is argued by many to be a retreat into untestability.

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  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.
• 
  64

  "NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

  they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

  is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  inkling, before moving on to other points what about my first question to you?

  Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
  Fine-Tuning Design Argument:

  These arguments (if even valid) get you at BEST to a very weak form of deism.

  A "watchmaker" god.

  This of course, though possible, doesn't get us ANYWHERE, because no matter
  how vastly improbable amino acids and fine tuned forces are, a intelligent
  Watchmaker God must be far more so.

  And even if this "god" exists, it is not anything remotely like the god of
  the bible.

  So yeah, I think "no evidence" is the only fair and open minded conclusion.

  [inkling

  And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance?
• 
  64

  "NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

  they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

  is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
  Fine-Tuning Design Argument:

  These arguments (if even valid) get you at BEST to a very weak form of deism.

  A "watchmaker" god.

  This of course, though possible, doesn't get us ANYWHERE, because no matter
  how vastly improbable amino acids and fine tuned forces are, a intelligent
  Watchmaker God must be far more so.

  And even if this "god" exists, it is not anything remotely like the god of
  the bible.

  So yeah, I think "no evidence" is the only fair and open minded conclusion.

  [inkling

  And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance? The "God Delusion" book claims to show this, yet it has to resort to the bogus reasoning of equating improbability of coming about by pure chance, with improbability of existence. (Such reasoning would only be valid against the existence of any god believed to have come about by chance -which of course is a "god" that virtually no competent theologian believes in). In fact using this same "God Delusion style" reasoning (i.e. improbabilty of coming about by pure chance = improbability of existence) Richard Dawkins himself "almost certainly does not exist". (This is because he would be far more improbable by chance then his books which are vastly improable by chance, hense using the same "logic" Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist").
• 
  64

  "NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of god, any type of creation, (especially genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim.

  they almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing god).

  is there really "no evidence" for god, and creation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.icr.org/article/4295/

  Bernard Carr, cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, told Discover, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” 1

  For reference with first post on this thread.
• 
  38

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 1: Endogenous retroviral sequences

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because i need to continue doing research on this topic, and it always helps me assimilate things if i write them up or otherwise explain them to others, and because i thought others here might be interested, i've decided to start a series.

  in each installment, i'll present one small piece of evidence for evolution.

  hopefully, some of the more knowledgeable people here will chime in with related evidence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’

  http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6146/
• 
  82

  "Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

  by SixofNine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

  but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

  to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I think the bottom line, is that it's up to the woman to decide. I really doubt that very few women who get an abortion, take the decision lightly.

  This is similar to what Obama said at the Saddleback forum.

  And I would like to add that I really doubt that very few muslim men who perform honor killings, "take the decision lightly" either. -Yet no one accepts that as any sort of justification for legalized muslim child killing.
• 
  82

  "Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

  by SixofNine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

  but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

  to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I think the bottom line, is that it's up to the woman to decide. I really doubt that very few women who get an abortion, take the decision lightly.

  This is similar to what Obama said at the Saddleback forum.

  And I would like to add that I really doubt that very few muslim men who perform honor killings, "take the decision lightly" either.
• 
  82

  "Life Begins at Rape"- Palin Policy

  by SixofNine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i suppose that when most of us who are fortunate not to have been the victim of sexual assault hear the word "rape kit", we tend to think of it specifically in terms of forensic analysis and examination--dna collection, trauma, that whole sort of thing.

  but rape kits also contain...emergency contraception.. .

  to quote from an alaska blogger who has provided a firsthand account of the aftermath of a sexual assault in wasilla: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  edited to: Well he certainly has actively opposed legislation intended to grant certain rights to all "born alive" infants. And the unborn have no rights, even to not be partially birthed and brain sucked.