Posts by hooberus

HOWEVER read my original post. For this to be evidence for God, one must argue why "god did it" produce a good explanation for these features, as with the case of Thor i would argue the theistic explanations is extremely poor.

What is "extremely poor" is the analogy between your Thor existence "arguments", and modern properly writtten theistic arguments. Your first Thor thunder argument is weak to begin with, as little evidence is given (unlike for example a theistsic fine-tuning, or orign of life argument, which use things like probabilities), and it was likely later falsified (unlike theistsic arguments which have not been, despite attempts).

52

Proving Thor Exist: Reason why the proofs of God fail.

by bohm in

jw
friends

had there been theistic/atheistic debates 1300 years ago, my relatives might have heard this definite argument for the thundergod thor:.

without thor there can be no lightning.lightning exist.therefore thor exist.

qed.the atheist in that time would properly have gone after #1. i imagine the theist would have said:.

hooberus

These can easily be explained:

Gravity, physical laws etc - they have to work as they do otherwise the universe couldnt have come into existence, if gravity was a different value the big bang would never have materialised into anything.

So by defination, they just work, else it wouldnt be here.

The Book "The Biotic Message" demosntrates why reasoning like the above is not a scientific explanation. The author refers to it as "the tautological anthropic principal".

Its somewhat similar to the saying "the universe has observable highly improbable features, because if it didn't it wouldn't exist, (and we wouldn't be to here observe the highly improbable features)." -It doesn't explain why it has the hightly improbable features to begin with.

"Why assume there is one universe? There have likely been multiple universes, most failing, ours works because the variables were correct.

As ReMine sows this is an explanation (as opposed to the tautological formulation), however it not testable, hense not science according to evolutionists standard.

http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

"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."

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

now we are getting somewhere. By evolution i mean the process of evolution (mutation, selection, etc. see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(biologi)

).

Evolution (as defined above) increase the amount of information no matter which measure one use and it is trivial to demonstrate. Take kolmogorov complexity (which is the length of the minimal program which can output a given sequence) and consider a sequence of DNA like: "ABATAAATTTDDD" (repeated 500 times), now consider the same sequence randomized by various mutations; the kolmogorov complexity of the last sequence will be larger than the first.

A brief question on this subject bohm.

Would you also say that randomizing your posts with various letter mutations will also increase the amount of information no mater what measure one uses?

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

Look at those highlighted "reasons", now why on Earth would anyone refer to something like that as "scientific reasons for creationism"?

I don't see anyone here specifically referring to "those" highlighted reasons as "scientific reasons" for creationism.

Hooberus, I'm dead serious I want you to tell me exactly why you would refer to this above passage as evidence at all?

I didn't refer to the above passage at all specifically -let alone as "[scientific] evidence".

You fail to understand that the book insn't meant to be solely and only a scientific apologetic, but instead a series of individual testimonies as to "why 50 scientists believe in creation". Therefore the book gives a variety of reasons as to what influenced them, yes some are scriptural , and some are scientific.

To refresh your memory,

1. Another poster recommended this book for scientific information supportinig biblical creationism, and it does contain much in that way, along with biblical and other reasons as well (perhaps he should have stated this as well to you).

2. You then (obviously without reading it), tried to dismiss it as faulty because of an alleged faulty "main [scientific] argument" I simply pointed out that you obviously hadn't read it since it contains no speciifc "main [scientific] argument." I also then posted the online book for anyone to see.

3. Your resonse was then to highlight some scriptural reasons from one of the 50 authors and then pretend that he (and I) refer to "those" reasons as "scientific reasons" for creationism.

Please point out the scientific data, and could you tell me why if a scientist has to put away all of his evidence so he can believe in young earth creationims, why you will take his unfounded claims as proof instead of all the evidence he had to put aside?

Apparently you can't read even your own paste carefully, since the author states that in his opinion "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

It was written in 1960 and it is filled with hilarious theories about continents floating about and an incredible water canopy (where the WT got the idea) that explained everything. Unfortunately none of it was science and even then I found the book ridiculous and was embarassed the WT had cherry picked ideas they found useful.

Nowhere near as accurate as the 1960's evolutionist books which amongst other things occasionally lined up modern apes in a sequence to man, and taught that the different races evolved from different ape men. Though they did I believe teach that people had fish in their direct ancrestral tree, which from what I undesstand is still considered "science".

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

But, as I recall this thread was about how the entire science of biological evolution is the result of liberal morals and sheepish minds. lol

No, its about non-evidence reasons why people embrace evolution, and reject biblical creation.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

One thing I find interesting is that creationists always complain when actual scientists point out that their sources are not-qualified / uninformed / fringe. Pointing out that someone doesn't know what their talking about is not an ad hominem.

. . .the creationist "side" is represented only by a meager smattering of scientists (often speaking about things that are not qualified to speak about) and laymen that are always conservative religious believers? Where is the "skepticism" of this state of affairs?

The previous referenced publication "In six days" gives the specific qualigfications of its authors.

http://creation.com/in-six-days/

Many hold Ph.d 's in the specific revelant field that they discuss. such as doctorates in biology, geology, and genetics. Furthermore many of scientists employed at the major creationists organizations have formal qualifications in these areas.

Evolutionists don't seem to have a problem though when their own speak on areas not directly related to their specific fields though.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

For JaguarBass-

The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second

"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris

Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism

See my previous post.

Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:

Its obvious that you haven't read the "in 6 days book". Thanks for the "review" though. (see previous comments)

B.T.W. I've actually read a good part of it. It doesn't have a specific "main argument" at all. Here it is: http://creation.com/in-six-days/

As I said before:

One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.

The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.

Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

hooberus

The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling

OK let's look at your first witness for young earth creationism. Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite. He is a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo.

The rest of the time he is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

Let me refer to one of his papers as quoted by one of his colleagues Dr Alex Ritchie

During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

When he writes for his theological pseudo-science magazine he never makes mention of his acceptance of "millions of years". When he writes peer reviewed papers he never owns up to his young earth creationism.

Dr Ritchie concludes..

One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

Shall we go on to look at the rest of your "sources"?

One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.

The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.

Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.

They will consistently "review" books without reading then and try to dimiss them as "lies", or refer to other evolutionists reviews (that they haven't read, and dogmatically pronounce the non-evolutionary literature to have been "refuted"). Its also interesting since when they recommend pro-evo. resources the non-evolutionists usually don't behave in the same way.

These kind of consistenently employed tactics are one reason confirming to me anyway that the embrace of evolution is usually due to non-evidence based reasons.

For a response to the above ad hominem regarding Snelling see: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp