Stephen Meyers account on the mathematical impossibility of darwinism and the intelligent design hypothesis is brilliant and is the answer against any atheist!
There is an increasing amount of scientific evidence of intelligent design and of the existence of one God who created the universe. so please don't be like the 'Deboooooooonked' crowd or the 'where's the evidence' crowd. read Stephen Meyer's book on that. the evidence is everywhere for those willing to se.
Funny how near 200 years after Darwin penned the thought and with all the attempts to observe it, we have yet to observe one species beget another. Also funny how we can’t find a common ancestor between us and the apes we supposedly came from.
The scientific method requires proof at some point. We’re all still waiting for it to arrive. Evolution is a lie, propped up by the same “consensus” types that push global warming (also without valid evidence).
Yes, abiogenesis isn't evolution. Nobody who knows anything says that. However, we do have most of abiogenesis worked out. What do you believe, that Noah fit some of every species aboard the relatively small ark that would be incapable of carrying food and fresh water for a year or even being ventilated properly, assuming a 600-year-old man and a handful of unskilled laborers with bronze-age tools at best could make it? How'd the animals then go exactly where they're supposed to go? Why do all records we have from outside the area show life just went on as normal?
No it doesn't, there's no waters above or below, the earth isn't a plane, the sun is just another star and the moon isn't a light, and any kindergartener could tell you making plants before the sun is a really retarded move. Give me one problem with evolution.
You don’t see from a programmers POV. When you control Space and Time and able to halt all the rules, you can do any measured action without seen consequences.
I don’t know if God and replay my whole life with me (that would be embarrassing). But I belief such an entity could have that ability, if it wanted to.
David Berlinski explains how the Darwinian theory of evolution doesn’t meet the requirements of the hard sciences (5 minutes): https://youtu.be/SOtGb8hKyWE
The problems are mathematical (lack of time), the fossil record not corresponding to the theory, lack of observed species change in the lab (which should be observable with certain forms of bacteria with a life cycle that only lasts seconds), and public confusion around the difference between adaptation and evolution.
The scientific deBOOONKERs and gnu atheists love to use evolution as necessarily including and encompassing abiogenesis as a disproof of the Bible and therefore Christiantity.
Abiogenesis is a crock. But it's too detailed to get into in a short post.
(I have a doctorate in molecular physics, so don't try the proof by intimidation crap on me, I don't have time for bullshit.)
For the flood, the problem is that you are examining it solely from a naturalistic point of view (no supernatural, "uniformity of causes in a closed system"). This is not a cheap appeal to deux ex machina as a desperate expedient, because the interaction of God is baked right in, and is in fact the driving element behind everything, rather than (as a naturalist might see it) a "get out of jail free card" so you don't have to explain anything. It's not "where did all the f***ing water come from, we'll invent a God to explain it, "why are there rainbows, let's invent a God to explain it" but the participants are used to an active monotheistic God intervening in human affairs (Abram to Abraham, Sodom / Gomorrah, Joseph / Passover) and the flood is one more (earlier) instance of such, to them.
The ones who use gods/demons as a substitute for systematic empirical study / hypothesis / test / record / refine, are the polytheists, read up on the Greek and Roman deities; and the idea of a rational Universe following from a rational God, and the idea, "Hey! We can make use of this!" is from the late medieval period.
As far as other records, why should they be accepted over the Biblical account -- that is, it seems any time there is any archaeological finding, many groups have an overt bias towards attempting to eliminate / discredit anything which comports with Biblical accounts first; which has only recently begun to turn around even in, say, Biblical studies themselves.
But for the sake of argument, you do have other surviving legends of some sort of a great flood (Gilgamesh); the best candidate for a historical (coining a phrase) "super-duper flood beyond a single tsunami or river valley" might be the breaking of the Black Sea Ice Dam. As far as the people involved were concerned (no satellite imagery, no autobahns or Interstate Highways, no iPhones and internet) "everything" was pretty much wiped out.
But the reason I don't dismiss it entirely as pure mythology, is, it seems like WAY too much fuss for WAY too little explanation. "God put the bow in the clouds as a sign" -- I was never that concerned over rainbows. And the other odd little thing, is, reading Genesis, way before Noah, it mentioned that in the Garden of Eden, it didn't rain, but a mist came up and watered the face of the ground; in other words, it isn't (like an arbitrary myth would have), it always rained but God magically added rainbows after the flood; rather, rainbows were held to be contemporaneous with the first rain. A subtle touch of consistency one would not expect of Bronze Age yada yada... Certainly not dispositive, but something to make one raise an eyebrow and go, "That's odd..."
Abiogenesis is nowhere near the level of proof we have for evolution, but it's a whole lot more solid than anything your bible proposes. Yes, things are examined from a naturalistic point of view because there is zero evidence of anything supernatural. There's as much proof of your god as for leprechauns or the tooth fairy. You need to prove there is a god before you can use it to explain anything, and even then it's not an explanation of what your god does to do anything. There definitively WAS NOT a worldwide flood, but we do have evidence there was a local flood around Iraq (you mention the Gilgamesh story, same area, but we actually have sediments that suggest a flood happened there, no need for any myths). I don't see how your rainbow shit does anything either.
Medieval scholars realized that God is rational, and infer the Universe is rational, and that we can (hopefully) find more of the Mind of the Maker, by investigating his handiwork, the natural Universe.
Along the way, various intellectual precepts and rules are developed; Occam's razor, null hypothesis, empiricism (experiment, a HUGE improvement over the slavish aherence-to-authority practiced by the Greeks and Romans, as well as an antidote to the sophistry of "Achilles can never catch the turtle" --> which if they but knew it, was a great approach to the concept of limits, infinite series, and therefore calculus. But I digress), changing one variable at a time, control groups, and so forth.
Over time, they decided to eliminate interference by the supernatural for a couple of reasons. One, they could not (literally) control for it; two, to allow for the active interference of the supernatural would mean they could not apply "uniformity of causes". So the exclusion of the supernatural was a convenience, not a "scientificall proven" experimental result.
The other point, which seems to go in one ear and out the other, is that the supernatural is not used as an explanation. Nor was it ever, by monotheists; not in the way you are trying to say. The issue here is that there are two meanings of the word because: one of them is cause and effect --> my foot is broken BECAUSE I dropped a bowling ball on it. The other is grounds/consequence: these two triangles are congruent BECAUSE they fulfill the conditions of the side-angle-side geometric theorem.
When the monotheists said "God did it" they were referring to grounds-consequent.
God has established and ordained, that such-and-such follows from the other. The experiementalists were looking for cause-and-effect, that is, mechanism.
The search for mechanism, leads to a similar type of category error as above with "uniformity of causes in a closed system" -- since we know the mechanism by which this occurred,there is no need to invent a fanciful 'God' to explain things we don't know: the "god of the gaps" error.
But the obeisance to God, is not a stopgap explanation by savages, but a reminder that he is the ultimate Creator and root cause, the "unmoved mover". The only logical alternative to a final cause, is infinite regression ("turtles all the way down.")
It is not scientifc: but that is not a slur, or discrediting, because it is one level deeper than physics: it is metaphysics.
But to deal with that, you'd have to go back to Aristotle and then Thomas Aquinas.
That’s literally the point - lower species are supposed to have begotten higher species. There is no proof this has ever happened beyond everything being here.
Lol, so wrong on so many levels... but I’m sure you believe the “science is settled.” Modernity convinced everyone they were super smart, only to ensure they were incredibly dumb.
Stephen Meyers account on the mathematical impossibility of darwinism and the intelligent design hypothesis is brilliant and is the answer against any atheist!
How does intelligent design explain an entire race of imbeciles?
they are our test on this planet.
Trust the plan!
Don’t believe your lying eyes, instead put your faith in my 2000-year-old mythology that there’s zero evidence for.
correction 6000 years. it started with Abraham.
There is an increasing amount of scientific evidence of intelligent design and of the existence of one God who created the universe. so please don't be like the 'Deboooooooonked' crowd or the 'where's the evidence' crowd. read Stephen Meyer's book on that. the evidence is everywhere for those willing to se.
No, you're a retard.
Funny how near 200 years after Darwin penned the thought and with all the attempts to observe it, we have yet to observe one species beget another. Also funny how we can’t find a common ancestor between us and the apes we supposedly came from.
The scientific method requires proof at some point. We’re all still waiting for it to arrive. Evolution is a lie, propped up by the same “consensus” types that push global warming (also without valid evidence).
That's not how evolution works, retard.
That's how it's presented by those who wish to destroy Christianity.
cough changes in observed allele frequencies in a population cough cough does not treat of abiogenesis cough
Smarter than you™
Yes, abiogenesis isn't evolution. Nobody who knows anything says that. However, we do have most of abiogenesis worked out. What do you believe, that Noah fit some of every species aboard the relatively small ark that would be incapable of carrying food and fresh water for a year or even being ventilated properly, assuming a 600-year-old man and a handful of unskilled laborers with bronze-age tools at best could make it? How'd the animals then go exactly where they're supposed to go? Why do all records we have from outside the area show life just went on as normal?
You conflated the story of Noah’s Ark with evolution.
I don’t have all the answers as to why some of these Biblical stories seem fanciful. But the Big Bang Theory sounds a lot like the beginning Genesis.
Of all the outrageous statements and stories that could be imagined, Genesis is incredible accurate to what the Big Bang Theory is all about.
There are many, many problems with Evolution that simply won’t get resolved in this hostile conversation though.
No it doesn't, there's no waters above or below, the earth isn't a plane, the sun is just another star and the moon isn't a light, and any kindergartener could tell you making plants before the sun is a really retarded move. Give me one problem with evolution.
You don’t see from a programmers POV. When you control Space and Time and able to halt all the rules, you can do any measured action without seen consequences.
I don’t know if God and replay my whole life with me (that would be embarrassing). But I belief such an entity could have that ability, if it wanted to.
David Berlinski explains how the Darwinian theory of evolution doesn’t meet the requirements of the hard sciences (5 minutes): https://youtu.be/SOtGb8hKyWE
A longer conversation on the subject: https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE
The problems are mathematical (lack of time), the fossil record not corresponding to the theory, lack of observed species change in the lab (which should be observable with certain forms of bacteria with a life cycle that only lasts seconds), and public confusion around the difference between adaptation and evolution.
The scientific deBOOONKERs and gnu atheists love to use evolution as necessarily including and encompassing abiogenesis as a disproof of the Bible and therefore Christiantity.
Abiogenesis is a crock. But it's too detailed to get into in a short post.
(I have a doctorate in molecular physics, so don't try the proof by intimidation crap on me, I don't have time for bullshit.)
For the flood, the problem is that you are examining it solely from a naturalistic point of view (no supernatural, "uniformity of causes in a closed system"). This is not a cheap appeal to deux ex machina as a desperate expedient, because the interaction of God is baked right in, and is in fact the driving element behind everything, rather than (as a naturalist might see it) a "get out of jail free card" so you don't have to explain anything. It's not "where did all the f***ing water come from, we'll invent a God to explain it, "why are there rainbows, let's invent a God to explain it" but the participants are used to an active monotheistic God intervening in human affairs (Abram to Abraham, Sodom / Gomorrah, Joseph / Passover) and the flood is one more (earlier) instance of such, to them.
The ones who use gods/demons as a substitute for systematic empirical study / hypothesis / test / record / refine, are the polytheists, read up on the Greek and Roman deities; and the idea of a rational Universe following from a rational God, and the idea, "Hey! We can make use of this!" is from the late medieval period.
As far as other records, why should they be accepted over the Biblical account -- that is, it seems any time there is any archaeological finding, many groups have an overt bias towards attempting to eliminate / discredit anything which comports with Biblical accounts first; which has only recently begun to turn around even in, say, Biblical studies themselves.
But for the sake of argument, you do have other surviving legends of some sort of a great flood (Gilgamesh); the best candidate for a historical (coining a phrase) "super-duper flood beyond a single tsunami or river valley" might be the breaking of the Black Sea Ice Dam. As far as the people involved were concerned (no satellite imagery, no autobahns or Interstate Highways, no iPhones and internet) "everything" was pretty much wiped out.
But the reason I don't dismiss it entirely as pure mythology, is, it seems like WAY too much fuss for WAY too little explanation. "God put the bow in the clouds as a sign" -- I was never that concerned over rainbows. And the other odd little thing, is, reading Genesis, way before Noah, it mentioned that in the Garden of Eden, it didn't rain, but a mist came up and watered the face of the ground; in other words, it isn't (like an arbitrary myth would have), it always rained but God magically added rainbows after the flood; rather, rainbows were held to be contemporaneous with the first rain. A subtle touch of consistency one would not expect of Bronze Age yada yada... Certainly not dispositive, but something to make one raise an eyebrow and go, "That's odd..."
Abiogenesis is nowhere near the level of proof we have for evolution, but it's a whole lot more solid than anything your bible proposes. Yes, things are examined from a naturalistic point of view because there is zero evidence of anything supernatural. There's as much proof of your god as for leprechauns or the tooth fairy. You need to prove there is a god before you can use it to explain anything, and even then it's not an explanation of what your god does to do anything. There definitively WAS NOT a worldwide flood, but we do have evidence there was a local flood around Iraq (you mention the Gilgamesh story, same area, but we actually have sediments that suggest a flood happened there, no need for any myths). I don't see how your rainbow shit does anything either.
(rolls eyes into next county).
That's not factually correct. The closest I can come to explaining your error, is an old TV commercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imv0g-4cycw
The highly abbreviated summary goes like this.
Medieval scholars realized that God is rational, and infer the Universe is rational, and that we can (hopefully) find more of the Mind of the Maker, by investigating his handiwork, the natural Universe.
Along the way, various intellectual precepts and rules are developed; Occam's razor, null hypothesis, empiricism (experiment, a HUGE improvement over the slavish aherence-to-authority practiced by the Greeks and Romans, as well as an antidote to the sophistry of "Achilles can never catch the turtle" --> which if they but knew it, was a great approach to the concept of limits, infinite series, and therefore calculus. But I digress), changing one variable at a time, control groups, and so forth.
Over time, they decided to eliminate interference by the supernatural for a couple of reasons. One, they could not (literally) control for it; two, to allow for the active interference of the supernatural would mean they could not apply "uniformity of causes". So the exclusion of the supernatural was a convenience, not a "scientificall proven" experimental result.
The other point, which seems to go in one ear and out the other, is that the supernatural is not used as an explanation. Nor was it ever, by monotheists; not in the way you are trying to say. The issue here is that there are two meanings of the word because: one of them is cause and effect --> my foot is broken BECAUSE I dropped a bowling ball on it. The other is grounds/consequence: these two triangles are congruent BECAUSE they fulfill the conditions of the side-angle-side geometric theorem.
When the monotheists said "God did it" they were referring to grounds-consequent. God has established and ordained, that such-and-such follows from the other. The experiementalists were looking for cause-and-effect, that is, mechanism. The search for mechanism, leads to a similar type of category error as above with "uniformity of causes in a closed system" -- since we know the mechanism by which this occurred,there is no need to invent a fanciful 'God' to explain things we don't know: the "god of the gaps" error.
But the obeisance to God, is not a stopgap explanation by savages, but a reminder that he is the ultimate Creator and root cause, the "unmoved mover". The only logical alternative to a final cause, is infinite regression ("turtles all the way down.") It is not scientifc: but that is not a slur, or discrediting, because it is one level deeper than physics: it is metaphysics.
But to deal with that, you'd have to go back to Aristotle and then Thomas Aquinas.
Why the hell did he let two Africans on the boat?
I want to know how South American natives got on the thing!
and the first monkey ... male or female? or both, or trannny?.... also, the monkey-human in a million years is gona be ... mmmmh avatar ? smh
That’s literally the point - lower species are supposed to have begotten higher species. There is no proof this has ever happened beyond everything being here.
No, it's not. It's gradual change at the population level over many generations. There are countless examples of this happening in the fossil record.
Oh, so it doesn't involve humans emerging from apes? You don't even know the finer points behind the garbage you're pushing, how pathetic...
And no, there are zero examples in the fossil record of a new species emerging from a previous one. There are simply different species.
Humans are apes, and your understanding is still completely wrong.
Lol, so wrong on so many levels... but I’m sure you believe the “science is settled.” Modernity convinced everyone they were super smart, only to ensure they were incredibly dumb.