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).
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.).
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."
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.
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.
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.)
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'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
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).
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.
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.).
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."
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.
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.)
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'?
Originally posted by segovius
Can't we talk about Ra or something ?
Originally posted by MarcUK
Evidence of Jesus being a personification of the Sun.
Business as usual in AO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by dmz
More or less. Your presuppostions will determine which evidences you accept or reject.
If you say so - And yours too?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Harald
And your faith will do exactly the same.
Yes -- absolutely.