or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Human common descent ancestor discovered - Page 7

post #241 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Dumb Methodist Zealot

Funny which side of this debate always has to resort to name-calling.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #242 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Funny which side of this debate always has to resort to name-calling.

I think you'll find that's because creationists are just plain annoying, particularly those that turn up after a debate, and without addressing a single point made, or even making much sense, dismiss the opinions and research of basically every branch of science in favour of a historically and theologically unjustifiable interpretation of an old book.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #243 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I don't have the smilie I need. This is, well, it's a lie, I think. It's contemptible, anyway.




While this is just, well, contemptible. This is just wrong; it is not true, or right, or accurate (or 'correct', if you like). There's been no sudden controversy. Researchers in laboratories across the globe aren't stepping away from their computers shaking their heads, going 'something's just not... right.' The letters pages in peer-reviewed journals aren't filled with articles with new evidence causing people to reappraise their lives' work.

Its just not happening.

Sorry, and all.


The Yoruba idea that the world was created when Obatala climbed down a white sheet with a five-toed chicken, a snail shell full of earth and some palm kernels could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- and there's no more and no less evidence for it than Genesis Chapters One and Two (which I've been reading lately, and absolutely love.)

[edit: had a bad morning and dmz was in the firing line. Better now. Sorry.]


sorry for your bad morning -- I hope the wound wasn't self-inflicted

Evolution, by definition, must add information. There is no way around this, and Evolutionists have not yet found that way -- and it's been over a hundred years without an answer -- new theories need to be considered that answer these questions.

On the Yoruba thing, and for MarkUK's request for proof of the validity of Christianity for that matter, you are both asking questions that you already have the answers for. Your metaphysical world has at it base pure contingency, you both could witness 100 resurections and it would still not convince you.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #244 of 411
You have witnessed as many resurrections as Ifa devotees have seen orixas climb down sheets.

That's the point, and that (above) is a fact. A stone cold, unimpeachable fact. You have not seen a singe resurrection with your own eyes.

You have faith that this happened.

So do they.

The point remains the same; you have no more right to validity or evidence in your Christian views as Ifa devotees do.

None.

And they belive it just as much as you, and they're both right.

Your science does not square with the facts either. Sorry.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #245 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Evolution, by definition, must add information. There is no way around this, and Evolutionists have not yet found that way -- and it's been over a hundred years without an answer -- new theories need to be considered that answer these questions.

The so-called problem of "adding information" only comes from creationist-contrived definitions of words like "information". This "problem" isn't vexing anyone but creationists -- people who themselves oddly enough don't have a better answer for where all of this so-difficult-to-create information came from other than to say God (poof!) Made It Happen.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #246 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz


Evolution, by definition, must add information. There is no way around this, and Evolutionists have not yet found that way -- and it's been over a hundred years without an answer -- new theories need to be considered that answer these questions.

DMZ, Perhaps you could, as our last 'pathologically deceived liar' ran away from defining the word, 'information', please post an accurate definition of the word as it appears in context to evolutionary theory. And when you're done, please look up the link I posted back a few pages, and explain to us, why that evidence does not constitute an increase in 'information'. And please tell me about Sophia

Thankyou
post #247 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

Evolution, by definition, must add information. There is no way around this, and Evolutionists have not yet found that way -- and it's been over a hundred years without an answer -- new theories need to be considered that answer these questions.

See trisomy. (I wish I had a big smilie). Down syndrom (which causes varying degrees of physical ailments/mental retardation, suggesting that the various isoforms of the proteins encoded on chromosome 18 could potentially be subverted causing a silent down syndrom) does not prevent people from reproducing. If two down syndrom people have a child together there is a significant chance that their offspring could have a self sustaining quatromy-trisomy cycle (especially if in the process of cell division the proteins responsible for the disorder's effects are mutated or otherwise silenced). In a closed environment, such as a village, it is possible that there could be people with two extra chromosomes, chalk full of information... Extra information.

That is the simply way shite loads of info can be added -- see wheat (and most crop plants). The most likely mechanisms are based upon mistakes that have been observed, such as gene duplication.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #248 of 411
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
Phoebe: Oh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
---
Ross: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
Phoebe: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

post #249 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
Phoebe: Oh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
---
Ross: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
Phoebe: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.


Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #250 of 411
I'm back, much to the chagrin of many of you out there, I'm sure.
Now, right to buisness:

Quote:
marcUK
LIE no.18. Running away when you've been owned, a common creationist trait.

Don't forget to research both sides of the argument if you want to be honest and maintain integrity. There are no personal questions here, I am just asking for the evidence of your 'scientific' theory.

Cannot you at least define 'information' in Scientific terms before you go?

How pathetic. Unlike some of you (evidently), I have stuff going on outside of appleinsider.
I actually put work into my posts, and link to articles that I've actually read (do you hear me hassan?). I don't just go on here and spout drivel and call people names.
That reminds me.

Quote:
Frank777
Funny which side of this debate always has to resort to name-calling

Eh. I'm used to it.

Quote:
hassan i sabbah
I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.

Other than the radiometric dating methods, which are calibrated using fossils which are (very conveiently) dated by paleontologists, there is no hard-and-fast way of deciding (as simple as it may be) how old the world is.

Quote:
giant
Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.

Humphrey is a joke, huh? That's a lot of supporting evidence you've stated there. Also, your comrades have just finished calling christians a bunch of stupid dolts, and now you're referencing them as experts? Quite quaint. As for the head hurt, you've obviously never tried to pick apart the theory of relativity. Fitting a 10m car in a 5m garage is a trial for the mind comprehend, to be sure. However, the theory of relativity says it can be done. You try and understand it and your head will hurt too.
Link to material, or be ignored.

Quote:
shetline
For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level.

Yes, statistics state that something with a probablility of 10^-400 is well nigh impossible.
Invoking statistics does not automagically get rid of all the insurmountable thermodynamic barriers.

Quote:
I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.

Don't misquote me. I only said that thermodynamics definitely precludes abiogenesis. I very clearly said that thermodynamic precludes the following:
1) cellular machinery is much to complex for random events to generate
2) living organisms get around the entropy barrier by linking unfavorable reactions (whether they be entropically or enthalpically unfavorable) to favorable reactions
3) the very coupling mechanisms required are themselves ordered machinery (enzymes, etc)

No one, ever has worked up a reasonable theory to support this. Statements like "and then life appeared in the ooze" just don't cut it. I'm calling all the naturalists out on the floor on this one, once and for all. Link to a paper that has addressed a mechanism by which a prebiotic "soup" could have generated a coupling mechanism.
Hardeeharhar has proferred several theories of his own, but I have already addressed their problems.

Quote:
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough.

And that is where you are absolutely wrong. The points I have stated are very clear, and very basic. They are key, fundamental issues that absolutely must be addressed for a purely naturalistic hypothesis to even get off the ground.

Quote:
How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question.

You're right. It is a good question, and one that has not been answered, which is telling because as I've said over and over again, it is absolutely key. Explain how life began. That seems pretty key to this entire argument.

Quote:
How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.

Having answers for the probably most fundamental question facing naturalists today would be a good idea, don't you think?
If you're right, you should have the answers. Your theory should be able to explain all of the questions put to it, or otherwise it's not a good theory, is it?

Quote:
MarcUK
LIE no.1: I pointed out on page 1 that a known deception of Creationists is to claim such a thing. Evolution does not say that cows turn into whales. Another strawman. Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today. I suspect you know this.

Actually, every biology textbook I've had states that whales evolved from a "cow-like" creature. Check yours.
As for "Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today", evolution states that one form of life will eventually evolve into another form of life.

Quote:
Stupidity 1: Every fossil ever found is a species in transit. Or are you pretending that once a cow always the same cow? Oh yes, the Creation theory strawman "Why did a cow become a cow and then stop evolving?"

You are deliberately mistating what I said. I asked where all of the "in-between" species were, because evolution (as has been admitted several times in this thread) takes quite some time, and we would therefore expect to see lots of creatures with arms/legs/necks/heads/etc. in transit.
You don't just go: leg-boom-flipper.

Quote:
LIE no.3: So the theory says that it takes a +/-million years to produce macroevolution from thousands of instances of microevolution, and you claim that because we havn't seen macroE directly, is proof that the theory is wrong. Mmmmkay. I suspect you know this.

You sure suspect a lot of things to be a self-portrayed dealer in truth.
I'm saying we don't see any of the "inbetween" examples of micro evolution in the fossil record, like we would expect. We (as you correctly stated below) see perfectly-fit animals at every point.

Quote:
LIE no.4: As for the fossil record, largely we find exactly what is predicted by the theory. Lots of incremental small changes between perfectly fit animals. I suspect you know this.

However, the theory also states that there are lots of half-developed creatures. These we don't see, and thats a Problem. (Note the capital P).

Quote:
Tell me, do you expect to find proof of a half whale, half cow that was really unfit for its environment?

Yes, because you can't magically go from one type of animal to another.
Oh wait! I get it:

Evolution happens so slowly, we don't see it happening, but when it does happen, it occurs so quickly it leaves no trace. Riiiiight.

Quote:
AND, if cows did turn into whales, how would you recognise the fossil as a transitory one?

I would expect to find a fossil record showing a believable spacing of events. Artist's fanciful imagnations do not, sir, pass muster.

Quote:
All these variations of the homo species, were they all specifically designed by God, and then discarded because he thought they were no good. Where is the explanation of that in the Book of Genesis? Oh wait, they were planted by Satan?

Actually, post a paper that gives the supposed timeline from ape to human, with all of the correct intervening fossils. That would actually be informative, and I can have the pleasure of tearing it apart with only my hobbyists knowledge of paleontology.

Quote:
I wonder if a Duck thinks its half formed flipper is pathetic for swimming or cumbersome for walking. I wonder if a flying squirrels think their half formed wings and arms are useless for flying and climbing at the same time?

Actually, I would think that your examples are very happy with their features because they allow them to live perfectly in their habitat.
i.e. Ducks swim AND walk, flying squirrels glide from tree to tree. Their design works pretty darn well, i'd say. Oh wait, were you trying to pass off the flying squirrels as an example of wing evolution?

Quote:
I wonder if a flamingo thinks its flightless wing is useless for running and pathetic for quick movement. I wonder if flatworms, clams, scallops, spiders, think their light sensive cells are useless eyes?

Wow, you are in a tub of crap here.

First, flamingos aren't flightless.
Second, many spiders have excellent vision, as a matter of fact this page says that they have "among the highest acuities in invertebrates." Light sensitive cells, my ass. NASA has used spider eyes as models for their mars rovers.
BTW, Clams have very developed eyes as well, just follow this link.

Quote:
LIE no.6. Flippers, wings, antenaa, etc didn't just form from thin air according to the theory, they are modified legs, arms, that happened because the environment selected the adaption that best suited the environment. I suspect you know this.

Well then, I'd expect to see creatures in the process of changing from one form to another, because it doesn't happen quickly, by any means. Why would you need millions of years otherwise? Something as supposedly "simple" as clam eyes turn out to be very complex.

Quote:
LIE no.8: Every scientific theory is a paradigm if you want to nit-pick. There is no absolute proof. Fact does not mean 100% true.

"No absolute proof" huh? You see, I have the easy job here. All I have to do is point out one area where evolution falls down, and I've proved that the theory of evolution is wrong. You have to try and keep plugging all of the holes I make.
But poking holes isn't my style. I went straight for the root problem: How life began. If you can't demonstrate how that happened, you're headed for lots of problems.

Quote:
Evolution has as much supporting evidence as any other scientific theory. Even I know that einsteins theories are not 100% true, same with Quantum Mechanics, same with fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Lack of 100% truth does not mean your God did it.

You don't seem to get it. Comparing the models of quantum mechanics and einstein to a theory is like comparing apples and oranges. Quantum mechanics is a MODEL to explain what happens. Scientists use models to PREDICT and UNDERSTAND.
Evolution is not a model, in that it's statements cannot be tested, and that it's action cannot be observed (especially if it happens too slow to see, and too fast to leave a record, as you conveniently state).

Quote:
LIE no 9. In the directly testable area of microevolution it has been observed and confirmed. I suspect you know this.

Yes, but evolution on anything even resembling a scale like you so desperately need has never been observed or confirmed. As I've said many many times, the mechanisms and abilities of microevolution are incomparable to that needed by macroevolution.

Quote:
TRUTH 1.: Creation Theory is completely untestable, so that makes it useless and irrelavent according to your very definition.

You obviously did not carefully read my post on dembski. If nature was created, we would expect to see integrated systems expressly designed to function. And guess what? We do. Every metabolic pathway, every ecosystem, every organism functions just like a well oiled machine, doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Quote:
STUPIDITY NO 2. Your logic is drivel. If we were near a very dense part of the universe and time went really slowly for us, that doesn't mean that the universe was created at different times. It just means that we perceive it as slower, meaning that 14 billion years have still passed as we measure it in our frame of reference, regardless of wether 10000 years have passed in a very undense part of the universe as measured in that specific frame of reference using our frame as a benchmark. But if such an absolute frame of reference existed, the amount of time that passed in every part of the universe would be the same because all light and all mass has to be traceable back to the same point at the same time. In our frame of reference it is +/-14 billion years.

You don't get relativity, do you?
I didn't say that the universe was created at separate times. I said it was created. If time runs at different speeds, then portions of the universe would be older. Everybody knows that the universe is expanding, and that time is affected by speed. It has also been suspected, and recently proven.
My entire point was to state that everytime we experience a few seconds here, at some other place in the universe, several hundered or more years have been burnt away. There is no absolute frame of reference, every point and object only has it's frame in which to experience time.


Quote:
Does thermodynamics have a mechanism that prevents simple molecules from arranging themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy?

Yes. I've been saying it over and over again. It's called entropy. And this nonsense about adding energy to a system (closed or not) adding order is crap.


Quote:
hasan i sabbah
While this is just, well, contemptible. This is just wrong; it is not true, or right, or accurate (or 'correct', if you like). There's been no sudden controversy. Researchers in laboratories across the globe aren't stepping away from their computers shaking their heads, going 'something's just not... right. ' The letters pages in peer-reviewed journals aren't filled with articles with new evidence causing people to reappraise their lives' work

Actually, there's not a lot of research in the field of evolution, because there's nothing to observe. Most of the existing material is in the form of possible examples or thought experiments. Most scientists treat evolution as a given, and don't even bother about investigating deeper. It's just the way they're taught, and what they're used to. Added to this the historical disdain of science by the established "church" system, and you have a bunch of pretty ambivalent scientists.

Quote:
hardeeharhar
See trisomy. (I wish I had a big smilie). Down syndrom (which causes varying degrees of physical ailments/mental retardation, suggesting that the various isoforms of the proteins encoded on chromosome 18 could potentially be subverted causing a silent down syndrom) does not prevent people from reproducing. If two down syndrom people have a child together there is a significant chance that their offspring could have a self sustaining quatromy-trisomy cycle (especially if in the process of cell division the proteins responsible for the disorder's effects are mutated or otherwise silenced). In a closed environment, such as a village, it is possible that there could be people with two extra chromosomes, chalk full of information... Extra information.

Oh come on har, you know as well as I do that that is not an example of new information, just copies of already existing data. However, you are about to cover my next point:

Quote:
That is the simply way shite loads of info can be added -- see wheat (and most crop plants). The most likely mechanisms are based upon mistakes that have been observed, such as gene duplication.

Yes, this added chromosome or two does provide an unused copy upon which changes can be made. However, this is no more an example of evolution than a ream of white paper is an encyclopedia.
In any event, down syndrome is hardly a good example of a step toward greater fitness.

Come and get it, boys.
Oh, and to the mods out there, how come I get slammed for calling someone a troll when I get called lots of other really nasty names, eh?
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #251 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Humphrey is a joke, huh?

Yeah, humphreys is a HUGE joke. It's like citing Richard Hoagland: it doesn't even dignify a explanation.

As I said but you apparently ignored:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
please, take the time to look up why he's wrong.

Edit: Here, I'm nice enough to even point you to a paper by christians astrophysists. And they only focus on a portion of his junk science. Other examples would include his total crackpot attempt to explain away the CMB (which, obviously, proves him wrong from a number of angles that he simply ... ignores).
post #252 of 411
Benzene, if you want to argue about the initial creation of 'life' feel free to do so as it is, I believe, still an area of great contention and interest for those who don't get their biology from the Bible. However, don't think (or try to fool us) that it invalidates the evolution of species by natural selection.

That's like saying that physics doesn't apply to a tree falling over because God created the first tree (unless of course you believe the world is only 30 seconds old and started when God gave the tree a push).
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #253 of 411
Quote:
You're right. It is a good question, and one that has not been answered, which is telling because as I've said over and over again, it is absolutely key. Explain how life began. That seems pretty key to this entire argument.

Evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogensis.

Quote:
And guess what? We do. Every metabolic pathway, every ecosystem, every organism functions just like a well oiled machine, doing exactly what it was designed to do.

If it didn't function reasonably well, the organism would get unselected. I suspect that you know this.
(Furthermore, not everything works fine all the time, by a long shot.).
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #254 of 411
This discussion is quite silly. I wasn't asked for a proof of evolution. I was asked for a way to add information to a system. In the thermodynamic sense, a copy of information is still more information -- the entropy of where to find that information goes up, the universe is happier.

To quote some long forgotten muse, "For my time is worth something more than a moment a letter in an impossible argument, I take my leave with the words I have written and truth contained therein."
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #255 of 411
Thread Starter 
I don't know about anyone else, But I'm still seeing a distinct lack of evidence for Creation Theory, and a lot of offtopic bullshit from a very angry little man. I was kinda hoping he would have the integrity to go away for 6 months and do some proper unbiased research, and bring some new 'information' to the table.

Like I said, Im not wasting my life discussing the finer points of abiogenesis as an excuse for ruling out the theory of Evolution.

You are the one with extraordinary claims - and they require extraordinary proof. I'm still waiting for a definition of 'information', a definition of 'kinds' and evidence that the literal word of Genesis is exactly the way it happened, and was written under divine inspiration of God. Until you can provide that evidence, I won't waste any more time with you.

PS. I understand relativaty perfectly well thankyou. Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that has gone awol, which would be fitting with the evidence witnessed thus far.

When you get evidence of the real question, be sure to PM me if Im still ignoring your lies. Until then, I'd like to see it from your point of view, but I really can't get my head that far up my arse.
post #256 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
You are the one with extraordinary claims - and they require extraordinary proof. I'm still waiting for a definition of 'information', a definition of 'kinds' and evidence that the literal word of Genesis is exactly the way it happened, and was written under divine inspiration of God. Until you can provide that evidence, I won't waste any more time with you.

Genesis is self -contradictory - it is compiled from two different sources from two different authors (at least). Then for good measure, the Church censored it beyond recognition - note the absence of Lilith and her replacement with Eve.

You guys can save yourself a lot of aggro - the whole debate is based on Genesis and anyone who believes in the literal/divine nature of that hodge-podge is clearly not a serious thinker and you demean yourselves by engaging them in anything greater than the occasional swot as one would do with a rather annoying mosquito.

Can't we talk about Ra or something ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #257 of 411
Wait, we still didn't get to the part about why Christians are right and, say, the Aztecs' Creation theory was wrong. Benzene please explain. Oh and don't forget to use science.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #258 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Genesis is self -contradictory - it is compiled from two different sources from two different authors (at least). Then for good measure, the Church censored it beyond recognition - note the absence of Lilith and her replacement with Eve.


This is at best a tired interpretation.

Agian, I must point out, if all facts are interpreted facts, and God can't be bound by fixed revelation, why even attempt to disprove something that you would NEVER EVER believe in, under ANY circumstances? (Except for entertainment/rehtorical value.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #259 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This is at best a tired interpretation.

Agian, I must point out, if all facts are interpreted facts, and God can't be bound by fixed revelation, why even attempt to disprove something that you would NEVER EVER believe in, under ANY circumstances? (Except for entertainment/rehtorical value.)

As it happens, and as you would know if you paid attention to other's views in this thread rather than focus on your own position, I do 'believe' in God the creator and 'disbelieve' in evolution as promulgated by the science fundies (as distinct from the religious fundies).

However, my belief - being just that, a 'belief' rather than absolute knowledge, has to be subordinated to facts. That is to say: the facts must twist my belief rather than my belief twist the facts.

Tired or not the interpretation is accepted by the foremost academics and Biblical scholars in the world today and in their opinion - which is after all, the one that counts - that the book of Genesis is an amalgamation of pre-existing tradition and is the work of more than one hand.

You dispute this, fine. If so, and if you are a serious person then the onus is on you to disprove the methods of scholarship and textual analysis which hold good for all scholarly endeavour (not just religious studies) and are not questioned in other fields because the intrusion of belief into those fields as a replacement for academic discipline would be laughed out of court as the travesty and kindergarten 'make believe' nonsense that all thinking people know it is.

But you can't even back up your position in terms of your own religious belief, let alone argue against an academic method that shows no other signs of unreliability and which has held good for decades after being developed over centuries.

Just throwing in the name 'Kant' at strategic intervals won't cut it I'm afraid.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #260 of 411
Creationists are a bunch of Kants.
post #261 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This is at best a tired interpretation.

Agian, I must point out, if all facts are interpreted facts, and God can't be bound by fixed revelation, why even attempt to disprove something that you would NEVER EVER believe in, under ANY circumstances? (Except for entertainment/rehtorical value.)

If Benzene or anyone can provide the evidence of, I'm quite prepared to accept the theory of evolution is wrong, and that all other religions are diabolical mimicry planted by Satan to fool me. But Benzene can't even provide a definition of 'information' yet he tells us information cannot increase.

I think (99.9% know) he's lying to me. That sucks, If (Genesis)God created the world, and (Genesis)God is so special, there would be plenty of evidence to corroborate this, that doesn't rely on proving something else wrong in order to assume something else is right.

(Genesis)God did not create the world. Fuck me if he can't even provide evidence that his religion, is any more valid than any other religion. We've had 3500years +/- a bit, since the OT started to be written, yet he nor anyone else can provide evidence that it is true.

This is the picture as it looks to me.

No evidence of Genesis
No evidence of Divine Inspiration
No evidence of a real Jesus

Evidence of Evolution (possibly with minor problems)
Evidence of evolution and pillaging of pre-Christian religions as a source for the Bible
Evidence of Jesus being a personification of the Sun.

C'mon Benzene, DMZ, you're not fooling anyone, except yourselves.

I wonder, Is there a Creationist, who will admit that Genesis theory isn't really true, but pushes the agenda, because they believe we will live happier, fulfilled, redeemed lives If we accept the 'message'?
post #262 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I wonder, Is there a Creationist, who will admit that Genesis theory isn't really true, but pushes the agenda, because they believe we will live happier, fulfilled, redeemed lives If we accept the 'message'?

It seems to me that you have some kind of symbiotic relationship with these unthinkers. Perhaps they could usefully serve as a stimuli for you to transcend their folly by going far beyond their concerns rather than fighting them on their own turf.

As one of the wisest of men once said: 'Let the dead bury their dead'.

They're dragging you down to their level - come up here, the view's better
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #263 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Can't we talk about Ra or something ?

Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Evidence of Jesus being a personification of the Sun.

Business as usual in AO.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #264 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
As it happens, and as you would know if you paid attention to other's views in this thread rather than focus on your own position, I do 'believe' in God the creator and 'disbelieve' in evolution as promulgated by the science fundies (as distinct from the religious fundies).

However, my belief - being just that, a 'belief' rather than absolute knowledge, has to be subordinated to facts. That is to say: the facts must twist my belief rather than my belief twist the facts.

Tired or not the interpretation is accepted by the foremost academics and Biblical scholars in the world today and in their opinion - which is after all, the one that counts - that the book of Genesis is an amalgamation of pre-existing tradition and is the work of more than one hand.

You dispute this, fine. If so, and if you are a serious person then the onus is on you to disprove the methods of scholarship and textual analysis which hold good for all scholarly endeavour (not just religious studies) and are not questioned in other fields because the intrusion of belief into those fields as a replacement for academic discipline would be laughed out of court as the travesty and kindergarten 'make believe' nonsense that all thinking people know it is.

But you can't even back up your position in terms of your own religious belief, let alone argue against an academic method that shows no other signs of unreliability and which has held good for decades after being developed over centuries.

Just throwing in the name 'Kant' at strategic intervals won't cut it I'm afraid.

You are starting from you own intellect AS SUCH, and work outwards -- what else would you call this?

Are you back with Hume? ...then you have big problems. Are you with Liebniz? You still have big problems. Or maybe Kierkegaard? Dialecticism only tried to finish want Kant started.

IN ANY EVENT you refuse to bind God to a fixed revelation. There is nothing to prove or disprove for you -- your revelation only exists for you, and only as you feel like accepting. It doesn't matter if Christ himself handed you a volume of revelation, it still wouldn't be possible for you to accept it -- because the notion of a fixed revelation is anathema to you, it's simply not metaphysically possible from your prespective.

And I can back up my position on my religious belief because only the traditional Christian metaphyisic provides an CONSISTENT explanation for the universe you live in and the reality you experience.

And give me a break on Genesis -- there are interpretations of that work which are nonissues for traditional Christians, you are simply being consistent by refusing to accept the possibility of it's accuracy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #265 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
C'mon Benzene, DMZ, you're not fooling anyone, except yourselves.


You are fooling yourself with the dream of the self-sufficient intellect. Asking for proof of something this foundationally impossible to your worldview is a just not consistent.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #266 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You are fooling yourself with the dream of the self-sufficient intellect. Asking for proof of something this foundationally impossible to your worldview is a just not consistent.

It's only impossible until you can provide the evidence that you're correct and I am wrong. I see no evidence of Genesis Theory. I see alot of lies and falsehoods. I don't believe lies lead to God.
post #267 of 411
For me it all looks like people are trying to argue the leap of faith into stepping over a small crack.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #268 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
It's only impossible until you can provide the evidence that you're correct and I am wrong. I see no evidence of Genesis Theory. I see alot of lies and falsehoods. I don't believe lies lead to God.


No -- really -- you are starting with the impossibility of Genesis being true and then say "prove it".

It could be argued (futily I think) that at the base of the universe is a supernatural event directed by a superintelligent intellect or some omnipotnet being. You may even say you accept that statement, but then begin by arbitrarily binding that being to what or what not he has done. There is no point in that.

You cant talk about a that without first talking about a what.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #269 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No -- really -- you are starting with the impossibility of Genesis being true and then say "prove it".

It could be argued (futily I think) that at the base of the universe is a supernatural event directed by a superintelligent intellect or some omnipotnet being. You may even say you accept that statement, but then begin by arbitrarily binding that being to what or what not he has done. There is no point in that.

You cant talk about a that without first talking about a what.

so you're saying that unless I already believe it to be true, all the evidence will apear false?
post #270 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
so you're saying that unless I already believe it to be true, all the evidence will apear false?


More or less. Your presuppostions will determine which evidences you accept or reject.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #271 of 411
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
More or less. Your presuppostions will determine which evidences you accept or reject.

If you say so - And yours too?
post #272 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
so you're saying that unless I already believe it to be true, all the evidence will apear false?

Hehe, thus it is with Creationism. Turtles all the way down. This is what answers-in-genesis says about what the best evidence for Creationism is. All of the evidence is the same as evolution be it cosmological, geological, or biological. It's merely that they operate under a different set of assumptions. Of course, the assumptions break many a "law" of science, let alone good scientific practices.
post #273 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
More or less. Your presuppostions will determine which evidences you accept or reject.

And your faith will do exactly the same.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #274 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
And your faith will do exactly the same.


Yes -- absolutely.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #275 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Of course, the assumptions break many a "law" of science, let alone good scientific practices.


I don't see where Creationists break the "laws" of science except that they do not demand things have always been as they are now.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #276 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
IN ANY EVENT you refuse to bind God to a fixed revelation. There is nothing to prove or disprove for you -- your revelation only exists for you, and only as you feel like accepting. It doesn't matter if Christ himself handed you a volume of revelation, it still wouldn't be possible for you to accept it -- because the notion of a fixed revelation is anathema to you, it's simply not metaphysically possible from your prespective.

Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?

Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.
post #277 of 411
Well, it's pretty obvious this thread is going to hell, but what the heck, I'll throw some more facts into the mess and see what happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, humphreys is a HUGE joke. It's like citing Richard Hoagland: it doesn't even dignify a explanation.

As I said but you apparently ignored:

please, take the time to look up why he's wrong.

Edit: Here, I'm nice enough to even point you to a paper by christians astrophysists. And they only focus on a portion of his junk science. Other examples would include his total crackpot attempt to explain away the CMB (which, obviously, proves him wrong from a number of angles that he simply ... ignores).

Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research. You don't just go looking for evidence to support your claim, you also try and refute it.
Let's look at this quote from your paper:

Quote:
"The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines."

He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory. Read this about Dr. Humphreys curriculum vitae:

Quote:
"Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist._ For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company._ Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project._ Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico._ He is also the author of the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory."

Some crackpot, eh?

Also picking apart your material, don't you think that acknowleding possible faults in any model is a good idea? It is bullheaded individuals that close their eyes and don't critically analyze their models that are the poor scientists.
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists. Wow, if that's a crime then the entire scientific community is in trouble. What kind of scientist would you be if you didn't collaborate with other individuals.

Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth. You then hold them up as bastions of scientific thinking. Don't you think that's...oh...a bit hypocritical?

But this is all words. Let's look at the science, shall we?
In particular, let's investigate the main point that your source (and the others like it) pound away upon the most: Bounded vs. unbounded universes. If you know anything about relativity, this is the key issue upon which these arguments turn.

First, I will define the two paradigms, and how they differ.

Naturalists believe in a "big bang", in which matter exploded outward. However, physicists also believe that space itself expanded with the matter. This would result (obviously) in a more or less equal-dense universe. Now, relativity theory states that this "space wall" or universe boundary is curved, which would basically mean that it is turned in upon itself. (like a klein bottle). The trick is, you can't measure it. As a matter of fact, you can't measure how large space is, because no matter how far you go, you would eventually loop around and start right back where you started.
Dr. Humphreys model postulates that matter is expanding into space that already exists, which would allow for localized density changes. Now, since the very nature of our experiments would (by necessity) be limited to spacetime (here all cosmologists and physicists would exhale a big "duh"), it would be impossible to measure the "end" of space. It is for this reason, that if at some time we actually did see that the universe was expanding into otherwise "empty" space, Dr. Humphreys model could be proved. Until then, neither axiom upon which the two theories are built can be proved or disproved. It all boils down to what I've said several times, if you start with different axioms, you will end up with different results. It's up to the person to decide what results fit best.

Quote:
Stoo
Evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogensis

Not directly no. It is linked inextricably, however, to naturalism.
The main reson is, life either evolved, or it didn't. (i.e. was created, or came from somewhere else). As I stated sometime ago, descartes believed that science would lead you to God, and the bible would lead you to Christ. In this thread, I am only working on the former.
If anyone has a theory about how life came to be through any other means other than abiogenesis,panspermia, or creation, let me know. I am more than interested.

Quote:
aquatic
Wait, we still didn't get to the part about why Christians are right and, say, the Aztecs' Creation theory was wrong. Benzene please explain. Oh and don't forget to use science.

Aquatic, pay attention: I am calling naturalism on the carpet. Not creation origins. I have given my personal views on the bible, and biblical creation, but that is it.

Case in point, I am going to state a fact that I have already stated, but some members have evidently forgotten.

Quote:
segovius
Tired or not the interpretation is accepted by the foremost academics and Biblical scholars in the world today and in their opinion - which is after all, the one that counts - that the book of Genesis is an amalgamation of pre-existing tradition and is the work of more than one hand.

Moses has been pointed out several times as the person who compiled genesis, most likely from the massive library at alexandria. (He was an eqyptian prince, remember). He would be similar to an editor compiling historical documents to explain an ancient civilization. What is there to get hung up on? Keep it cool DMZ, we've got them on the run.

Quote:
MarcUK
If Benzene or anyone can provide the evidence of, I'm quite prepared to accept the theory of evolution is wrong, and that all other religions are diabolical mimicry planted by Satan to fool me. But Benzene can't even provide a definition of 'information' yet he tells us information cannot increase.

Well actually, I've gotten people to back away from stating evolution as pure fact. That's enough for me. As for a definition of information, I guess I overestimated the capabilities of certain members in the AI community. Here's a link.

For those who don't read links, here's generally what I had in mind, given the fact that DNA has been compared to the "hard drive" of organisms:
"Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data."
Therefore, when I say "new information", that would equal "new data", not "copied data". Do you all get it now?

Quote:
No evidence of Genesis
No evidence of Divine Inspiration
No evidence of a real Jesus

Well, for reasons I've made painfully clear before, I'm only going to cover the first point: If it's not abiogenesis, what is it? I'm all ears.

Quote:
Evidence of Evolution (possibly with minor problems)

Wow. We've gone from infallible fact to "(possibly with minor problems)". Progress has been made!

[edit]
I'm serious about the other hypothesis for life on earth. If it wasn't God, and it wasn't abiogenesis, or little green men, what was it?
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #278 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
It's only impossible until you can provide the evidence that you're correct and I am wrong. I see no evidence of the evolution Theory. I see alot of lies and falsehoods. I don't believe lies lead to truth .


Fixed your post.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #279 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research.

I don't get the 'concept of research?'
Quote:
your paper:

NO! Not 'my' paper.

I gave it to you to show that even christians know he's a crackpot.
Quote:
He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory.

I can't tell if you are serious or consciously trying to pull a slight of hand (aka, lie). The quote was he 'is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory.' We aren't talking about quantum anything, which is what his experience is in, as verified by what you posted.
Quote:
Some crackpot, eh?

UFO nuts play the same game. Junk science always has its crackpot PHD.
Quote:
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists.

Where did that happen other than in your own imagination?
Quote:
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth.

You are delusional. How much of this post are you going to pack with your own hallucinations? Let me know when you can have a discussion about what my posts actually say.
Quote:
Let's look at the science, shall we?

I'd love to, if there was actual science in anything you just posted there. Instead, you just demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of relativity and how it works, in the same way you earlier demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of newton's law of universal gravitation.

As for humphreys' 'science,' check out this piece of total garbage. In it, he ignores everything that makes the CMB so significant. It's obviously written for people like you that don't know what those things are. Do you want to know? TAKE A CLASS AND STOP USING CRACKPOT JUNK SCIENCE. You are at a university, enroll in a class and learn. There are a number of reasons (all conveniently ignored by Humphreys in that article) why the CMB EXACTLY fits the predictions, but you won't understand them until you understand the basics, which you CLEARLY do not right now.

BTW: You need to understand at least basics, and idealy a whole lot more, before you start challenging an entire field. And don't bitch about me not explaining it to you. After the back and forth with you over the 'law of gravity,' it's pretty clear to me that even if I do detail the reasons you still won't understand. You clearly need to be eased into the subject from the beginning.
post #280 of 411
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?

Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.

I think more than revelation, it has to do with what 'facts' are and if we can, in theory, truly receive them. If you start with the human mind as such then I don't it can be proven, although not for a lack of trying. The other alternative is to start from faith in the Bible as a system of truth with Christ being truth -- truth as a person, but in history. That His incarnation is basically being the revelation as an event.

I think I'm begining to confuse myself -- but I think that's basically right. I probably need to shutup and finish looking into this.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human common descent ancestor discovered