# There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Don't be fooled. The science is there. 





[video=youtube;ppIgFEFUpjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

well goddamn!


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

More to come.



[video=youtube;KNeCI7T-l7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNeCI7T-l7I&feature=channel[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and watch these vids again.


Proof of god is not hard to find considering the concept is unfalsifiable. Anything you look at becomes evidence. A butterfly, a rainbow, a human hair, are all evidence of god to a true believer. That concept involves about as much science as those videos.

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. - Dr House


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> I suggest you familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and watch these vids again.



Your right that Nasa scientist must not have understood your logical fallacies. That molecular biologists is completely confused. What about all the scientists that signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" they must not know about these logical fallacies either. Here are a few of the scientists names that must not understand.

Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia &#8226; Fred Sigworth, Prof.of Cellular & Molecular Physiology,Yale Grad. 
School&#8226; Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member &#8226; Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics,Tulane U. &#8226; Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton &#8226; Michael 
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. &#8226; Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois &#8226; Tony Mega,Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry,Whitworth College &#8226; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus 
of Biology, San Francisco State &#8226; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath &#8226; Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville &#8226; David 
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico &#8226; James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida &#8226; Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan &#8226; Robert 
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. &#8226; Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado &#8226; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College &#8226; William A. Dembski, PhD 
Mathematics-U. of Chicago &#8226; George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida &#8226; Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. &#8226; James Keener, Prof. of 
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah &#8226; Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington &#8226; Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore 
Laboratories &#8226; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology,Technische Universität München &#8226; Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis &#8226; Joseph Atkinson, 
PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.,American Chemical William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-PrincetonSociety member &#8226; Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus &#8226; Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum 
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho &#8226; Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept Chemistry, U. of Georgia &#8226; Jeanne Drisko,Ass


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Nov 26, 2010)

Can you please summerize these for me mate.
+Rep If you do.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

[video=youtube;SNkxpTIbCIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Japanfreak (Nov 26, 2010)

[video=youtube;qq7LXn4KSrM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM[/video]
More to come


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

[video=youtube;OWng3m7REdQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWng3m7REdQ&feature=&p=9D51375433A0471F&index=0&playnext=1[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

The banana was made by god for man because it fits so nicely in our hand, and is so easy for us to eat? How do you explain a pineapple?



> Your right that Nasa scientist must not have understood your logical fallacies. That molecular biologists is completely confused. What about all the scientists that signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" they must not know about these logical fallacies either. Here are a few of the scientists names that must not understand.


Scientists are not fool proof, a fact that is well known, especially if they are outside of their field of study. This is why we have something called peer review. Peer review is the very reson the concepts in those videos have remained in pseudoscience, instead of mainstream. Just because someone works in the field of science does not mean they are critical thinkers.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

"Two hands working can accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer" - Heisenberg

very thought provoking sig there my friend

Namaste'


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

[video=youtube;sSwh0X3ph-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwh0X3ph-w&feature=related[/video]



Basically all I am getting at is there is more than one point of view on how this world got here. Many of the worlds leading scientist admit that they see evidence that there may be creative design.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

Guess you didn't like the way your other thread was going, huh? 
*Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt.

If you close your eyes tight enough, I think you can see God.
*


----------



## Pipe Dream (Nov 26, 2010)

I've been watching the video and nothing has convinced me that there is a god and that evoloution is wrong. They only saw darwin is wrong about us coming from one single organism but admit that evolution happens. They talk about an explosion of different types of creatures but that isn't proof of god but it is interesting. However life started it'snot far fetched to believe many different types of life emerged at the same time and evolution has been happening since.

The inhabiting parameters seem to be what we need to survive or inhabit another planet not necessarily what life needs to exist. Perhaps there is life somewhere else that doesn't require the same laws which would basically make the whole statistical improbabilities they talk about irrelevant. We exist because it's here not the other way around and life has been evolving with the current scenarios therefore if something was taken away life AS WE KNOW IT could not exist. 

There is definately not any proof that god as is worshipped is real only that there seems to be a beginning, and hasn't answered the age old questions like what came first the chicken or the egg? or if there is god where did god come from? I like my scietifical shows to stick to the facts and not beliefs.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> The banana was made by god for man because it fits so nicely in our hand, and is so easy for us to eat? How do you explain a pineapple?
> 
> Scientists are not fool proof, a fact that is well known, especially if they are outside of their field of study. This is why we have something called peer review. Peer review is the very reson the concepts in those videos have remained in pseudoscience, instead of mainstream. Just because someone works in the field of science does not mean they are critical thinkers.




Oh I see now. The scientific argument only works if your against creation. But as soon as someone brings up some scientific evidence for creation than your response is "Scientists are not fool proof". All those scientists where professionals in the field of study that they where speaking about. They did not have a Mathematician on there talking about biology. They had a biologist talking about biology. As for peer review, what do you think prompted the document I spoke of earlier "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". That was a long list of who's who in the science community that reject Darwin's theory. Oh well I guess those opinions don't line up with what you want to believe so lets just ignore them eh. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Guess you didn't like the way your other thread was going, huh?
> *Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt.
> 
> If you close your eyes tight enough, I think you can see God.
> *



Naw man that post was more of a joke. Just trying to see how many people would come on and start throwing insults. I have not checked in on it, I bet when I do it will be filled with hatred and insults much like the one you just posted.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 26, 2010)

Disproving the TOE does not make the idea that a god did it any more likely. Your list of scientific dissenters claim, _"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
_The term Darwinism is at best ambiguous and means different things depending on who you talk to. Larmarckism was an alternative to natural selection or 'Darwinism.'
Nothing in that statement says that organisms don't evolve. 

Biology, you're right in my wheelhouse. I will treat you kindly if you do likewise. I will watch your hour long videos if you watch a few 10 minute ones. I think you will find these much more entertaining than just watching an interview regardless of how you feel about the topic. I encourage you to really pay attention, AronRa talks fast at times and throws a lot of information out there but I seriously would appreciate it if you would watch carefully and answer some honest questions regarding some of the points made. 
I will do the same for your videos. 

[youtube]91UAzMNUDLU[/youtube]
[youtube]wH8LOQAu-5I[/youtube]
[youtube]J3yDOp8Dv8Y[/youtube]
[youtube]TUxLR9hdorI[/youtube]


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

I stand by science, just not humans, As I explained, humans are fallable, including myself. This is why science is constantly changing it's mind in the face of new evidence. Diffrence is, when science is wrong, it takes note and corrects it, religion never changes it's mind in spite of evidence, but would rather manufacture evidence to support it's conclusions.

From wikipedia 


> The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community. Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public. The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.
> 
> Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading, and that *a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs*. The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community, and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts.
> 
> *In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields*. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".


Looks to me like peer review rejected the document.


----------



## Japanfreak (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> The banana was made by god for man because it fits so nicely in our hand, and is so easy for us to eat? How do you explain a pineapple?


That's why god gave us asses


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Basically all I am getting at is there is more than one point of view on how this world got here. Many of the worlds leading scientist admit that they see evidence that there may be creative design.


Not all points of view are equally valid though.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Naw man that post was more of a joke. Just trying to see how many people would come on and start throwing insults. I have not checked in on it, I bet when I do it will be filled with hatred and insults much like the one you just posted.


Perpetuating ignorance, is an insult to mankind.
READ............

Perception is a matter of perspective.
Follow the evidence, not faith.

If you choose to worship, why not go all the way?
Find the origins of your God, so that you can become closer to him.

Ever heard of Ezekiel's Wheel?
How about the Book of Enoch?
How about Sumeria?
What about YHWH of Midian?
Would it interest you to know you are actually worshiping the volcano god YHWH?
What about the multitude of stories banned from the bible?

READ............


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

Intelligent Design can be debunked with a simple mathematical equation, that creates seemingly unimaginable designs.
This equation is known as fractals. It takes away a little more of the magic, and replaces it with science.
*Hunting the hidden dimension*


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

[youtube]eAAGR_Vr2lU[/youtube]


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Many of the worlds leading scientist admit that they see evidence that there may be creative design.


A more accurate way to put it; A tiny fraction of scientists, most outside their field of expertise, signed some paper for reasons other than science.


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Nov 26, 2010)

This is all getting out of hand lmao.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Perpetuating ignorance, is an insult to mankind.
> READ............
> 
> Perception is a matter of perspective.
> ...


And when you get done.....

*READ SOME MORE* 

Yod He' Vah' He'

Tertragrammaton

Enki

Enlil

that is the beginning of western gods...unfortunately there are so far no texts older than Sumerian so Enlil is the beginning


*READ SOME MORE*

So whaddya say cracker? Gonna read or.......

Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

There is a creator, and evolution is real. 

We here are simply genetic experiments, by that i mean our physical. we were created by aliens, and they have been the source for a large chunk of our major religions.

Creation begins as a source of sound, light and color emanating from a pulsating orb of consciousness. 12 spiraling cones (horns, tones, harmonics) burst forth forming a circle around the source consciousness, connecting with it and each other to create endless grid programs of experience following a geometric blueprint we call sacred geometry. Soul sparks of light spiral from the central source, randomly moving into the grids to consciously experience.

The "12 around 1 pattern" (12 = 1+2=3) or third dimension references physical reality as nothing more than a biogenetic experiment based on linear time to experience emotions.

We mark time in cycles and loops following this pattern -- clock, calendar, zodiac wheel, alchemy wheel, etc.

so in short everything is ONE. The creator "god" is simply the source of our conciousness. our spiritual body lives on for eternity. the physical body is just a vessel to gather intelligence for the divine mind. every lifetime, depending on how you lived, you will either move forward or backward in your journey to connect back to our mother source. we live life after life after life, and the fact that we are intelligent humans means we are a good ways into our journey. depending how you live this life will determine whether you move up or not. The universe has granted you an opportunity beyond imagination, its really up to you if you make use of it or not.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

rhino1111 said:


> There is a creator, and evolution is real.
> 
> We here are simply genetic experiments, by that i mean our physical. we were created by aliens, and they have been the source for a large chunk of our major religions.
> 
> ...


mental masturbation is da shit!!

Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> mental masturbation is da shit!!
> 
> Namaste'


lol meditation? connecting to higher self? if thats what you meant i agree. 

not sure if you were mocking me or not...


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

no, not condescending at all my friend...to no one at anytime

heavy meditation student here...daily ....


just love the way your words made my brain feel...that mental masturbation....awesome feelings from the thoughts your words created in my brain

Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> no, not condescending at all my friend...to no one at anytime
> 
> heavy meditation student here...daily ....
> 
> ...


oh im glad to hear!

keep up the meditation! have you ever done chakra work? 
I meditate alot myself.

EDIT: through chakra work you can expand your knowledge of the cosmos greatly! you will reach a point where you will start seeing sacred geometry, which means you stepped up vibrations to another level. when you "upgrade" past sacred geometry you can really start to expand your knowledge by physically experiencing with your spiritual. hard to explain...


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE

Travel to realms beyond your wildest dreams my friend...use chemical gates when available ...such as but not limited to, thc, lsd, mdma, dmt, mescaline, shrooms, etc. and so on

I try through meditation to live in the eternal moment of now...it always is and is the only thing so why waste energy on falsities....why wait for 'heaven" when you can be there always...state of being it is...not a place

But ahh the primality of the third chakra is a real distraction from purity of thought at times....

Namaste'


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

rhino1111 said:


> oh im glad to hear!
> 
> keep up the meditation! have you ever done chakra work?
> I meditate alot myself.
> ...


manifestation of your will upon the physical

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"

Namaste'


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Nov 26, 2010)

Words from the wise^^^^
Fucking love it!


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

the path is narrow and sharp...so simple it is elusive...so beautiful it is frightening....but so lifting you can't stop

the journey is the joy....not the destination....not the result but the work...the art of causing the result is the joy bliss and truth....pursue the work...not the result and only then will the result arise true golden and eternal...

Namaste'


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> the path is narrow and sharp...so simple it is elusive...so beautiful it is frightening....but so lifting you can't stop
> 
> the journey is the joy....not the destination....not the result but the work...the art of causing the result is the joy bliss and truth....pursue the work...not the result and only then will the result arise true golden and eternal...
> 
> Namaste'


Oh my mary j.
+REP


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE
> 
> Travel to realms beyond your wildest dreams my friend...use chemical gates when available ...such as but not limited to, thc, lsd, mdma, dmt, mescaline, shrooms, etc. and so on
> 
> ...


yess! you have collapsed your chakras before and astral projected then  ive done it. did you experience that lifting feeling of your eternal body leaving and that "tube" type thing right after when traveling into Time Space- Space Time. where you travel down it its spiraling and vibrating and just all crazy and fast. then its kinda like you wake up and your where you want to be, no sensation of the physical, no boundaries. yet its kinda like you are in your physical. man soo hard to explain!


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

rhino1111 said:


> yess! you have collapsed your chakras before and astral projected then  ive done it. did you experience that lifting feeling of your eternal body leaving and that "tube" type thing right after when traveling into Time Space- Space Time. where you travel down it its spiraling and vibrating and just all crazy and fast. then its kinda like you wake up and your where you want to be, no sensation of the physical, no boundaries. yet its kinda like you are in your physical. man soo hard to explain!


ive seen the 12 around 1. there is also something called 36 around 1 outside of that. 12 Around 1 X 3 [the 3D box, 'X', Above and Below, DNA] = 36 creational forces
surround the cube and imprint consciousness inserts for experience and knowledge


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

well the thing I find is how the stars get tangled in my hair and the galaxies dance to my music and the beings of the western gate dance with fury as the minions of the seventh gate shiver in glee at the awesomeness that has caressed them.....

me


Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> well the thing I find is how the stars get tangled in my hair and the galaxies dance to my music and the beings of the western gate dance with fury as the minions of the seventh gate shiver in glee at the awesomeness that has caressed them.....
> 
> me
> 
> ...


ive had similiar experiences, but i was just kinda going by them, stars, galaxies, to me didnt seem like they were dancing but i ended up somewhere where i was surrounded by these evil looking creatures and it was like they wanted to come after me...it was trips i lost all focus and snapped back into physical reality. 

to add to the 36 around 1 i found this off the net perfect words to describe it...

The box is our reality, a virtual experience in linear time and emotion created by the patterns of sacred geometry. Creation takes place outside of the box, consciousness grids, creating endless intertwined experiences to be played out in physical reality. In this case, 'Thinking Outside the Box' means viewing reality as patterns locked in time, encoded in our DNA through which we experience. When you think outside the box your consciousness moves beyond linear thinking.

When we have an idea, or thought. it is a physical object in creation. energy was put into it and something was output, your thought. there is a plain of existence with just thoughts, every thought has mass and is a physical thing. the next step is to use your will to influence your thought into a building block. in that other thread a guy stated it perfect. Your thought is created, you need to believe with the pit of your soul it will happen, have no doubts, or impure thoughts/ intentions, project the energy. the thought will make its way to the outside of the box, and head back to actually create your thought from something that was just energy, into something physical. we all have the ability to shape our reality and lives.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

always outside the box looking in to find what I left there to begin with...language so does not allow these thigs to come across....ahh well i sent it so you will find it


Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> always outside the box looking in to find what I left there to begin with...language so does not allow these thigs to come across....ahh well i sent it so you will find it
> 
> 
> Namaste'


what your trying to say is thought is created outside the box? 

i still dont know alot of things. i began my journey not to long ago, so i still have alot to discover!! im always looking to expand my knowledge.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

stop wanting...for if you want then all you will receive is the want

Acknowledge and it is done...it is now in existence forever...unless you start wanting again then it is gone and all your are left with is the want...follow?

Namaste'

when you go there you are driving and have complete control...when the primalities come out to play just study how exquisitly they are form...how ther skin shines and the artistic beauty of their design...it is truly awe inspiring...as it is your design...you created it all so examine your skill and relish in it....dont try to get anything or anywhere....just enjoy the journey and love the art


Namaste'


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

enjoy the journey my friend and drop the lust of result....the work the art the journey is the prize...not the result

Namaste'


----------



## rhino1111 (Nov 26, 2010)

Illumination said:


> stop wanting...for if you want then all you will receive is the want
> 
> Acknowledge and it is done...it is now in existence forever...unless you start wanting again then it is gone and all your are left with is the want...follow?
> 
> ...


yes completely understood that.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Perpetuating ignorance, is an insult to mankind.
> READ............
> 
> Perception is a matter of perspective.
> ...



I have read all about that crap. Your attempt to mix together several different stories show that you did not fully understand what you where reading or that your are purposely mixing them in an attempt to cast some sort of doubt. But contrary to what you believe I read a lot more than you think.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> A more accurate way to put it; A tiny fraction of scientists, most outside their field of expertise, signed some paper for reasons other than science.



Yeah why don't you take a closer look at the names and what their professions are before you make such a statement. At least take the time to google a few names before making such baseless claims. Most of those people are professors at major universities. If they where that full of crap than they would not be employed.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

"what your trying to say is thought is created outside the box?"

True pure thought; the essence of all 

now the scales are falling from his eyes that he may see...and see he does...for the truth he has yearned for and sought lies not without but within...awesome my friend...now smoke and be merry

For I am venturing now ....

Namaste'


----------



## Illumination (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Yeah why don't you take a closer look at the names and what their professions are before you make such a statement. At least take the time to google a few names before making such baseless claims. Most of those people are professors at major universities. If they where that full of crap than they would not be employed.


Wish to clarify that I seek not to put you down but to lift you...higher power, creator, god, whatever label...you find it ...the one that fits for you and you hold onto it with all you are my friend

And that will NEVER fail you nor anyone

Namaste'


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I have read all about that crap. Your attempt to mix together several different stories show that you did not fully understand what you where reading or that your are purposely mixing them in an attempt to cast some sort of doubt. But contrary to what you believe I read a lot more than you think.


I did not mix any stories. I merely lined out a few different questions about your religious history.
If you can't see this, Then you have either failed to understand, or you are lying about your literal exposure.
*Name one question in my series that is out of context of your direct religious history.
*

Ever heard of Ezekiel's Wheel?
How about the Book of Enoch?
How about Sumeria?
What about YHWH of Midian?
Would it interest you to know you are actually worshiping the volcano god YHWH?
What about the multitude of stories banned from the bible?


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 26, 2010)

This thread went all darma and greg.

*cue laugh track*


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

rhino1111 said:


> yess! you have collapsed your chakras before and astral projected then  ive done it. did you experience that lifting feeling of your eternal body leaving and that "tube" type thing right after when traveling into Time Space- Space Time. where you travel down it its spiraling and vibrating and just all crazy and fast. then its kinda like you wake up and your where you want to be, no sensation of the physical, no boundaries. yet its kinda like you are in your physical. man soo hard to explain!



yeah I practice asshole projection all the time. mostly when I eat taco bell.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Yeah why don't you take a closer look at the names and what their professions are before you make such a statement. At least take the time to google a few names before making such baseless claims. Most of those people are professors at major universities. If they where that full of crap than they would not be employed.


I did google the document, and discovered that mainstream science, through peer review, rejected it. The signatures represented about .01% of the scientists in the relevant fields, with most admitting they deny evolution for religious reasons, not science. Fact is, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. So if your logic is, scientists must know what they are talking about, don't you have to side with the majority? Otherwise you would have to believe that rather than being the fault of scientific merit, it is instead a result of a conspiracy among experts to mislead the public.


Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some reasearch. When you examine the names of those scientist lots of suspicious things stand out. For example...


> The Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement _A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism_. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading. For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells.
> *Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. *At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science.


In addition, mainstream science released a document signed by experts who do believe in evolution. Called Project Steve, the document was restricted to only those scientists named steven, or a variation. Despite this restriction the list is much longer.



> Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve#cite_note-2 _Project Steve_ is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, _Project Steve_ contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the listed Steves are biologists.


In a response from the discovery institute, (sponsors of the original list) they admit evolution is the accepted theory. 


> If Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies -- that fact was never in question.


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> I did google the document, and discovered that mainstream science, through peer review, rejected it. The signitures represented about .01% of the scientists in the relevant fields, with most admitting they deny evolution for religious reasons, not science. Fact is, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. So if your logic is, scientists must know what they are talking about, don't you have to side with the majority? Otherwise you would have to believe that rather than being the fault of scientific merit, it is instead a result of a conspiracy among experts to mislead the public.




As far as I can tell you read one wiki thread and stuck with that. Come on man really your going to throw out that pointless number (.01%). That means nothing. You are correct they did not try to get every scientist to sign it. They just got some major figures in American education to sign. This was a major statement about evolution theory put together by scientists from MIT and many other major universities. Just because a few of them admitted that they are religious does not automatically discredit their credentials. That's like saying that every atheist opinion about evolution should be thrown out because they are biased. It goes both ways.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> As far as I can tell you read one wiki thread and stuck with that. Come on man really your going to throw out that pointless number (.01%). That means nothing. You are correct they did not try to get every scientist to sign it. They just got some major figures in American education to sign. This was a major statement about evolution theory put together by scientists from MIT and many other major universities. Just because a few of them admitted that they are religious does not automatically discredit their credentials. That's like saying that every atheist opinion about evolution should be thrown out because they are biased. It goes both ways.


Nice job moving the goalpost. The point wasn't that they are religous thus can't be trusted, it was.. they admit the conclusions they signed were based on religious views, not science. If the point is who's got the bigger list, then check this list, which has multiple documents with thousands of scientists signatures all supporting evolution, in addition to dozens and dozens of quotes from experts denouncing creationism. So if your original point is, a few scientists that signed a suspicious document actually meant it, then you are correct. If your point is, evolution is not supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists, even your document disagrees.


----------



## djruiner (Nov 26, 2010)

well..i read some of this....and ummm...where is the proof...or is this just another...i say its facts...so it must be facts thread?


----------



## djruiner (Nov 26, 2010)

nvm..after reloading i saw the HOUR LONG vid that was posted....yet again i ask..where is the proof?


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2010)

All hail the Volcano God!
Down with the Bull God! Long live the Volcano God!
I have come from his mountaintop, set a fire, with 10 rules.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 26, 2010)

djruiner said:


> nvm..after reloading i saw the HOUR LONG vid that was posted....yet again i ask..where is the proof?


 No real examination of evidence has occurred. In any case, he is far from disproving evolution, which the tread title promises.


----------



## djruiner (Nov 26, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> No real examination of evidence has occurred. In any case, he is far from disproving evolution, which the tread title promises.


thats what most religions are good at....false promises and exaggerated claims...i said it...so its fact..believe it..and you get to live in the clouds


----------



## crackerboy (Nov 27, 2010)

Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 27, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.


Anyone? Did I not respond with an offer to you concerning the biological claims in the video? Anything about evolution you want to know or don't understand just ask. Are you going to agree to watch those videos? I will write up a critique of the first video with Lee Strobel and the Discovery Institute "scientists" present. 

Why are you still arguing about the dissent letter? 
I already explained that there is nothing in that letter that actually is says what you claim it does. It says nothing that biologists haven't known for decades. Of course mutation and natural selection aren't sufficient, we know life also used evolutionary processes like adaptive radiation, endosymbiosis, horizontal gene transfer, sexual selection, etc. They present these people as opponents of evolution when the statement the people actually signed says nothing of the sort.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 27, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.


You clearly don't understand my view.
There was a creator.
One of extra-terrestrial origin or, as they say "Came from the heavens".
All cultures say this to some extent.
Scientist and Archeologists have just token the magic out of it.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 27, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> yeah I practice asshole projection all the time. mostly when I eat taco bell.



yes well...you just projected that you are said asshole....his dialog was not even directed at you yet when I did direct towards you in friendship you ignore it...yep...you are the asshole so you and your god are nothing...

Don't look into your own eyes in the mirror.................

Namaste'


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 27, 2010)

[youtube]900ScDcIHvE[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 27, 2010)

I was watching the first video and jotting down notes about some of the claims, especially the ones made by Jonathan Wells, their biologist. It seems that he makes many of the same arguments that have been used for ages by creationists that have been shown to be misunderstanding and mischaracterizations that have already been refuted numerous times by biologists that actually work in the field of evolutionary biology. I'm surprised that Lee Strobel claims to have approached the subject with a critical, skeptical eye, yet not once is any biologist presented to answer the supposed objections. I guess having a wife that converted to Christianity led him to find reasons to try to reconcile his beliefs rather than actually search for the truth.

Wells makes numerous errors and strawman arguments and some of the rebuttals can be found in the videos I posted. But it does seem for every bullshit assertion he makes in 10 seconds, it would take about 10 minutes to explain why he is wrong, mostly because in order to do so, we need to go back and teach remedial biology which takes far longer than it does to make up a criticism. 

Here's one example: He claims "the branching tree pattern of Darwin's theory is not seen ANYWHERE in the fossil record unless we impose it with our own minds."
This is absolutely and entirely rubbish and the first videos I posted demonstrate this very clear, especially the ones comparing cars, something that has homologous features and successive improvements and design changes but do not show an ordered branching pattern to living things which clearly show such a pattern. Carl Linnaeus was a creationist that died before Darwin was born and even he recognized and published in _Systema Naturae_ that life exists in nested hierarchies which are the basis for the phylogenetic tree. So first his claim that Darwin was the first to propose a tree of life is wrong. The tree of life is an inherent characteristic found in nature that was recognized long before _Origin of Species._ Darwin merely gave a rationale as to why such a tree exists. 

So crackerboy, to go through and rebut this hour long video would take me an extraordinary amount of time. I think it would be better if you can bring up some of the individual claims that YOU feel are the strongest and post them one at a time and I will give my answer that way. Sound fair?


----------



## dontexist21 (Nov 28, 2010)

I do not know why you guys waste your time, he obviously has never taken a science class in his life, and does not understand the scientific process or how the arguments work. He is like the people that argue the that evolution can not be true since it is only a theory, when in fact a theory is the highest order of any scientific question. But as mindphuk said why does he bring his questions to use about what he believes is wrong with evolution, but I believe it is to complicated for him to understand.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 28, 2010)

dontexist21 said:


> I do not know why you guys waste your time, he obviously has never taken a science class in his life, and does not understand the scientific process or how the arguments work. He is like the people that argue the that evolution can not be true since it is only a theory, when in fact a theory is the highest order of any scientific question. But as mindphuk said why does he bring his questions to use about what he believes is wrong with evolution, but I believe it is to complicated for him to understand.


I waste my time because I have found that not all people discussing this are unreasonable and although at first things might conflict with deeply held beliefs, critical thinking is actually a skill people can learn and improve their ability to understanding the deductive and inductive arguments that science makes. Some people enjoy learning about these scientific discoveries as they are really fascinating. It becomes a bigger hurdle when people are unwilling to acknowledge the power that real critical thinking gave humanity and discount logic and reason in even these informal discussions. 

@crackerboy, seriously, did you ever stop and think that even those videos you posted are people that are trying to convince you using logic and reason? Of course it's not their rational arguments that convince you they are right, it is their ideology because their use of logic break downs on close examination. Their arguments are flimsy and are merely used as an excuse to allow you to dismiss evolution, and I guess abiogenesis, the big bang and everything else that creationists attempt to paint as "Dawinism." There's a reason these types of arguments are made by scientists on DI videos on youtube rather than in journals like Nature, Science, or one of the hundreds of journals related to cell and molecular biology, genetics, embryology, or biochemistry. These are the places that real criticism to anything pertaining to modern evolutionary theory would take place.


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 29, 2010)

I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.

Another thing that makes me wonder is why does god hate amputees so much? I mean you hear how god has cured so many people of blindness, obesity, heart problems, paralysis and even death, but I have yet to hear of someone who lost a limb and the next day it had grown back because God was involved. So either God really hates amputees and never cures them, or he doesn't exist. OR its all just a bunch of hooey these people who are getting miracle cures from God.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 29, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.


The less control a person feels they have over a situation, the more superstitious they become. You can observe this from athletes, who tend to be very superstitious. They have to wear their lucky shirt, or perform some sacred ritual. The more the game is based on chance, rather than skill, the more superstitious the players tend to be. It is a way to help them feel as if they had more control over the situation than they really do. Some people will not fly without a lucky item, special ritual, ect..yet they will get in a car with no problem. That is because they feel they have less control over the plane, and superstition kicks in. What situation do we have less control over than our own deaths? It stands to reason that some of the most elaborate superstitions revolve around the thing we control the least.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.
> 
> Another thing that makes me wonder is why does god hate amputees so much? I mean you hear how god has cured so many people of blindness, obesity, heart problems, paralysis and even death, but I have yet to hear of someone who lost a limb and the next day it had grown back because God was involved. So either God really hates amputees and never cures them, or he doesn't exist. OR its all just a bunch of hooey these people who are getting miracle cures from God.


http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 30, 2010)

A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution? I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.

The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.

Another explanation is that it is a sort of built in population control. This makes me wonder if evolution presents other such controls?

So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

Well, it is on the fringe of the topic, but a good question, none the less.
I have pondered this as well. My hypothesis is that homosexuality happens in the womb.
There are imperfections in all aspects of life, and that itself, is a gear of evolution.
Now some of these imperfections show up visually, such as a third nipple.
Others are passed down, hidden in the genetic code, unless buffered by a stronger code.
These imperfections show up in all aspects of life, mental, physical, social.
So, I deduce it may be feasible to assume the same is possible for a mother's womb.
I suggest, it's likely an improper balance of hormones in the womb leading to homosexuality.

While writing this, I googled and found an article about a study done in this particular field, with very similar conclusions.Here it is.

A question that I can't seem to grasp is this,"Why do men have nipples?"


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, *but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution?* I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.
> 
> The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.
> 
> ...


Isn't suicide too? That happens all the time. Not everything an organism does necessarily helps it's genes. Nor does it guarantee to wipe a species out. An organism with a defect that can still pass on it's genes and survive will ensure that defect stays around.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 30, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> Isn't suicide too? That happens all the time. Not everything an organism does necessarily helps it's genes. Nor does it guarantee to wipe a species out. An organism with a defect that can still pass on it's genes and survive will ensure that defect stays around.


Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.


That is quite the question and I must adhere with your logic on this

Maybe homosexuality is connected to some other undesirable trait that our genetics desire to eliminate and therefore homosexuality is the way for the code to weed out the other prosperity limiting trait?

Excellent mind food H

Namaste'


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.


I don't know. Do animals kill themselves? A quick search on google shows they do, but there are too few sources for me to form an opinion on the matter just yet.

Another quick search on google:



> There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.


http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

If gay is genetic then they still have the ability to bear children, and apparently many of them still do despite being gay. If it's environmental, well many of them raise children. Either way the tendency would continue on. Especially when you think about history of our species. What time period would it be ok to be openly gay, and have sex ONLY with people of the same sex? Even if you were gay you would most likely do what you are "supposed" to do, and get a wife, and pop some babies out. I have known lots of people with gay parents that apparently passed their genes on.

In fact a couple of my friends from scouting had a huge family ordeal several years ago. Their father died, and after a couple years of grieving their mother basically said "I'm gay kids. I thought I was gay before I met your father. I loved your father, and you. I'm glad I raised a family and married your father, he was a great man, but I am gay and must follow my desires now". Three kids in that family all carrying the "gay" gene now.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 30, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> I don't know. Do animals kill themselves? A quick search on google shows they do, but there are too few sources for me to form an opinion on the matter just yet.
> 
> Another quick search on google:
> 
> ...


Well those stats would seem flawed as the increase in number is more so from societal acceptance and people admitting to and revealing their preference due to this acceptance than that homosexuality is genetically proliferating wouldn't you agree?

While it is admitted that they can bear children, it is still a factor that the lack of desire to perform sex acts which can lead to conception, combined with a desire to perform sex acts which cannot lead to conception, will lessen the presence of the underlying negative traits that the code is trying to rid itself of

Maybe the homosexuality trait is used to purge numerous undesirable traits and the code uses homo sexuality to purge all those traits but homosexuality...therefore desiring to preserve it to some degree for that purpose?

Namaste'


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

What about the fact that everything has imperfections, even the female reproductive system?
What about the fact that seemingly every law in nature, has an exception?
Since imperfections are natural, homosexuality, by relation, is natural.

If you read the article I cited earlier, there is a great explanation as to how these genes pass on in the siblings of gay people.

Here it is;

"Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism", and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other. This provides solid experimental evidence of how "gay genes" could not only survive but thrive over the course of evolution."


----------



## Pipe Dream (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution? I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.
> 
> The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.
> 
> ...


I don't think homosexuality can be in your genes. For this kind of trait to be passed on there would have to be some abnormal gene or combination of genes that would create or define a homosexual. Peronalities are just something unique to everybody and people could be exact opposites of their parents or even twin. On top of this, experiences are different for everybody and our experiences have a major impact on how we live our lives but as an instinctual urge I think it just comes down to individuals not evolution.


----------



## Pipe Dream (Nov 30, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> What about the fact that everything has imperfections, even the female reproductive system?
> What about the fact that seemingly every law in nature, has an exception?
> Since imperfections are natural, homosexuality, by relation, is natural.
> 
> ...


Common sense would say that the more kids u have the more likely u are to have a gay child. Man people who figure statistics are so full of shit. There is too many variables to come to any conclusions and likely too small a test group anyways.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

Pipe Dream said:


> Common sense would say that the more kids u have the more likely u are to have a gay child. Man people who figure statistics are so full of shit. There is too many variables to come to any conclusions and *likely too small a test group anyways*.


That is not what this study suggest.
 Rather that siblings of gay individuals have a higher sex drive passing on those same genes, however dormant. 
Ya, probability mathematics is for nerds.

That's why we are trying to have a discussion on the variables.
"*Two, large independent studies*"


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 30, 2010)

86% of all statistics are made up, 74% of all people know that.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> 86% of all statistics are made up, 74% of all people know that.


The disregard associated with statistics is not from scientific studies.
Rather, it is from bias, and usually political polls, and claims made buy salesmen.
Yes, statistics can be fiddled with.
But, this is not the scientific method, and no self-respecting scientist would do so.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 30, 2010)

It was a humor joke.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 30, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> It was a humor joke.


A damned good one as well...*ROTFLMFAO*

Thanx guy...I needed that

Namaste'


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> It was a humor joke.


 I know it. (should have posted LOL)
I just didn't want anyone misinterpreting the facts.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?


Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 30, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.



You my friend have an inate ability to expand ones mind and thoughts ....you too SS

Blessings to our community as well

Namaste'


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 30, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Well for starters, it is unclear how much of human homosexuality has to do with genetics vs. say, hormonal influences during embryonic development. Also, since homosexuality doesn't mean that an individual won't reproduce, it is easy to see how such a trait can persist. It may not offer an fitness advantage, but it might not be a significant enough disadvantage, making the trait neutral wrt fitness. Traits that are selected for by the opposite sex might be linked to homosexuality. Sexual selection can favor traits that actually reduce fitness, the peacock's tail is the typical example.


Hrmm so evolution could foster homosexuality as a result of features the opposite sex finds attractive. That is extremely interesting. Looks like your also saying homosexuality could be caused by conditions evolution itself has little control over. Thanks for helping put it into a better context for me. When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> Hrmm so evolution could foster homosexuality as a result of features the opposite sex finds attractive. That is extremely interesting. Looks like your also saying homosexuality could be caused by conditions evolution itself has little control over. Thanks for helping put it into a better context for me. When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.


 The problem is, without really understanding what causes homosexuality in the first place, everything is just speculation. It's okay to say we just don't know. The problem is that people tend to want to fill in the blanks so make shit up that corresponds to their personal belief. 

I suggest reading _The Blind Watchmaker _and _The Selfish Gene._ Both books give a good explanations of certain evolutionary concepts that defy common sense. Sexual selection is given considerable space in TBW since it can create so many apparent anomalies. TSG presents a hypothesis that can help us understand things like altruism and self-sacrifice, something else that seems to go counter to what we would expect if the goal of the gene is to propagate itself.


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 30, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> When such a logical person as myself who looks critically at every aspect of the world completely doesn't understand his very existence... well lets just say it sucks.


My sentiments, exactly!
This all started for me at a young age, with a little prayer, I was told to recite.
"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take."
It's these 2 sentences, that sparked years of inner turmoil.

I find I must either exhaust or distract my mind at night. 
This is in order to sleep, without my mind screaming it's fears of mortality.
Every question has multiple answers and every answer brings up new questions.

Humans believe they are self-aware, but I believe the opposite is vastly true.


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 1, 2010)

Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.



ANC said:


> Washington - The US space agency has created a buzz with its announcement of a news conference on Thursday to discuss a scientific finding that relates to the hunt for life beyond the planet Earth.
> "Nasa will hold a news conference at 14:00 EST (19:00 GMT) on Thursday, December 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life," it said on its website.
> Space enthusiasts and believers in alien life took to the blogosphere in a flurry of speculation over the potential meaning of the announcement, though Nasa declined to elaborate further.
> Those scheduled to speak included Mary Voytek, who heads Nasa's astrobiology programme; Felisa Wolfe-Simon, a Nasa astrobiology research fellow from the US Geological Survey; and Pamela Conrad, an astrobiologist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre.
> ...


----------



## Illumination (Dec 1, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.



Outstanding...thanx ss

Namaste'


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 2, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> @crackerboy, seriously, did you ever stop and think that even those videos you posted are people that are trying to convince you using logic and reason? Of course it's not their rational arguments that convince you they are right, it is their ideology because their use of logic break downs on close examination. Their arguments are flimsy and are merely used as an excuse to allow you to dismiss evolution, and I guess abiogenesis, the big bang and everything else that creationists attempt to paint as "Dawinism." There's a reason these types of arguments are made by scientists on DI videos on youtube rather than in journals like Nature, Science, or one of the hundreds of journals related to cell and molecular biology, genetics, embryology, or biochemistry. These are the places that real criticism to anything pertaining to modern evolutionary theory would take place.



Look those videos are not the only resource that I have. Those where just the most convenient for me to post as examples that there is an alternative opinion in the scientific community to evolution. 

So because those video's covered so much information I would like to start with the theory of chemical evolution. The theory that all life formed from basic minerals in the ocean. 
Scientist have attempted to demonstrate how life could have arisen from nonliving material. Some of these scientists have had some success in producing simple biomonomers in a laboratory, this is a far cry from real world circumstances since they exclude many other damaging elements. Problems of concentration of minerals, stability of the environment, as well as specific mirror image make the possibility of chemical evolution unlikely. 
A scientist named Harold Morrowitz did a calculation of the probability of spontaneous organization of organic molecules to form a very simple microbe such as Escherichia coli is only 1 followed by 100,000 million zero's. Needless to say that statistically it is an improbability that such evolution could occur in this primordial soup. This problem further compounds when you consider the requirement for hundreds and in some cases thousands of chemical changes working together simultaneously in a simple cell.


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 2, 2010)

*Becoming Human*


----------



## Tym (Dec 2, 2010)

Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.

Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.

Do you know why ID was thrown out of court? Do you know why none of the claims made by any ID proponent have ever made it in to a peer reviewed journal?
Because they have no evidence, it is not science, and it attempts to corrupt valid scientific theories.

This thread is a failure.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 2, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Look those videos are not the only resource that I have. Those where just the most convenient for me to post as examples that there is an alternative opinion in the scientific community to evolution.
> 
> So because those video's covered so much information I would like to start with the theory of chemical evolution. The theory that all life formed from basic minerals in the ocean.
> Scientist have attempted to demonstrate how life could have arisen from nonliving material. Some of these scientists have had some success in producing simple biomonomers in a laboratory, this is a far cry from real world circumstances since they exclude many other damaging elements. Problems of concentration of minerals, stability of the environment, as well as specific mirror image make the possibility of chemical evolution unlikely.
> A scientist named Harold Morrowitz did a calculation of the probability of spontaneous organization of organic molecules to form a very simple microbe such as Escherichia coli is only 1 followed by 100,000 million zero's. Needless to say that statistically it is an improbability that such evolution could occur in this primordial soup. This problem further compounds when you consider the requirement for hundreds and in some cases thousands of chemical changes working together simultaneously in a simple cell.


 Good question but unfortunately isn't actually part of the theory of evolution which only is an explanation of how life evolved, not how life started. Newton didn't need to know how the planets where formed to explain their motion. Chemists don't have to explain how the elements were formed to explain how they interact. Likewise, biologists don't have to know how life got here to explain how it diversified and not knowing doesn't damage evolutionary theory in the least. 

Now with that out of the way, I'll try to address abiogenesis. First of all, I think it would only be fair that you cite your source because those are not your words. Biomonomers? Specific mirror image? Are you referring to stereo isomers? 

Let's understand that a bacteria like _E. coli _is a very modern, well evolved organism, the cyanobacteria and Archaea would have been better choices as they are simpler but even they are more modern and complex than we suspect the first replicating organisms were. There probably is no modern equivalent as any protocell would have severe disadvantages to anything that evolved a cell wall and would be extinct. Add to that the problem that such replicators wouldn't have anything to fossilize and we will have difficulty showing exactly how life that formed us began. Let us also remember that failure in the laboratory is in no means evidence against abiogenesis because.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
2. All we need is one replicator to form in just a few million years in a laboratory the size of Earth's oceans. 

It is easy to forget that in cosmologic and geologic time periods, even extremely unlikely events can happen on occasion, sometimes more than once. So let's throw out this canard of the bullshit statistics of 10 to the trillionth power or whatever. No one is claiming a fully functioning organism with a cell wall and complex internal structure formed spontaneously. Even then, I'd have to question his math because a 1 followed by 100 zeroes is already a number greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe. 

Okay, back to the beginning of life. I keep saying replicator because the most likely explanation is that what became the basis for life probably looked and acted like nothing we would normally call life. Crystals reproduce in a way. They replicate their structure and take 'nourishment' from it's environment. The first "life" was probably a sequence of chemicals that used some sort of catalyst like a crystal, as scaffolding to help form replicas of itself. Even at that time, there could have been many combinations of chemicals that could replicate to some extent as millions of such experiments were probably occurring on the early Earth powered by geothermal energy or the sun. The evolution of DNA and cellular structure took a great deal of time, they did not just pop into existence. It appears that this had a chance to happen even much earlier than we thought as Mars had oceans of liquid water when Earth was still a molten rock after being hit by the protoplanet that formed our moon. The fact that we find rocks from Mars have hit Earth as meteorites makes the idea of panspermia credible. All of this of course is still very speculative and we may never have a complete answer but that doesn't make it more likely that life popped into existence spontaneously because some super-being spoke a few words.

One last fact about chirality. It is true that proteins are made up of L amino acids and we don't know a process that produces only L form and not D forms, but we have found extraterrestrial sources of amino acids in asteroids and they too seem to favor the L form. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104064412.htm This again demonstrates that just because we haven't been able to provide an explanation for something doesn't make it unexplainable.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 2, 2010)

Tym said:


> Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
> In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.
> 
> Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.
> ...


 Let's give him a chance. He proposed some reasons as to why he feels life and evolution is unlikely to be a fully natural process. Evolution is not an easy subject to grasp. It is not intuitive and can be quite complex with a few areas we still don't understand. Given that not everyone is trained in science and for some the most exposure they ever had was H.S. biology where often the explanations of how we know what we know is brushed over and lost amongst the need to learn the material on the next test. It is reasonable to try to answer his objections in a calm, clear and professional manner as long as he (and anyone else) is willing to listen.


----------



## edwardtheclean (Dec 2, 2010)

this thread has way too much friction. i think i will watch the videos but every body just chill, i think God allows evolution. i also think that people talk what they do not believe. How could we even understand what is really how and when. we know how old the universe is, how old our planet is, that dinosaurs were here in the U.S. I still believe in a higher power even with that.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 2, 2010)

edwardtheclean said:


> i think God allows evolution. i also think that people talk what they do not believe. How could we even understand what is really how and when. we know how old the universe is, how old our planet is, that dinosaurs were here in the U.S. I still believe in a higher power even with that.


Let go of the filter, you call God. If he's there, you will find him in the science.



edwardtheclean said:


> as i figured, something u know nothing about that scares u, lift yourself up and take control, we are our own guides in life,


Take you own advice, from long ago.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 2, 2010)

Concepts that have been proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Albert 




Sure Shot said:


> Let go of the filter, you call God. If he's there, you will find him in the science.
> 
> 
> Take you own advice, from long ago.


----------



## Filthy Phil (Dec 2, 2010)

I dont really understand though how "proving" there was a creator actually in any way disproves evolution...and to speak of science, leading scientific advances in physics, mainly due to Hawkings recent publications, assert that we nor any of what we know was actually created. This does not mean though that there was no creator. Dont make jumps based off of logical inadequacies... there is inadequate evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. The existence of a creator is in itself insufficientl as "proof"


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 2, 2010)

Filthy Phil said:


> I dont really understand though how "proving" there was a creator actually in any way disproves evolution...and to speak of science, leading scientific advances in physics, mainly due to Hawkings recent publications, assert that we nor any of what we know was actually created. This does not mean though that there was no creator. Dont make jumps based off of logical inadequacies... there is inadequate evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. The existence of a creator is in itself insufficientl as "proof"


 As much as Hawking can be admired, he hasn't actually contributed anything significant to the advancement of physics in the last few decades.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## Illumination (Dec 2, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.



Life that doesn't require phosphorous!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uses arsenic instead to bind its dna!!! This changes everything doesn't it...Wow so much to rethink....




Thanx
Namaste'


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 4, 2010)

Tym said:


> Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
> In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.
> 
> Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.
> ...


Your post was the failure. Why don't you, instead of criticizing, try to counter some of the claims that they have made? Let us all hear your argument against the scientific claims that they make. Why even bother posting if you don't have anything to offer on the subject?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 4, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Your post was the failure. Why don't you, instead of criticizing, try to counter some of the claims that they have made? Let us all hear your argument against the scientific claims that they make. Why even bother posting if you don't have anything to offer on the subject?


I think his point was, people have done what your asking (refuting the points) over and over again. You seem to give credit to a few scientists while ignoring the overwhelming opinion of the entire scientific community. Why do you think those videos remain on the fringe of the news. Is it because of a conspiricy among scientists and educators? Or is it simply because creationism doesn't stand up to systematic scrutiny?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 4, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Your post was the failure. Why don't you, instead of criticizing, try to counter some of the claims that they have made? Let us all hear your argument against the scientific claims that they make. Why even bother posting if you don't have anything to offer on the subject?


 I was hoping you were going to respond to my post #98 specifically countering some of the claims that were made.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 5, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> I think his point was, people have done what your asking (refuting the points) over and over again. You seem to give credit to a few scientists while ignoring the overwhelming opinion of the entire scientific community. Why do you think those videos remain on the fringe of the news. Is it because of a conspiricy among scientists and educators? Or is it simply because creationism doesn't stand up to systematic scrutiny?


Show me one point, one post that counters anything. Where is your argument? The only person that has attempted to counter my argument as usual is mindphuk. Every one else just does the exact same crap you are doing. Nothing! More mindless babble and insults. MAKE AN ARGUMENT!!


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 5, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Good question but unfortunately isn't actually part of the theory of evolution which only is an explanation of how life evolved, not how life started. Newton didn't need to know how the planets where formed to explain their motion. Chemists don't have to explain how the elements were formed to explain how they interact. Likewise, biologists don't have to know how life got here to explain how it diversified and not knowing doesn't damage evolutionary theory in the least.
> Like I have said in prior discussions I don't refute all forms of evolution. I do refute that life formed spontaneously. I see this as a major flaw in evolution. If someone is to make a claim that all life formed through spontaneous evolution than they should have something to back that up don't you think. Other wise you are relying on faith. If you can not test the theory then you are relying on the same thing that you criticize Christians of doing. So yes this has everything to do with evolution. It has to do with the very beginning of evolution. This would be the foundation, the building blocks of life.
> Now with that out of the way, I'll try to address abiogenesis. First of all, I think it would only be fair that you cite your source because those are not your words. Biomonomers? Specific mirror image? Are you referring to stereo isomers?
> I use many sources but for the sake of these particular points you can refer to a book named origins by Ariel A. Roth. Chapter 4
> ...


So to sum this whole thing up. The base for all life is unknown to man. We can not account for the origins of life. The whole premise of science is based on observation of data to reach conclusions. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously. Christians have faith that it was created. Without being able to provide data your argument falls apart in the eyes of science. This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Show me one point, one post that counters anything. Where is your argument? The only person that has attempted to counter my argument as usual is mindphuk. Every one else just does the exact same crap you are doing. Nothing! More mindless babble and insults. MAKE AN ARGUMENT!!


I haven't insulted you once, and I have made points. When mindphuk so eloquently articulates the crux of the issues, I feel little need to jump in. Especially since I am not educated about evolution, as he obviously is. The points I have made, about mistakes of logic, evidence, and the scientific method, you seem to gloss over. That's fine since they are minor points, but you do the same thing to everyone's post. For example, continuing to speak as if evolution attempts to explain the origin of life.

Whereas mindphuk can explain succinctly why that is wrong, I can point out that it is a strawman argument. You are inventing a position for the other side, in this case the claim that all life formed spontaneously, and then proving it invalid. In the end, that doesn't help prove anything because evolution doesn't make any claims about how life began. It is a waist of time. Is this just a trivial point? Perhaps, but knowing and recognizing strawman arguments will help you greatly when trying to find the truth, or trying to have a relevant debate.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 5, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> I haven't insulted you once, and I have made points. When mindphuk so eloquently articulates the crux of the issues, I feel little need to jump in. Especially since I am not educated about evolution, as he obviously is. The points I have made, about mistakes of logic, evidence, and the scientific method, you seem to gloss over. That's fine since they are minor points, but you do the same thing to everyone's post. For example, continuing to speak as if evolution attempts to explain the origin of life.
> I never said you insulted me, I said that you have not made an argument and that all you keep doing is insulting the scientists. You say that there are mistakes with the logic, evidence, and scientific method, but these are all just generalizations. Can you tell me where these mistakes where made. What particular statement or claim did anyone make that you feel where flawed. Give me specific examples. If you can't do that then you have not made any points at all. You are simply attempting to use mindphuk's claims as your own. If you do not understand enough about evolution as you said, then how can you make the judgment about the evidence that was put forth. So you see, it is you that is making mistakes with your logic.
> 
> Whereas mindphuk can explain succinctly why that is wrong, I can point out that it is a strawman argument. You are inventing a position for the other side, in this case the claim that all life formed spontaneously, and then proving it invalid. In the end, that doesn't help prove anything because evolution doesn't make any claims about how life began. It is a waist of time. Is this just a trivial point? Perhaps, but knowing and recognizing strawman arguments will help you greatly when trying to find the truth, or trying to have a relevant debate.


I am not inventing any positions. This is the position of many evolutionists. There is more than just Darwin. You can not argue the fact that evolution has failed to put forth a viable explanation for how life originated. Evolution as a whole relies on the concept that life evolved naturally. So If you are to make that claim than you should also provide some mechanism to support such a claim. Without such a mechanism you are relying on the same faith that I am. Only I do have some scientific evidence that spontaneous evolution is statistically impossible. At least I have a mathematical formula as my evidence. What do you have?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I am not inventing any positions. This is the position of many evolutionists. There is more than just Darwin. You can not argue the fact that evolution has failed to put forth a viable explanation for how life originated. Evolution as a whole relies on the concept that life evolved naturally. So If you are to make that claim than you should also provide some mechanism to support such a claim. Without such a mechanism you are relying on the same faith that I am. Only I do have some scientific evidence that spontaneous evolution is statistically impossible. At least I have a mathematical formula as my evidence. What do you have?


 If you are saying life had to begin for evolution to take place, then you are correct, and there is no argument. The overwhelming majority of evolutionary scientists agree life did begin at some point, but do not make any claims as to how that occured. There are proposed explanations, but those are outside the theory of evolution. If you are speaking of an evolutionary theory which includes claims of how life came into existence, then you are speaking of a theory which is not held by science. You would be in essence trying to disprove an unaccepted explanation in favor of another unaccepted explanation.

I am not educated in the subtleties of evolution as it is vastly complex. However being a student of critical thinking, this debate and the mistakes made in this debate is something I am very familiar with. Frankly, claiming evolution explains the beginning of life, or even the universe, is an extremely common mistake, and sometimes a tactic.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 5, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> The overwhelming majority of evolutionairy scientists do not make any claims as to how life began. There are proposed explinations, but those are outside the theory of evolution. If you are speaking of an evolutionary theory which includes claims of how life came into existence, then you are speaking of a theory which is not held by science. You would be in essence trying to disprove an unaccepted explanation in favor of another unaccepted explanation.



Way to not give any specific examples of mistakes in logic, evidence, or anything else. I thought you said that you did not understand enough about evolution to make any such claims. And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally. So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve? As stated before my problem with evolution is this issue. I fully believe that when subject to environmental changes life will adapt. But that does not mean that all life came from one amoeba that crawled out of the ocean. Evolutionists try to stand on scientific principles but those same principles poke some major holes in it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Way to not give any specific examples of mistakes in logic, evidence, or anything else. I thought you said that you did not understand enough about evolution to make any such claims. And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally. So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve? As stated before my problem with evolution is this issue. I fully believe that when subject to environmental changes life will adapt. But that does not mean that all life came from one amoeba that crawled out of the ocean. Evolutionists try to stand on scientific principles but those same principles poke some major holes in it.


My specific example was false premise: The premise being that evolution claims to explain how life came into existence. That premise is false. When a false premise is used in such a way as you used it, it's called a strawman argument. How much more specific can you get?

(false premise)


> And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally.


 (Rolled into a strawman)


> So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve?


I said I wasn't educated on the subject of evolution, which is very different from not understanding it.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Way to not give any specific examples of mistakes in logic, evidence, or anything else. I thought you said that you did not understand enough about evolution to make any such claims. And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally. So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve? As stated before my problem with evolution is this issue. I fully believe that when subject to environmental changes life will adapt. But that does not mean that all life came from one amoeba that crawled out of the ocean. Evolutionists try to stand on scientific principles but those same principles poke some major holes in it.


 The point that we have been making that is even if life did pop into existence spontaneously by a creator, it STILL does not make the claims of evolutionary theory invalid. Not knowing how life came into existence doesn't change what we see in nature about how life diversified once it existed. 
Why aren't you just as critical of chemistry because they don't explain where the elements come from? Why aren't you critical of atomic theory because they don't explain where the atoms came from? Why aren't you critical of germ theory because they don't explain where bacteria and viruses come from? Each one of those theories rely on a different branch of science to explain those things. Stellar cosmology explains where the heavier elements come from but I would venture to say that many chemists don't care about that. 

Like I said, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that life was created by a supernatural being. Now with that out of the way, explain how the findings of common ancestry, that all life came from some original basal forms of life, is discredited.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 5, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> The point that we have been making that is even if life did pop into existence spontaneously by a creator, it STILL does not make the claims of evolutionary theory invalid. Not knowing how life came into existence doesn't change what we see in nature about how life diversified once it existed.
> Why aren't you just as critical of chemistry because they don't explain where the elements come from? Why aren't you critical of atomic theory because they don't explain where the atoms came from? Why aren't you critical of germ theory because they don't explain where bacteria and viruses come from? Each one of those theories rely on a different branch of science to explain those things. Stellar cosmology explains where the heavier elements come from but I would venture to say that many chemists don't care about that.
> 
> Like I said, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that life was created by a supernatural being. Now with that out of the way, explain how the findings of common ancestry, that all life came from some original basal forms of life, is discredited.




The reason I am not trying to refute any of the other sciences is because none of them are making claims about the origins of man. (A subject that I have interest in) That simple. When people make claims that evolution disproves God than I want to investigate. And during those investigations I have come across what I see as major flaws.
As for your question, you know that is a very loaded question. First of all I do not see any evidence of any kind of transition from the phyla class. The tree of life is full of major missing links or transition species. Evolutionists attempt to make some very significant jumps in these gaps without any explanation.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> The reason I am not trying to refute any of the other sciences is because none of them are making claims about the origins of man. (A subject that I have interest in) That simple. When people make claims that evolution disproves God than I want to investigate. And during those investigations I have come across what I see as major flaws.
> As for your question, you know that is a very loaded question. First of all I do not see any evidence of any kind of transition from the phyla class. The tree of life is full of major missing links or transition species. Evolutionists attempt to make some very significant jumps in these gaps without any explanation.


 Did you watch the videos I posted on phylogeny?

Here's an example from Catholic biologist Ken Miller explaining a finding in the genome that is PREDICTED by common ancestry with chimpanzees. Listen closely as he explains that evolution could have been disproved with just this one falsification. 

[video=youtube;zi8FfMBYCkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/video]


Answer this. When will enough gaps be filled to satisfy you? How many will it take?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 5, 2010)

Evolution does not make claims about life's origins. Evolution does not attempt to disprove god. Pay attention. Apply yourself.


----------



## Scrooge (Dec 5, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Did you watch the videos I posted on phylogeny?
> 
> Here's an example from Catholic biologist Ken Miller explaining a finding in the genome that is PREDICTED by common ancestry with chimpanzees. Listen closely as he explains that evolution could have been disproved with just this one falsification.
> 
> ...


mindphuk:

Dr. Miller belives as I do: Im a Roman Catholic, a Theist in the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer but I dont believe in a deceptive one. I dont believe in One that would try to fool us. Therefore I think this is authentic and tells us about our ancestry


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 5, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> So to sum this whole thing up. The base for all life is unknown to man. We can not account for the origins of life. The whole premise of science is based on observation of data to reach conclusions. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously. Christians have faith that it was created. Without being able to provide data your argument falls apart in the eyes of science. This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis.


Wow. So let me get this straight.

Evolution: We don't know how life got here, but clearly life is here. With that out of the way here is a theory that explains how complex life forms, and why we share genetic material with every other living thing, and we can observe evolution happen in real time, and across a geologic time scale, here is mountains and mountains of evidence supporting this theory.

Creationism: We do know how life got here. God did it. Even though this has NOTHING to do with the proven process of evolution, it still somehow discredits all that evidence with no new evidence to back up my claim. 

I don't like to resort to name calling, you if you don't believe in evolution or the big bang you are a bonafide ratard. I don't even feel like tearing up all the terrible logic in the rest of your post because I doubt your ability to even comprehend it at this point. Seriously man, ratard.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2010)

Scrooge said:


> mindphuk:
> 
> Dr. Miller belives as I do: I&#8217;m a Roman Catholic, a Theist&#8230; in the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer but I don&#8217;t believe in a deceptive one. I don&#8217;t believe in One that would try to fool us. Therefore I think this is authentic and tells us about our ancestry &#8230;


 Okay, but where is the design? Since evolution is an unguided process, which Dr. Miller will agree with, then except for the initial life that started evolving, what exactly is designed? Did God sent the Chicxulub asteroid to earth to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could get going? What about all of the other chain of events that had to occur for us to be here? If you believe that there was more than a Deistic approach, that of a God that interferes in the natural order of the evolutionary process, then you aren't accepting evolution at all. Non-naturalistic evolution is not evolution, its magic. Most Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible which is what contradicts science. 
Did you see Religulous? 

This guy gets it. 
[video=youtube;Sk0el9nH6Q4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk0el9nH6Q4[/video]


Coyne, is as always, very good at getting points across. 

[video=youtube;ReV0nCuObcs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 6, 2010)

> We can not account for the origins of life. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously.


Evolved spontaneously...you mean began, emerged? "Evolved" is what happen after life began. Evolutionists do not have to rely on faith because they do not draw conclusion about the beginning. You are arguing against a claim that evolution DOES NOT MAKE. Fact is, *there is currently no scientific consensus on how life began*, just proposals. Even if there was, it would have nothing to do with evolution. This fact has been explained to you over and over, why do you reject it?



> When people make claims that evolution disproves God than I want to investigate. And during those investigations I have come across what I see as major flaws.


So your problem is with certain people who make those claims, and not evolution, which makes no such claim. The flaws you found seem to be in those people's logic, a logic which did not make it into evolutionary theory. Some people see evolution and conclude that it disproves god, and I agree that concept is at best, an assumption. Thank god for the scientific method!



> This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis.


Creating a universe is far from the only way to gather evidence of the big bang. Also, once a theory is validated, it becomes a law. Doesn't happen very often.

So you heard some outrageous claims evolution was making, and those didn't sit right with you. Once investigated you found those claims were based on conclusions and logic that didn't make sense. Your conclusion was that evolution has some serious problems to make claims like that. Upon further investigation you are finding that evolution doesn't make those claims, they were based upon some other peoples misunderstanding of the theory. Why do these misunderstandings happen? Because of mistakes of logic, because of ignorance, and because humans are fallible.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 6, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> Creating a universe is far from the only way to gather evidence of the big bang. Also, once a theory is validated, it becomes a law. Doesn't happen very often.


 Big misconception. A scientific law is not a theory that has been validated. A scientific theory is a model of the mechanism of something and it consists of facts and laws and based on hypotheses that have been verified. It is the explanation of WHY something happens rather than just a statement about what IS. Scientific theories are considered fact and their baseline assumptions are true until they can be falsified, which is the goal of new hypotheses.
A scientific law is merely a set of rules that can be derived by observing something. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation never attempted to explain what caused massive bodies to attract one another. It only codified observed phenomena into a mathematical model. They are accepted as is without extensive reasoning only because they are always observed to be true.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 6, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Big misconception. A scientific law is not a theory that has been validated. A scientific theory is a model of the mechanism of something and it consists of facts and laws and based on hypotheses that have been verified. It is the explanation of WHY something happens rather than just a statement about what IS. Scientific theories are considered fact and their baseline assumptions are true until they can be falsified, which is the goal of new hypotheses.
> A scientific law is merely a set of rules that can be derived by observing something. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation never attempted to explain what caused massive bodies to attract one another. It only codified observed phenomena into a mathematical model. They are accepted as is without extensive reasoning only because they are always observed to be true.


 So a law is just a simplified expression of what is happening, and doesn't attempt to explain why. We call it a law because it always happens the same way, and has never been observed to be false. Really has nothing to do with validation of a theory. Very different than what I had thought, thanks for the lesson. My apologies to Cracker.


----------



## Tym (Dec 6, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Let's give him a chance. He proposed some reasons as to why he feels life and evolution is unlikely to be a fully natural process. Evolution is not an easy subject to grasp. It is not intuitive and can be quite complex with a few areas we still don't understand. Given that not everyone is trained in science and for some the most exposure they ever had was H.S. biology where often the explanations of how we know what we know is brushed over and lost amongst the need to learn the material on the next test. It is reasonable to try to answer his objections in a calm, clear and professional manner as long as he (and anyone else) is willing to listen.


That shouldn't make any difference at all, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. It still wouldn't prove a creator.
Attacking the leading theory in no way makes your hypothesis any more valid. Evidence is what I require, and I dare say, any rational thinking intelligent person will require evidence.
Posting links to youtube videos of creationist and ID propaganda is not evidence.

Further more, there is no evidence anywhere in this thread, he has no evidence to give. It is obvious that since he bought in to the propaganda, he lacks the critical thinking skills to acquire any evidence there may be. BTW, if he did actually have any evidence what ever, even the smallest amount, he would be the first person in history to have found some.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution. I only refute the claim that evolution disproves a creator. In my opinion, from the data that I have reviewed from many different sources. I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life. It only explains how life diversified once it came into being. Or as I would like to say created. I am not in any way saying that all forms of evolution are false. I fully believe that there is sufficient evidence of certain forms evolution. So with that said there are many other topics of interest on the subject of a creator such as the concept of fine tuning. Lets please move past the evolution argument and maybe try to address some of the other topics mentioned in the video's. 

I would also ask that if you do not have an argument or counter argument that you refrain from posting your insults. It is really easy to just jump into a post and call someone a retard and say that there logic is wrong, but if you can't give some kind of explanation that makes that logic wrong than don't bother posting. It is just noise. There are plenty of other threads that welcome such B.S. I created on of them myself, its called "Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt". This thread was created just for you people that only want to insult and rant. So feel free to post whatever you want in that thread.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

Heisenberg said:


> Evolution does not make claims about life's origins. Evolution does not attempt to disprove god. Pay attention. Apply yourself.


you are correct, I see the point that you and mindphuk are making. But I am confronted constantly by people saying "how can you believe in a creator when there is so much evidence of evolution". The general thought process of most people I meet is that you can't have both a creator and have evolution at the same time. My argument is, how does evolution account for the origins of life? I am paying attention and that is why I have put together a counter argument stating that in order for someone to claim that evolution disproves God than they must first account for how the first life forms evolved. Other wise you are just showing me how life diversified.


----------



## Tym (Dec 6, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution. I only refute the claim that evolution disproves a creator. In my opinion, from the data that I have reviewed from many different sources. I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life. It only explains how life diversified once it came into being. Or as I would like to say created. I am not in any way saying that all forms of evolution are false. I fully believe that there is sufficient evidence of certain forms evolution. So with that said there are many other topics of interest on the subject of a creator such as the concept of fine tuning. Lets please move past the evolution argument and maybe try to address some of the other topics mentioned in the video's.
> 
> I would also ask that if you do not have an argument or counter argument that you refrain from posting your insults. It is really easy to just jump into a post and call someone a retard and say that there logic is wrong, but if you can't give some kind of explanation that makes that logic wrong than don't bother posting. It is just noise. There are plenty of other threads that welcome such B.S. I created on of them myself, its called "Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt". This thread was created just for you people that only want to insult and rant. So feel free to post whatever you want in that thread.


Nobody here is saying evolution disproves a creator. Just that a creator is not needed to explain the complexity of life forms..
Evolution does not address a creator, in order to verify or dismiss the possibility of one. Nobody is claiming it does. You misunderstand evolution. It's not supposed to explain where life originated (abiogenesis).
You brought up evolution. I agree it has nothing to do with it, that's what I've been saying the entire time.

I am not going to spend hours watching creationist propaganda that has all be thoroughly refuted and holds no scientific merit. Tell me what you believe and why.. Then we can talk about that..
As for having an counter argument, I don't need one. I don't have to disprove anything you say. You are making the claims, the burden of proof is yours alone.
To quote the late and great Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Tell me what you believe, and why you believe it. And we can talk about it.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Okay, but where is the design? Since evolution is an unguided process, which Dr. Miller will agree with, then except for the initial life that started evolving, what exactly is designed? Did God sent the Chicxulub asteroid to earth to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could get going? What about all of the other chain of events that had to occur for us to be here? If you believe that there was more than a Deistic approach, that of a God that interferes in the natural order of the evolutionary process, then you aren't accepting evolution at all. Non-naturalistic evolution is not evolution, its magic. Most Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible which is what contradicts science.
> Did you see Religulous?
> 
> This guy gets it.
> ...


This is a very good post. I like this guy. I feel he represents a lot of my own views. +rep for this one. I have said many times before that I think that science is just a way of discovering God's work.


----------



## Tym (Dec 6, 2010)

Guess you don't want to talk to me about it eh?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

Tym said:


> Nobody here is saying evolution disproves a creator. Just that a creator is not needed to explain the complexity of life forms..
> Evolution does not address a creator, in order to verify or dismiss the possibility of one. Nobody is claiming it does. You misunderstand evolution. It's not supposed to explain where life originated (abiogenesis).
> You brought up evolution. I agree it has nothing to do with it, that's what I've been saying the entire time.
> 
> ...



That's not the purpose of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the topics that where posted then you are in the wrong thread. There is another thread named " this is why I believe" that discussion would better fit what your asking.


----------



## Tym (Dec 6, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> That's not the purpose of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the topics that where posted then you are in the wrong thread. There is another thread named " this is why I believe" that discussion would better fit what your asking.


No no, the title of this thread is: 
*There is scientific proof of a creator. Evolution can be disproved*


Well, Where is the proof? Tell me, please I want to know. Also Please tell me how evolution can be disproved.
The videos you posted have nothing demonstrable, they have no evidence. Please just tell me what you believe and why you believe it.. It's ok if you just believe it because you were convinced by the creationist propaganda and you don't know why you believe it. Just say that... But you make a claim like "There is scientific proof of a creator" and "Evolution can be disproved", one would think you have a good reason.. Please tell me what that reason is..

I'm not being a jerk, I just want to know what evidence there is.. Please just tell me. Don't avoid the question. You brought this topic up, you must want to discuss it. refusing to talk about it is just childish..
Please just tell me what makes you think there is scientific evidence of a creator, and what that evidence is. And please tell me why you think evolution has been disproved, and what evidence there is.

I'm not being unreasonable, If you make a claim, you have to be able to back it up.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

I have already made my points on evolution. And since then I have mentioned another topic. If your not going to watch the video's and discuss the topics within them then don't bother. Also I have now introduced the new subject of fine tuning. If you would like to address this subject than feel free.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 6, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> This is a very good post. I like this guy. I feel he represents a lot of my own views. +rep for this one. I have said many times before that I think that science is just a way of discovering God's work.


 It's just a shame that you elected to try to represent your views with the posting of the first videos rather than someone like Coyne. 



> I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution.


Well there's your problem. The people in the videos you selected DO refute evolution. They also happen to refute significant parts of astronomy and cosmology as well. 

If you liked the Coyne video, you might really like Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Here's an excerpt http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 6, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> It's just a shame that you elected to try to represent your views with the posting of the first videos rather than someone like Coyne.
> 
> Well there's your problem. The people in the videos you selected DO refute evolution. They also happen to refute significant parts of astronomy and cosmology as well.
> 
> If you liked the Coyne video, you might really like Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Here's an excerpt http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html



Yeah as far as the video's and the title of the thread for that matter, I was for the most part trying to spark the conversation and post something that would get peoples attention. It's the discussion that was important to me. I will check out the links.


----------



## Tym (Dec 7, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I have already made my points on evolution. And since then I have mentioned another topic. If your not going to watch the video's and discuss the topics within them then don't bother. Also I have now introduced the new subject of fine tuning. If you would like to address this subject than feel free.


I am willing to address the topics in the videos, but they offer no evidence, you claimed there is evidence.. Show it please..

And yes I will address fine tuning. Please make a statement that I can address... I don't want to make any assumptions, but if you're not going to tell me what you believe how can I address it?
I think you have no idea what you believe, you listen to talking heads and agree with everything they say without understanding any of it.. If I'm wrong tell me what it is you believe..

We have already established you were wrong about evolution, you said it can be disproved, then admitted you believe in it, So you move the goal post and start some other topic.. Please admit you were wrong before you move on.

You said there was scientific proof for a creator, when asked to present the evidence you try to change the subject again, please admit you have no evidence before you move on to a new topic, or present your evidence.
This is not a constructive discussion if you just keep jumping around and not providing evidence for your claims..

I would be more than happy to discuss fine tuning if you first concede that you were wrong about your first two claims, or present evidence for them. Failure to do so is an automatic failure on your part to present evidence for your assertions.. Thus making your claims baseless and invalid.. It's a non starter. If you make a claim you must back it up or admit defeat.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 7, 2010)

Tym said:


> We have already established you were wrong about evolution, you said it can be disproved, then admitted you believe in it, So you move the goal post and start some other topic.. Please admit you were wrong before you move on.


No actually if you read the rest of the thread and not just the first and last page. I clearly stated that I was only debating chemical evolution. Which is the concept that all life formed in the ocean by natural means. I countered that concept by explaining evolution does not demonstrate the mechanism that accounts for such a process.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 7, 2010)

Tym said:


> You said there was scientific proof for a creator, when asked to present the evidence you try to change the subject again, please admit you have no evidence before you move on to a new topic, or present your evidence.
> This is not a constructive discussion if you just keep jumping around and not providing evidence for your claims..



All of the topics that are mentioned in the video's and myself are themselves part of the evidence. How about this. For the sake of discussion lets say that the video's are my proof. So given those claims. What do you disagree with. Or did you never actually watch the video's. In which case you have already made claims about the validity of them without even knowing what they say. You demonstrated that you have never watched these video's when you asked me to explain fine tuning. So then why did you originally claim them to be propaganda if you don't even know what they where talking about?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 7, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> No actually if you read the rest of the thread and not just the first and last page. I clearly stated that I was only debating chemical evolution. Which is the concept that all life formed in the ocean by natural means. I countered that concept by explaining evolution does not demonstrate the mechanism that accounts for such a process.


 This is precisely why clear definitions of terms is so important in both formal and informal debates. You sort of laughed at me in the other thread for continually bringing up rules, but as I tried to point out, the rules follow naturally from needing to keep focus and have things make sense. Chemical evolution doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does to a scientist who might think you are talking about nucleosynthesis, or the progressive creation of the elements in stars. Abiogenesis is the term used to describe something resembling life beginning from basic organic molecules.


----------



## Tym (Dec 7, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> No actually if you read the rest of the thread and not just the first and last page. I clearly stated that I was only debating chemical evolution. Which is the concept that all life formed in the ocean by natural means. I countered that concept by explaining evolution does not demonstrate the mechanism that accounts for such a process.


YES, actually we addressed the fact that evolution isn't abiogenesis. In your own words "I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life." Admit you were wrong and lets move on. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution Doesn't address the beginnings of life, only the complex diversity of life. You are arguing against a straw man, it is a logical fallacy. Instead of arguing against evolution for something that is doesn't even claim, try addressing what it actually says. This is tantamount to arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't tell you how the big bang happend..

Again, please offer up the evidence of your claims or admit you were wrong and lets move on. I'm not being unreasonable, and I'm not being a jerk. I'm just asking for what you need to provide to support your claims. I would suggest looking up the theory of evolution from a reputable source and reading what it actually says. Getting your information from biased propaganda videos is not good.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 7, 2010)

Tym said:


> YES, actually we addressed the fact that evolution isn't abiogenesis. In your own words "I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life." Admit you were wrong and lets move on. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution Doesn't address the beginnings of life, only the complex diversity of life. You are arguing against a straw man, it is a logical fallacy. Instead of arguing against evolution for something that is doesn't even claim, try addressing what it actually says. This is tantamount to arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't tell you how the big bang happend..
> 
> Again, please offer up the evidence of your claims or admit you were wrong and lets move on. I'm not being unreasonable, and I'm not being a jerk. I'm just asking for what you need to provide to support your claims. I would suggest looking up the theory of evolution from a reputable source and reading what it actually says. Getting your information from biased propaganda videos is not good.



Look bro, It's not going to happen. Move on. I have read plenty. Abiogenesis still has to do with simple minerals and elements evolving into more complex organisms. So yes it is a form of evolution. There are many biologists that will argue this point with you. I on the other hand will not.


----------



## Tym (Dec 7, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Look bro, It's not going to happen. Move on. I have read plenty. Abiogenesis still has to do with simple minerals and elements evolving into more complex organisms. So yes it is a form of evolution. There are many biologists that will argue this point with you. I on the other hand will not.


Uhh, no.. When you mix vodka with orange juice, it doesn't "evolve" into a screw driver (the drink not the tool). No it's not a form of evolution. That is an equivocation fallacy, and it also is a logical fallacy.
You are making a claim, support it or concede. If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to give valid evidence or admit you were wrong.

Abiogenesis happened, the fact that we are here is all the proof you need. Maybe a god did it, but even if he did the process would still be known as abiogenesis. The mixing and interaction of chemicals is not evolution. When you mix baking soda and vinegar, it does not evolve in to a mass of bubbles. It is the interaction of chemicals that creates the reaction. Biology addresses life, not chemical interaction devoid of life. Try again..

You cannot make an extraordinary claim and then refuse to back it up with evidence and let it stand. It doesn't work like that. I don't care if you never admit you're wrong, failure to provide evidence of your claim is the exact same as putting your hands to your face and exclaiming "You're right, how could I have been so blind?". Or at best "I have no evidence to support my claims, there for they are not valid". This is the way logic works. 
You can't just make an extraordinary claim then expect not to have to back it up. That is absurd.


----------



## dontcopnone (Dec 7, 2010)

The logical thing to do is to agree that your individual worldviews are largely incompatible. In a sense, you are both right. Your personal beliefs cause you to see the world as you believe it to be. Neither viewpoint can be, without a single doubt, absolutely proven.

If we could capture an exact 3D rendering of how you each actually perceive reality and compare them, I believe that you would see is that the outlines generally match up...but everything else is different, unique to each person. A person shapes their own reality as they grow up, 

When people have strokes and lose the part of the brain that tells them what gives speech context, they lose more than just the ability to communicate. Prior to the stroke, a very small part of their brain held tight to the idea of what speech is, and once it was gone, so was the idea. Reality is immediately changed; not only do you no longer understand the sounds being made by people around you, often, once you start to relearn speech, you don't understand how those words fit together or the meaning of words. You have to relearn the human reality from other humans. Therapy re-teaches you how we communally agree to see reality. This is how we form a consensus from which to communicate. When we define something and teach that definition to another person, we share our perspective and implant it into another person, literally putting an idea in their head. The fun part is that you can manipulate that idea, examine it, put it through the filter that is how you personally see reality and decide whether to interpret your reality in the same way as that other person does.

To get an idea how much words and ideas change our reality, check this out.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 7, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Look bro, It's not going to happen. Move on. I have read plenty. Abiogenesis still has to do with simple minerals and elements evolving into more complex organisms. So yes it is a form of evolution.


Moving the goalpost. First you try to disprove evolution, when that doesn't work you say, oh well I am disproving this specific theory of evolution which isn't held by mainstream science. Your best defense against this point seems to be denying it. You can't promise to disprove evolution and then address something else, which ISNT evolution. 

You pretty much have demonstrated all the common logical fallacies associated with this debate. Your posts would make a great lesson for a critical thinking class.

If you wanted debate on the subject, then why didn't you make the title something like "lets debate evolution." You chose a more sensational topic to get people excited, to raise emotions, and to mislead. You chose to be deceitful. This is also a common tactic of the discovery institute. By contrast, science never attempts to conceal or confuse the truth.


----------



## dontcopnone (Dec 7, 2010)

I think we should let a select elite picked from the entire world decide the matter. In principle, each member elite will represent the average opinion of a given geographical area of inhabited land. Also, let's add to the mix a single man who is seen to represent everyman/everywoman collectively - a personification of all in one, a Decider. Unless there is overwhelming opposition to him, he decides if something can happen. Now allow rich and important people to influence this elite and continue to do so for hundreds of years. Act surprised when this committee becomes the apparent puppet of its most influential suitors.

The moral of the story is that, in the battle between god and science the answer is, of course, Democracy. Let all your friends know how great it is and ask them to try it out. By force, if necessary.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 7, 2010)

I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution. I only refute the claim that evolution disproves a creator. *

Notice title of thread.


*I would also ask that if you do not have an argument or counter argument that you refrain from posting your insults. It is really easy to just jump into a post and call someone a retard and say that there logic is wrong, but if you can't give some kind of explanation that makes that logic wrong than don't bother posting. It is just noise. There are plenty of other threads that welcome such B.S. I created on of them myself, its called "Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt". This thread was created just for you people that only want to insult and rant. So feel free to post whatever you want in that thread.

Dude did you even read my post? Your logic is wrong because you say:

So to sum this whole thing up. The base for all life is unknown to man. We can not account for the origins of life. The whole premise of science is based on observation of data to reach conclusions. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously. Christians have faith that it was created. Without being able to provide data your argument falls apart in the eyes of science. This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis. 

There is not a gap in data though. The "gap" you are speaking of happens before the theory of evolution comes into play. It's analogous to saying there is a "gap" in understanding how the universe was created, therefore the theory of gravity falls apart. Do you see how gravity works independently of how the universe was created? The same way evolution happens independently of the start of life? They have nothing to do with each other other than the fact that one must precede the other.

Nobody has "faith" that life spontaneously created. I am here; I need no further evidence to support that life SOMEHOW started.

I also want to point out we do not need to recreate the big bang in order to verify it. We can infer things from other data. We don't need to recreate dinosaurs to know they existed; their fossilized remnants are proof enough for their existence as well as evolution. Just as the background radiation along with other evidence SUPPORTS the big bang theory. I think anyone that doesn't believe in evolution or the big bang is a ratard. 

Oh but the odds of super primitive life forming SOMEWHERE on earth, at SOMETIME over a huge span of time is 6.9 x 10^(2*infinity) !!!!!!!!

Well the odds that some magic entity, EVEN MORE complex than the life and universe it creates, was the origin of life is EVEN MORE astronomical than the odds of it "spontaneously" happening on earth.

I mean seriously? That is the foundation of your argument? It's so unlikely that it must have been created by something even more complex and unlikely?


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 7, 2010)

Riddle me this;
If you don't believe life can be spontaneously occur.
How can you, at the same time, believe God can spontaneously occur?


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 7, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Riddle me this;
> If you don't believe life can be spontaneously occur.
> How can you, at the same time, believe God can spontaneously occur?


Pretty much the point I was getting at.


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 7, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> Pretty much the point I was getting at.


 No doubt, just trying to sharpen it.


----------



## dontcopnone (Dec 7, 2010)

We're always discovering new things. In a hundred years we may discover a reaction chain that takes basic elemental matter to life. Self organizing matter? A hundred years later, we may discover there is a driving force behind all that we experience. Probably not though, given that belief has a very effective self-defense mechanism. The price of salvation is unwavering belief - if you dare to doubt (example: doubting Thomas in Christianity) or deny the existence of your God, your invitation to "heaven" is revoked and you're going to be buggered in the ass by demons for all eternity. No pressure here to believe. Really. Go ahead and be a soulless atheist. But...if you...want to hedge your bets, _just in case..._I mean, there's no harm in that, right?

On each side of this discussion are people who have made up their mind on what to believe. They have decided to interpret their reality with or without a divine conductor. This is nothing new; people have been killing each other by the millions over difference of opinion in faith for millennia. It's both comforting and challenging to maintain believe in a creator entity. The animal inside us is not wired to trust, to have faith. It is, however, wired to lash out when people call your version of reality a delusion.

Give it up, find ways to live in each others' world without murdering each other because some people chose to believe in an invisible man in the sky that really loves them. Live your life the way you want to and try to be decent to your fellow humans. Whether you chose to do this in devotion to The Creator or just common decency does not matter. The only commandments you need in life are 1) don't be a dick and 2)try to think of others once in a while.


----------



## Illumination (Dec 7, 2010)

dontcopnone said:


> We're always discovering new things. In a hundred years we may discover a reaction chain that takes basic elemental matter to life. Self organizing matter? A hundred years later, we may discover there is a driving force behind all that we experience. Probably not though, given that belief has a very effective self-defense mechanism. The price of salvation is unwavering belief - if you dare to doubt (example: doubting Thomas in Christianity) or deny the existence of your God, your invitation to "heaven" is revoked and you're going to be buggered in the ass by demons for all eternity. No pressure here to believe. Really. Go ahead and be a soulless atheist. But...if you...want to hedge your bets, _just in case..._I mean, there's no harm in that, right?
> 
> On each side of this discussion are people who have made up their mind on what to believe. They have decided to interpret their reality with or without a divine conductor. This is nothing new; people have been killing each other by the millions over difference of opinion in faith for millennia. It's both comforting and challenging to maintain believe in a creator entity. The animal inside us is not wired to trust, to have faith. It is, however, wired to lash out when people call your version of reality a delusion.
> 
> Give it up, find ways to live in each others' world without murdering each other because some people chose to believe in an invisible man in the sky that really loves them. Live your life the way you want to and try to be decent to your fellow humans. Whether you chose to do this in devotion to The Creator or just common decency does not matter. The only commandments you need in life are 1) don't be a dick and 2)try to think of others once in a while.


 
Very wise well put and true...props to you +rep

Awesome way to be

Namaste'


----------



## edwardtheclean (Dec 7, 2010)

people are going to believe what they choose to believe. Sometimes even when a fact is presented, others will still dismiss it for whatever reason they choose. this thread is still intense tho.


----------



## Tym (Dec 7, 2010)

I'm still waiting for him to actually uphold his responsibility and provide some evidence..
If he fails to do so, his claims aren't worth the bandwidth they consume.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 9, 2010)

Athiest billboard

So the American Athiests with support from the JREF bought billboard space outside the Lincoln tunnel for this message. "You KNOW It's a Myth. This season, celebrate reason." The Catholic League responded by buying space on the opposite side, for the message, "You Know It's Real. This season, celebrate Jesus."

Bill Donohue spoke for the Catholic League, and wasted no time connecting atheists to evolution.


> Athiests are apparently too proud to admit their sin and need of a Savior, so they flee to &#8220;REASON.&#8221; Yet, their atheistic reasoning is so inconsistent and depressing. It is atheism that is based on fairy tales and myth &#8211; notions like evolution. "To believe that nothing created everything is to lack that necessary 'reason' of which American Atheists speak,"


I suppose I don't need to point out the profound ignorance this statement suggests. Science is unfortunately limited to fact, and can not religh on the limitless supply of bullshit and deceit religion has at it's disposal.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 9, 2010)

I would say it's an utter waste of time to bother reading or thinking about any of this bullshit, like Bill Donohue (obviously retarded), except it has infected so many people. How do you even respond to a comment like the one quoted by Bill? If it was any other subject besides religion EVERYONE would look at the horseshit he spouts and simply dismiss it, and quickly think of how amazing it is that someone with such apparently diminished mental faculty was able to actually string words together to make a sentence. Nevermind it's total non-sense, he at least seems to have a grasp on the concept of language. 

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone or something. A crazy, absolutely unbelievable belief system is out there, and everyone but me is going "yea that makes perfect sense!!!!" WTF?

Seriously man, welcome to the scary door.


----------



## trishmybiscuits (Dec 9, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Don't be fooled. The science is there.


Christianity was debunked once and for all back in 2008:

http://www.unintimidatedpress.com/christianity.htm


----------



## Scrooge (Dec 11, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Okay, but where is the design? Since evolution is an unguided process, which Dr. Miller will agree with, then except for the initial life that started evolving, what exactly is designed? Did God sent the Chicxulub asteroid to earth to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could get going? What about all of the other chain of events that had to occur for us to be here? If you believe that there was more than a Deistic approach, that of a God that interferes in the natural order of the evolutionary process, then you aren't accepting evolution at all. Non-naturalistic evolution is not evolution, its magic. Most Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible which is what contradicts science.
> Did you see Religulous?


 
Sorry, I didn't see "Religulous". I don't get my information from a stand-up comedian and failed actor with an agenda.

I simply believe that the universe is just too perfect to have happened by accident. That is my belief and there is nothing that can shake my Faith.

You folks put too much effort into this and spend an inordinate amount of time on debating "What IF's" instead of concentrating on "What IS".


----------



## Tym (Dec 11, 2010)

Scrooge said:


> Sorry, I didn't see "Religulous". I don't get my information from a stand-up comedian and failed actor with an agenda.
> 
> I simply believe that the universe is just too perfect to have happened by accident. That is my belief and there is nothing that can shake my Faith.
> 
> You folks put too much effort into this and spend an inordinate amount of time on debating "What IF's" instead of concentrating on "What IS".


So it's an argument from ignorance..
Because you don't understand something, you believe the one thing you can understand..
That's fine if you want to be intellectually bankrupt. But to be honest with yourself, you should ask yourself "what created the creator?". You will find that the creator hypothesis answers no questions, and only raises more.

Furthermore Who said it happened by accident? The scientific theories don't make that claim. Only creationist posit that claim.

When you talk of beliefs and unshakable faith, you talk of dreams and feelings. A very emotional stance on the subject in question. This of course, adds no validity to the truth value of the statement. Your feelings and preferences of the beginnings of our universe (whatever you would call the beginning most likely is not what the theory claims), do not trump the observable, testable, repeatable and proven facts of the science as we know it. 

If you claim that nothing can shake your faith, you are in essence saying "I will not accept any evidence and I wish to remain willfully ignorant of all facts and apposing view points". This is the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy and declaration of the lack of reasoning and logic.

The only people here saying "What if" are the ones who hold beliefs unsupported by evidence. Those of us supported by evidence are talking about "what is" as we are talking about what is demonstrable. "What if" is reserved for those who make claims they cannot support with evidence and reject valid demonstrable evidence on the grounds of willful ignorance.


----------



## UGA (Dec 11, 2010)

who was the guy in the bible that lived in a whale for like a month or something?? someone explain that scientifically please?


----------



## bunnyface (Dec 11, 2010)

hey,
dosnt life and how it got here have an explaintion? cause I think it dose, chaos theroy,,,let me explain
in this vastness and expansive universe having a certainty is nearly impossible. Im not going to go into all the details of chaos theroy, thats what google is for,, but the possiblites and probabilaties of life starting are how ever many billions to one, and chance of the conditions to be 'right for life' in this vastness are how ever many billion to one but as we can see out the window here is that one in a billion. Here is that one in a billion chance of life starting out of protiens, acids, heat, electrical charge and other parts to start those first cells and bateria.(I cant remeber the exact bits present at that time on the earth, and yes we dont know how they combined to start those first cells, but we know thay did, that one in however many).
As we can see on the earth and in the univerese, stuff can happen, even the unexplainable. here a quick example. using infra red light astrominers can see a distant ' young galaxy' (galaxy A)on the outskirts of the universe,(this means its young as we see it but at present it could be very differnt as it takes so long for light to get here) anyway they could see it in infra red, but in other optical ranges they could just see this big fuckoff galaxy (galaxy B)that was alot nearer(in galatic terms) and alot older. what they found is this big fuckoff galaxy( galaxy B) was actaully taking the light from the distant galxy into it and around it and refracting the light in such away as to focus it perfectly for us to see it,.
Now if this had been another period in time(as time is a can be used as a measure of postion/location in the universe), or we had been in a different part of space in relation to the light being refracted , and hell if they hadnt pointed this telescope in the right direction, we wouldnt have seen this awsome phenominum.
So back to my point, yeah, stuff can just happen and dose and thats my explaination for life starting. 
that or god,,,hahahahahahaha/. 
take it easy..


----------



## Tym (Dec 11, 2010)

UGA said:


> who was the guy in the bible that lived in a whale for like a month or something?? someone explain that scientifically please?


Jonah, and they didn't even say whale until more recent theologians updated bibles.. 
The Hebrew text of Jonah 2:1 (1:17 in English translation), reads _dag gadol_ (Hebrew: &#1491;&#1490; &#1490;&#1491;&#1493;&#1500, which literally means "great fish."

But you have to be careful when talking to creationists and ID proponents. They simply love to claim that they aren't talking about any specific god or religion. That's why I'm constantly trying to get them to tell me what they believe and why, so I can refute that. If you make assumptions on what they believe they just say "That's not what I believe". The big problem is, when you ask them what they believe and why, they don't tell you. Why you ask? Most likely cause they don't know or they know they can't support it rationally.


----------



## bunnyface (Dec 11, 2010)

UGA said:


> who was the guy in the bible that lived in a whale for like a month or something?? someone explain that scientifically please?


sorry but you cant really dis the bible. you should be dissing the people that take it for soild fact and word. Even the pope will tell you the bible is a collection of stories passed down from 'before' christ.(I dont belive that as the romans had alot to do with what our current day bible contains and dosnt!!!) these stories have morals and lessons galore, so people can try to relate to them. This would be espically potent back in the day when life was short and shit. So some form of reward and justice for you having a hard life while the powers that be could live better and in the after life there would be equaility so in this life you shut up and get on with it. During the middle ages alot of the bible was editied to justify killing, gencide, witch killings, ethinc cleansing and others, to name afew, and these parts are still in there!!!.
so back to my point, its not the bible, its the people who interprt it,,,
On another point, there was actually a man called jesus who was stuck on a cross and he dose have a grave!! read on if you want.
basically jesus was a buddist, a religon older than christianity, but which gives alot to the teaching of jesus. when the buddist are going to get a new dali-lama(sorry for spelling) they send 3 elders to follow a star to find the new born dali lama.(sounds familar dosnt it???haha but itsa true) so these men find a new top dog, when hes a baby and are to take to him gold,merr,francisens. they will then leave the child and return when the child is about 7 to take him to be trained in the art of buddist purtiy. Hence why there is nothing on jesus from the age of seven till adulthood. 
when the child has been trained he is then sent back out as a learned man to preach the teaching of buddisum. hence why jesus rocked up saying peace and love. (you can find the simialrites pretty easy) anyway so the romans , muslims, christian and jews all have records of a man called jesus who said he was a religous leader, , anyway they hang him up on a cross, that was a tryed and tested method to kill people was crusification. what it dose os while they are up there there feet arnt surrported just nailed on, with hand, this wieght and postion actually crushes the subjects lungs with each breath, however jesus had a foot bar underneath and so just lost alot of blood and seemed to be dead. Now when he was take into that cave they took in some 'imbaring oils' infact from recent texts discovered tend to suggest they where infact revivail fluids and wond healing herds. so when he rose again he wasnt dead just passed out and dying slowly. anyway so hes back then goes again, now buddist teachers like jesus when they have done there 'duty' they return back to Nepal to become the dila lama, In nepal there are these two graves one facing north sout(I think it either that or other way round) and one grave east west. now its normal for dila lamas when they die to have there feet cast and placed as a head stone sort of thing. the one north south has normal feet and the one east west has holes or these deformed sort of middles to his feet, of both feet where place over one another the holes would line up. there not really hole more wounds wiith dents... anyhow sorry for any spelling and there was a jesus, he was a man taught by buddists to try to teach there ways. in my view buddisum is really the one true religion which all other have stolen from. Im not reliogus but just telling you facts.
Take it easy...


----------



## bunnyface (Dec 11, 2010)

UGA said:


> who was the guy in the bible that lived in a whale for like a month or something?? someone explain that scientifically please?


also if you think about it he could of lived in the skeleton of a whale on the beach,,, like they used bones in skarper brae in scotland. so of the oldest houses, and on the east caost of africa some trides still use washed up whale bones for there shelters. bones are light, easy to tool into a shape, strong and great for building with.(way back when,, im going with 3000yr BC, as in iraq there was that first city,I think thats about right.
the bbc has a great series called ancient worlds, the first one is a great one about the first 'civilation'.
anyhow take it easy


----------



## bunnyface (Dec 11, 2010)

sorry for all the ranting./


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 11, 2010)

Scrooge said:


> Sorry, I didn't see "Religulous". I don't get my information from a stand-up comedian and failed actor with an agenda.


Classic ad hominem attack.



> I simply believe that the universe is just too perfect to have happened by accident. That is my belief and there is nothing that can shake my Faith.


_Argument from Personal Incredulity - I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. _

Evolution is not random, it does not happen by accident. Mutations and deviations may happen randomly, but the filter they go through is very specific, survival of the fittest. Saying nothing can shake your faith is the same as saying, I give myself permission to remain ignorant on this subject. Science never ignores evidence in favor of prejudice.


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 11, 2010)

Christian science is infallible.
[youtube]gc8AN6TIbm4[/youtube]


----------



## Tym (Dec 11, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> Christian science is infallible.
> [youtube]gc8AN6TIbm4[/youtube]


Lol yeah Edward Current is hilarious. But so many people don't understand satire, they think he's for real..
But I always say, you don't need to make fun of creationists. They make fun of themselves.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

I know its long but it is interesting.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77024018179262526#


----------



## tafbang (Dec 12, 2010)

Illumination said:


> "Two hands working can accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer" - Heisenberg
> 
> very thought provoking sig there my friend
> 
> Namaste'



What about the people born without hands?? DAMN GOD he made it so some people can't pray!!! he is mean!


----------



## tafbang (Dec 12, 2010)

did he intelligently design someone to have 6 toes? or for an animal to be missing a limb?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;Hi6yPJvCFU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0&feature=related[/video]


So he just does not like the God of the bible but still admits that he thinks there is a god. hmmmm.


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

Dude, crackerboy. You just keep spamming videos, can I please have some evidence now? You Claim there is science behind a creator. You claim it can be proven, lets see it. Please we are all waiting..


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

But wait, everyone said that scientists don't believe in such non sense.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Tym said:


> Dude, crackerboy. You just keep spamming videos, can I please have some evidence now? You Claim there is science behind a creator. You claim it can be proven, lets see it. Please we are all waiting..



If you don't like my thread don't visit.


----------



## tafbang (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy, what other documentaries have you seen?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

tafbang said:


> crackerboy, what other documentaries have you seen?



many more, why?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;xOypryu_sAU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOypryu_sAU&feature=related[/video]


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;n426PazcFXE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n426PazcFXE&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> But wait, everyone said that scientists don't believe in such non sense.


Don't believe what?

Can you actually have a thought of your own? please tell me what you believe and why.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Tym said:


> Don't believe what?
> 
> Can you actually have a thought of your own? please tell me what you believe and why.



I believe in God because he reveals himself to me.


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I believe in God because he reveals himself to me.


How does he do that? Does he talk to you? Do you see him?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Tym said:


> How does he do that? Does he talk to you? Do you see him?


Yes he speaks to me through his word and general revelation. I do see him in the miracles of life.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;MmtYF0y29xI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtYF0y29xI&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> But wait, everyone said that scientists don't believe in such non sense.


Another strawman. No one said all scientists denounce creationism. In fact, I and others took the time to explain the difference between the science and scientists. We can't have each individual claiming his opinion is science, and part of the way we avoid this is through peer review. Rather than explain again, why not read the posts that already cover this? Don't you get tired of us focusing on your logical fallacies? 

When you keep posting videos, all your really doing is showing us "hey, this videos fooled me, oh and this one too". Why not post the vids and then post a short summary of why this video appeals to you. You are employing the tactic of information overload, which is not an uncommon thing for creationists to do in a debate. The creationist heaps on load after load of what he calls evidence and before the opposition has time to address every small error they throw out more and more information, all the while ignoring the points made against that info. I don't think you are doing this on purpose, but you are showing nearly every fallacy typical of creationists, and showing no effort to understand any points but your own. 

When you learn to make your point without using little tricks, you will get more respect for your words, and people will actually focus on your point instead of your method. At this point, you seem to be on the level of a grade school brat. "Haha, you said science doesn't believe, and heres a scientists who does." When you think about that statment, is that really something you want to have said?


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Yes he speaks to me through his word and general revelation. I do see him in the miracles of life.


He speaks to you verbally? You Audibly hear him in your mind?
You visually see him? As a physical form?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> [video=youtube;Hi6yPJvCFU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0&feature=related[/video]
> 
> 
> So he just does not like the God of the bible but still admits that he thinks there is a god. hmmmm.


 Certainly if you define god as Spinoza did, then I guess I believe in god too. Seriously CB, did you actually listen to what Michio actually said? Spinoza's god is nature itself, the mathematical simplicity and interconnectedness of all things. As Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is in us. we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
No one is affirming the existence of anything supernatural which is what you are implying he said. 

An exercise that would benefit you is to look for fallacies and inaccuracies in the things you post. Be critical. Look for logical and factual problems with what people present without making up a strawman yourself. Even when I watch a video or read something that I generally agree with, I still look for problems. It's the only way to true knowledge.


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 12, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> An exercise that would benefit you is to look for fallacies and inaccuracies in the things you post. Be critical. Look for logical and factual problems with what people present without making up a strawman yourself. Even when I watch a video or read something that I generally agree with, I still look for problems. It's the only way to true knowledge.


The wise man's sharpening tool!


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 12, 2010)

Sure Shot said:


> The wise man's sharpening tool!


 http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 12, 2010)

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking."

[/FONT]"They(critical thinkers) realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest."*

If I didn't like my sig so much, I would throw those quotes in there. Nice read, thanks for keeping me sharp.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Some of you just crack me up. You all are still just trying to discredit me. With all the info to discuss in these videos everybody just tries to make me out to be some tard. I had to take critical thinking classes in college. I keep posting this stuff to see if anyone will address these subjects. But I guess its too much to ask so you all can have this thread. I'm bored with this. Time for a new thread on a different subject.


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Some of you just crack me up. You all are still just trying to discredit me. With all the info to discuss in these videos everybody just tries to make me out to be some tard. I had to take critical thinking classes in college. I keep posting this stuff to see if anyone will address these subjects. But I guess its too much to ask so you all can have this thread. I'm bored with this. Time for a new thread on a different subject.


Information is not always correct man. I can find videos that say unicorns exist and aliens live on the moon, it doesn't make it true. It's how we evaluate the information, claims need to be supported by evidence. If you didn't require evidence to accept a claim, you would have to believe in everything you've ever be told.. That is just absurd. What you don't understand, is that what you have accepted as evidence, is not evidence. It is not demonstrable and cannot be tested. And where it has been tested, it has failed. We are not discrediting you, you are making claims (that you obviously don't understand) and then failing to support those claims with evidence. We just don't accept your claims. In order to discredit someone, they would first need to be accredited.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Tym said:


> Information is not always correct man. I can find videos that say unicorns exist and aliens live on the moon, it doesn't make it true. It's how we evaluate the information, claims need to be supported by evidence. If you didn't require evidence to accept a claim, you would have to believe in everything you've ever be told.. That is just absurd. What you don't understand, is that what you have accepted as evidence, is not evidence. It is not demonstrable and cannot be tested. And where it has been tested, it has failed. We are not discrediting you, you are making claims (that you obviously don't understand) and then failing to support those claims with evidence. We just don't accept your claims. In order to discredit someone, they would first need to be accredited.



It seems more like you don't understand the topics so your only recourse is to attack the one that posted it. You make so many claims about the info in the videos without actually talking about the subjects in them. You talk about them not being tested but the subject of Abiogenesis has been tested and proven to be statistically impossible. The subject of fine tuning has been tested and scientists agree that without all of the variables being so exact then life could not exist. Once again fine tuning has demonstrated mathematically the it is statistically impossible to have happened by chance. But when faced with these equations Atheists just try and attack the scientists instead of the science just as you are doing now. So with that said I see that I can not have an educated discussion on these topics and I am just wasting my time. So I will see you on some other thread. peace.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;mlD-CJPGt1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlD-CJPGt1A[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;p6FQdyHUXwc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6FQdyHUXwc[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;mij4DYYnkF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> It seems more like you don't understand the topics so your only recourse is to attack the one that posted it. You make so many claims about the info in the videos without actually talking about the subjects in them. You talk about them not being tested but the subject of Abiogenesis has been tested and proven to be statistically impossible. The subject of fine tuning has been tested and scientists agree that without all of the variables being so exact then life could not exist. Once again fine tuning has demonstrated mathematically the it is statistically impossible to have happened by chance. But when faced with these equations Atheists just try and attack the scientists instead of the science just as you are doing now. So with that said I see that I can not have an educated discussion on these topics and I am just wasting my time. So I will see you on some other thread. peace.


Lol, Dude.. Why don't you answer my question then? Can't you defend your beliefs?
Fine tuning is a red herring, Another logical fallacy.. We give things numbers and probabilities as a way of trying to explain and deal with them. Just because we can give a number to the constant of the strong and weak forces, does not mean they could ever be changed or different.. They may be as absolute as the speed of a photon.

Answer my question, I asked you to tell me what you believe and why, you said that you believe in god, because he reveals himself to you.
I asked you how he did that, do you visually see him? Do you audibly hear him? Please answer the question.


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

Here's a good idea for you. A little helpful hint from me to you.. Check out iron chariots wiki before you make an argument. If it's on there, you won't stand a chance making the argument with any rational educated atheist.

Fine tuning for example:

*Fine-tuning argument*

*From Iron Chariots Wiki*

Jump to: navigation, search
In cosmology, *fine tuning* refers to the precise balance of cosmological constants that allow the observable universe to exist as it does. These constants include the speed of light, the rate of expansion of the universe, the force of gravity, the nuclear strong force, the electromagnetic force, and many other parameters of the observable universe. It is claimed that these constants exist in such a state of precise equilibrium that any variation to their values would have resulted in a drastically different universe. The *fine tuning argument* states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth. This argument is the same as the anthropic theistic principle. 
*Contents*

[hide]


1 Background
2 Apologetics
3 Formal Statement of the Argument
4 Counter-apologetics
5 Affirming the consequent
6 Other Counter-Arguments
7 See also
8 External links
 [edit]
* Background *

The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only become popular since the mid-1990s with recent observations about the observable universe and cosmological constants. Cosmologists have theorized that even minute variations in the values of these constants would have resulted in a radically different universe or one altogether unsuitable for supporting life as we know it. 


 _Example 1:_ The rate of expansion of matter after the Big Bang had to occur at precisely the right rate to allow our universe to form as it has. If it had expanded any faster, matter would have dissipated too quickly for stars and solar systems to form. If it had occurred any slower, the universe would have collapsed upon itself shortly after the Big Bang, resulting in what is known as a Big Crunch.
 

 _Example 2:_ The strong nuclear force is the force which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. Scientists have calculated that variations in the strong force of as little as ±1% would have drastically affected the breakdown of naturally occurring elements in the universe, prohibiting the formation of stars, black holes, and other natural occurring phenomena.
 There are studies of numerous other constants with similar results. 
[edit]
* Apologetics *

Deists cite this remarkable balance of cosmological constants as evidence of a creator, being a far too unlikely set of circumstances to have occurred naturally. This is quickly becoming the argument of choice of creationism proponents like Lee Strobel. Strobel presents this concept as incontrovertible empirical evidence of God in his book The Case for a Creator. 


[edit]
* Formal Statement of the Argument *

Here is Drange&#8217;s formulation: 
1. The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it. 
2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable. 
3. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one. 
4. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he &#8220;fine-tuned&#8221; those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems. 
5. But such a being as described in (4) is what people mean by &#8220;God.&#8221; 
6. Hence [from (4) & (5)], there is good evidence that God exists. 


[edit]
* Counter-apologetics *



 Essentially this argument is just a variation on the argument from design. The key difference here is that it misrepresents actual scientific evidence in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning". It is also worth mentioning that a counter-argument to design, natural-law argument, and the anthropic principle is also a counter-argument to fine-tuning. See below.
 A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall. (See next point)
 Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
 Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
 The Earth's total mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around 7×10^13 kg. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has created and tested much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
 In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
 If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
 The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
 If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is _not_ an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.
 If we are to consider the chance of the universe existing the way it did, surely the same principle of chance can be reversed. What is the chance that a truly omnipotent God, as proposed by many religions, made the constants, factors and general details of the universe as he did? he would have infinite possibilities meaning the probability would be 1 in infinity - much less than the supposed calculations of those presenting the argument.
 It may be useful to realise that the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable by any form of life, albeit human life. If there are so many regions of space, and indeed our own planet, that are uninhabitable by life, then why should we call the universe "fine-tuned"?.
 When considering the arguments fourth premise, which includes "...created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal...", the question must be raised of how does the God being posited as the creator of said universe gain the attributes stated by the argument? the argument is in no way structured to determine the precise attributes of the personal being of which the presenter asserts. It is not necessary for the creator to be all-loving, he could be making us with the notion of torturing us for all we know. It is not necessary for the creator to be eternal, he could have fizzled out in the creation or could have died of some unfathomable cause. And it is likewise unecessary for the creator to be omniscient and/or omnipotent, there are logical arguments against the proposition of such attributes, and the being need not be all-powerful/knowing - he could just be really, really powerful and know alot, but not everything.
 It may be worth noting, also, that the some of the constants specified not not require abitrary precision. With regards to the Goldilocks zone, the amount Earth can be distanced from the sun is approximately 37%, right out to Mars (yes, our solar system has two planets in the Goldilocks zone). The point being that the so-called precision we find, is actually not that precise in reality (this is one of the more extreme cases, most others can be changed but the difference being not as much).
 Firstly, it has to be pointed out that for an omnipotent God the fundamental constants would be irrelevant. An omnipotent God could have created us in a universe with any set of constants had he chose to. But this is not the line of thinking the theist takes. The constants had to be what they are because, as they claim, if they were different we would have no life. If the constants necessarily had to be what they are than that implies that there is some set of governing rules that even God must follow, that supercede his power. If God HAD to fine-tune the universe to these particular set of constants because not doing so would not have allowed him to bring life into existence (and as they claim in their argument, a different set and theres no life) then God is indeed NOT omnipotent. 
Not withstanding the obvious fact that the universe really isn't very congenial towards life, as 99.999% of the observed universe is uninhabitable, Vic Stenger in his book God: The failed hypothesis, quotes a private communication with Martin Wagner in which he points out that: 
"In fact, the whole argument from fine-tuning ultimately makes no sense. As my friend Martin Wagner notes, all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God. 'he could have created us to live in a hard vacuum if he wanted.'" 

Bertrand Russell: 
"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary." 

We can view the universe as one of those massive safes that banks keep in their vaults, with a number of dials that must be set to specific values in order to open it. However, in our example, these dials can be literally set to any number, so that an infinite number of combinations are possible. The one combination that will open the safe is analogous to the values of the physical constants of the universe that allow the existence of intelligent life. 
The "fine tuning" argument claims that it is, for all intents, impossible to randomly set the the values of the dials and, simply by chance, arrive at the correct combination that will open the safe. Only someone who actually knows the combination can open it. In the argument, this requires the existence of a god who knows the precise setting that will allow life to arise. 
However, if this god is the creator of the universe and everything in it, then he is not limited to simply turning the dials on the safe. He must also have been responsible for building the safe itself, and setting the coimbination that allows it to be opened. This means he also has the ability to adjust the locking mechanism of the safe so that any combination he wants will open it. Therefore, it can no longer be said that only one combination is capable of opening the safe. Now, there is a literally infinite number of combinations that can open it. 
Restated in the form of the argument itself: The (apparent) fact that only a specific combination of values of physical constants allows life to arise is, itself, an expression of a fundamental law of the universe. If God can change the values of those physical constants, there is no reason to believe he cannot also change the more fundamental laws that limit the conditions under which life will arise. 
This has two fatal consequences for the "fine tuning" argument: 
1) If God can, in fact, adjust the "combination" of the safe to any values he wants, this completely refutes the claim that life can only arise under a very specific set of circumstances. Rather, if such a God exists, life should be able to arise under any set of circumstances whatsoever, with infinite possibilities. The "fine tuning" argument, therefore, can no longer be used as evidence for the existence of such a God. 
2) If, on the other hand, God cannot adjust the "combination", then this raises a situation that most theists would find unacceptable. It raises the question of who or what actually is reponsible for creating the safe, and deciding on its combination. God, in this scenario, is reduced to being a low-level employee of the bank, who is able to open the safe, but is not responsible for the operation of the safe itself, nor entrusted with the ability to set the combination of the safe. Those responsibilities must be taken over by some entity more powerful and important than God. This is incompatible with most theistic beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic monotheistic ones. 

To restate the argument, in the form of the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God : 
Posit X and Y as features of human understanding. In the case of fine-tuning, X is "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily capable of sustaining life" and Y is "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily incapable of sustaining life". 
1.X is necessary or has a necessary part (the necessity of being capable of sustaining life). 
Y is necessary or has a necessary part (the physical necessity of being hostile to life). 
2.If theism is true, then divine creation obtains. 
3.If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God&#8217;s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary. 
4.If theism is true, then no X or Y can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3) 
5.Theism is false. (from 1 and 4) 

The theist can of course deny premise 1, but doing so is a denial of the fine-tuning argument. The first premise of this argument is the same as the first premise of the fine-tuning argument. 
The first premise of the fine-tuning argument is: 
1. "The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it". 
This means that: 
The combination of physical constants in our universe -> necessarily capable of sustaining life as we know it (denoted by X). 
And 
The combination of other physical constants -> necessarily incapable of sustaining life as we know it (denoted by Y). 


In a similar form of the argument: 
1. If theism is true, then divine causation obtains. 
2. If divine causation obtains, then all facts of the universe are contingent upon God's act of creation. 
3. If theism is true, then life can arise under any possible physical condition. (from 1 and 2) 
4. If theism is true, then fine-tuning is invalid. (from 3) 
Maybe the transition from premise 2 to 3 requires further justification. Denote the physical constants by {X; Y; Z) and the obtainment of life by L and negation by ~. 
A fact of the universe is that {X--> L; Y--> ~L; Z--> ~L}. 
Since the fact is contingent upon God's act of creation, then it is not necessary and so can be altered. 
If it can be altered then the following can be true {X--> L; Y--> L; Z--> L}. Basically, X, Y, and Z are irrelevant to God if divine causation obtains. 
So as a shorthand one can say that &#8220;contingency implies the impossibility of principles and absolutes&#8221;. 
One can of course deny that divine creation obtains, and deny that God created the laws of science. However, this means that God is not the Creator and that he is subject to these laws himself. 

Stephen Hawking on the Anthropic Principle: 
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty." 
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary". [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989] 
"One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics". [Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes] 
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=A_Brief_History_of_Time" 

The features of humanity have evolved as a result of our environment, rather than our environment being tailored to suit us. 
Douglas Adams c.1998: 
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." 
Furthermore, the "fine-tuning argument" is a logical fallacy of the "ex-post-facto statistics" type. It applies in situations like this whenever we apply probability laws to past events. 
For example, we all know the probability of being dealt a bridge hand of, say, all thirteen spades is quite small. But if we look at any bridge hand after we're dealt it, the probabilities of being dealt that exact hand are just as miniscule. 
Given, hypothetically, an array of 52 different universes, the probability of actualizing our universe is 1 in 52. But if we look at any universe after it has been actualized, the probability of that occurring is just as miniscule. 
-Life is just one of the possible things that may arise in the universe, and by itself is no more or less important than any of those other things. It's just that, as living beings ourselves, we tend to place a higher value on life than other aspects of the universe. 
-We cannot assume that life as we know it is the only possible form that life could take. If the constants of the universe were different, that does not rule out the possibility that intelligent lilfe could nonetheless still arise, albeit in a form currently unimaginable to us. 
-It is foolish to say the universe is exquisitely set for the existence of life, since any living thing would instantly die in almost any place in the observed universe. 
-The fine-tuning argument is an argument from design, so we can rightly ask, "who designed the designer?". The argument opens itself up for eternal regress. If god designed the universe to support life, this means that god itself has features that lead to the creation of life. The same argument therefore applies to the higher level - it follows that God was created in order to create life. And this God-creator was itself designed to create life, and so on and so forth. 
- The argument presupposes that there is a certain range of possible values the constants can take. We don't know whether this is true, we have no idea what values the constants can take or if they can take other values at all. 
-The argument presupposes that there is no natural process of creating universes, or that if there is it isn't going to create a universe with our values of the constants. This is, again, just not something we know scientifically. There still isn't a well established scientific theory on how universes are naturally created, so we cannot say that it is unlikely for our universe to have been created naturally (indeed, many of the current hypotheses indicate that our universe was created naturally; but they are not yet proved). Nor are we in the situation where science has established that there is no natural way for a universe to be created. We just don't know enough about universes for this presupposition to be accepted. 
In this respect, this is an argument from ignorance. Saying that it is impossible for our universe to have been created naturally in this way is just like saying that the ordered shape of the hexagonal basalt columns of the Giant's Causeway could not have been created naturally. That is, of course, false. One can understand that the basalt columns are natural when one understand enough about how basalt is created and formed naturally. One cannot rule out a natural explanation until one has an understanding of the subject matter's natural behavior. Similarly, since we don't know how universes are created we just don't know enough to determine that the values of the constants in our universe are indicative of an unnatural process. 
-The argument is too quick to assert that other values will not result in life. We haven't explored all the various possibilities thoroughly enough to make such a pronouncement. We know slight variations will produce radically different physics, but we're far from knowing that no other constellation of constants will produce complex structures or how common or naturally likely to occur are such combinations. These are two separate issues that should not be confused. Indeed, it is possible that there are values that are more supportive of life, with life more pervasive throughout the spacetime of the universe. 
-The argument implicitly assumes that it is possible for a universe to be artificially created with a certain choice of values. While this might sound plausible, it is not necessary. Certain theories on universe-creation, for example, posit that the values are determined randomly due to symmetry breaking, so that there is no way for their creator or the process that creates them to determine these values in advance. 
-Another problem is that the anthropic principle holds regardless of fine-tuning. Even if it would take fine-tuning not to support life, the fact that we live in a world that supports life is still not apparently necessary. God still chose just those constants that support life - he just had more choices. This raises the Argument from Contingency, the questions of why things are the way they are, but the evidential fine tuning of things becomes irrelevant. 
-Another reply could be that we cannot talk about there being lots of different possible causes, and the probability of the cause being the right one, because we have no way to know how to construct the reference class - the set of possibilities. This would be an absurd double standard. Remember, it was the theists who wanted to get into the probability business in the first place, and to stop playing when it is inconvenient is just hypocrisy. In the absence of any better way of constructing a reference class of possible causes we actually have an excellent reference class to use: Advocates of the fine tuning argument obviously have a reference class of "possible universes" in mind and we can simply use this, and assume that each of these possible universes has an individual possible cause. This, of course, leads us with as many causes as there are possible universes, and if advocates of fine tuning think that most universes are inhospitable to life then they must be claiming that most causes of universes are inhospitable to life. The only way round this is to claim that the reference class of causes is not constructed like that, but the this involves taking a preferential position with no justification: They are wanting to assume that all universes are equally possible, but not that all the causes of these universes are equally possible and they are just adjusting their reference class of causes to fit the answer they want. Furthermore, even if it turned out that the cause of our universe was somehow more likely than the causes of the other universes, this does not imply a designer: By adjusting the reference class like this to get round the problem, unless you can show that your adjustment follows from the cause being a designer, youa re actually admitting that there is no fine tuning problem, that the cause of the universe, for some reason, was more likely than all the other causes that might have occurred. If you lack any sound basis for this, you may as well just apply logic like that to the universe itself anyway. 

Also, to quickly spot the inadequacy of the fine-tuning argument, see the following videos on youtube: 
Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? [1] 
William Lane Craig 2 - Craig Harder (Refuting WLC's Proofs For God, Part II) [2] 
And to read an article which handily refutes the theistic anthropic principle, see [3] 
[edit]
* Affirming the consequent *

The Fine Tuning argument presupposes that the phenomenon of life and it being _presumably_ only possible in a universe with physical constants exactly like the ones in ours is what qualifies this as special or sublime, however, this is based entirely on nothing other than the entities that determine what qualifies this universe as special or sublime are living (humans). This is an affirming the consequent fallacy. It could also be seen as a confirmation bias fallacy. In a hypothetical universe with different physical constants, there may be an emergent natural phenomenon that is vastly more complex than the emergence of life, the evolution of life, and the ecology of life. This phenomenon, we will label "phenomenon x", would be impossible in our universe because our physical constants may not permit phenomenon x to occur. There is no objective reason why the possibility of life demands a fine tuner more than phenomenon x. There is also no objective reason why any natural phenomenon, no matter the complexity, should demand a fine tuner any more than another. Hypothetically, if it were shown that life of some kind is possible in most possible universes, but the phenomenon of lightning is only possible in this one, then an apologist might assert that because we occupy the only possible universe with lightning, this universe must have been finely tuned. 
A reductio ad absurdum can be constructed to demonstrate the weakness of the argument. If life is improbable then the existence of spaghetti is even more improbable. 
1. The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining spaghetti as we know it. 
2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable. 
3. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one. 
4. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and interested in spaghetti, and that he &#8220;fine-tuned&#8221; those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such foods. 
5. But such a being as described in (4) is what is meant by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". 
6. Hence [from (4) & (5)], there is good evidence that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" exists. 
[edit]
* Other Counter-Arguments *

Important links that address the fine-tuning argument extensively: 
StrongAtheism.net [4] 
Refuting fine-tuning 
[edit]
* See also *



Anthropic principle
Habitable zone
 [edit]
* External links *



 Cosmology 101 at NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisortopy Probe website &#8212; This is an outstanding resource for understanding cosmological theory.
 _Fine-Tuned Deception: Say hello to the new stealth creationism_ by Sahotra Sarkar
 

Swinburne and fine-tuning
 

Videos refuting William Lane Craig's five _proofs_ for God.
 

Anthropic
 

The Many Problems of the Fine-Tuning Argument
 



v · d *Arguments for the existence of god* 
*Anthropic arguments* _Anthropic principle_ · _Natural-law argument_ *Arguments for belief* _Pascal's Wager_ · _Argument from faith_ · _Just hit your knees_ *Christological Arguments* _Christological argument_ · _Argument from biblical miracles_ · _Would Someone Die For a Lie?_ · _Liar, Lunatic or Lord_ *Cosmological Arguments* _Cosmological argument_ · _*Fine-tuning argument*_ · _First cause argument_ · _Kalam_ · _Uncaused cause_ · _Unmoved mover_ *Majority Arguments* _Argumentum ad populum_ · _Argument from admired religious scientists_ *Moral Arguments* _Moral argument_ · _Argument from justice_ · _Divine command theory_ *Ontological Argument* _Ontological argument_ · _Argument from degree_ · _Argument from goodness_ · _Argument from desire_ *Reformed Epistemology* _Argument from divine sense_ · _Sensus divinitatis_ *Teleological Arguments* _Argument from design_ · _Banana argument_ · _747 Junkyard argument_ *Testimonial Arguments* _Personal revelation_ · _Argument from observed miracles_ · _Argument from personal experience_ · _Consciousness argument for the existence of God_ · _Emotional pleas_ *Transcendental arguments* _Transcendental argument_ · _God created numbers_


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

Sorry, double post...


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 13, 2010)

[youtube]vueDC69jRjE[/youtube]


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;HL3kfDmHL5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3kfDmHL5g&feature=related[/video]


mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;mlD-CJPGt1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlD-CJPGt1A[/video]


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;Wkk4NjDmqt8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkk4NjDmqt8&feature=related[/video]


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 13, 2010)




----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

*Argument from design*

*From Iron Chariots Wiki*

Jump to: navigation, search
The *argument from design* is an attempt to prove the existence of God based on the natural order of the universe. 
*Contents*

[hide]


1 Background information
2 Example
3 Argument 
3.1 Paley's watchmaker
3.2 Ray Comfort's divine painter
3.3 Syllogism

4 Counter arguments 
4.1 Manipulating is not Creating
4.2 False premise p1: Complexity
4.3 False premise p2: Definition of design
4.4 Special pleading p2: Recognition of design
4.5 False premise p2: Definitional paradox
4.6 Special pleading: Intelligent designer
4.7 Which religion

5 Other counter arguments 
5.1 Argument from poor design

6 Bertrand Russell and Design
7 Links 
7.1 See also
7.2 External links
7.3 Reference

 [edit]
*Background information*

The argument from design is one of the most common arguments for god. It ranges in complexity from Paley's watchmaker to the laughable plea of the average Christian to *Just look at the trees!* 
Despite being one of the most popular arguments for god, and more or less providing the underpinning for the entire intelligent design movement, the argument is deeply flawed on almost every level. Logically it goes so far as to commit not one, but _two separate cases_ of special pleading. 
[edit]
* Example *

"I see and think about God every time I look around and see birds in air, trees, flowers, grass, sun and raindrops. I am thankful to be alive because God made me, the world and all that's in it." 
&#8212; Letter to the Editor, Hampton Roads Daily Press 
[edit]
*Argument*

[edit]
*Paley's watchmaker*

This is the *watchmaker argument*, one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design. 
_William Paley in Natural Theology c.1802_: 
_"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there."_ 
_William Paley in Natural Theology (Ch. XXIII, Pg. 441)_: 
_"Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.]"_ 
[edit]
*Ray Comfort's divine painter*

This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist Ray Comfort or his many followers. 
_Ray Comfort on Atheist Central / Ray Comfort Food blog_: 
_"First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."_ 
_"Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."_ 
_"Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that."_ 
[edit]
*Syllogism*

p1. We appear to observe features in nature too complex to have happened by chance p2. These features exhibit the hallmark appearance of design p3. Design implies that there must be a designer c1. Therefore nature must be the result of an intelligent designer c2. This designer is God (note: The Intelligent Design movement ends their version of the syllogism at c1. in a feeble attempt to shoe horn creationism into science classrooms. They believe that by not naming this _intelligent designer_ God, the argument by fiat, is not religious. This is analogous to a child's game of peek-a-boo. When small children cover their eyes and can't see you, they assume you also can't see them) 
[edit]
*Counter arguments*

[edit]
*Manipulating is not Creating*

To say that the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter proves the existence of an intelligent being creating ex nihilo, is a non-sequiter. Making consists of manipulation of pre-existing matter and energy. It is true that the existence of a building or car presupposes a maker. But it also presupposes something else: pre-existing matter and energy that the maker manipulates. The maker of a building does not &#8220;make&#8221; it by saying: &#8220;Let there be a house. And let it be of brick and have shingles of asphalt. And let the brick be yellow in color and the window trim be of almond coloring.&#8221; A &#8220;maker&#8221; makes something by starting with something that already exists. She then manipulates it by changing its shape or size or even applying energy to change its attributes and then assembles the modified pre-existing matter into the building. 
A log cabin maker first finds existing trees, chops them down, removes the branches, shapes them and then piles them in a particular way to &#8220;make&#8221; the cabin walls. The raw materials of glass are subjected to heat until the heat manipulates it into a transparent substance that is then molded or cut to fit holes in the walls to make windows. A sand castle maker does not make the sand, he merely shapes existing sand into a shape we call a castle. Making is not &#8220;creating.&#8221; It is merely manipulating. And, of course, existing matter and energy can only be manipulated by a manipulator. 
Creation ex nihilo or speaking something into existence is a completely different category of event. Where making presupposes the previous existence of matter and energy, creating presupposes the opposite &#8211; that nothing exists previously. 
Noticing that existing matter and energy can be manipulated tells us absolutely nothing about how the matter and energy came to exist in the first place. Finding a piece of clay and noticing that it can be manipulated it the shape of a horse tells me nothing about how the clay got there to begin with. 
[edit]
*False premise p1: Complexity*

The idea that aspects of nature are _too complex_ to have happened by _chance_ (or more aptly _natural processes_ if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement &#8220;I can't think how it could have happened, therefore *God done it!*&#8221; 
This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe&#8217;s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))&#8221;. 
Ray Comforts version of the argument (in classic Ray Comfort slap your knees fashion) bypasses this entire premise by committing a fallacy of begging the question and simply assuming a priori in the premises that nature is a &#8220;creation&#8221;. 
[edit]
*False premise p2: Definition of design*

As taken from Wiktionary: 
*Noun* *design (plural designs)* 1. A plan (with more or less detail) for the structure and functions of an artifact, building or system. 2. A pattern, as an element of a work of art or architecture. 3. The composition of a work of art. 4. Intention or plot. M. Le Page Du Pratz, History of Louisisana (PG), p. 40 _I give it you without any other design than to shew you that I reckon nothing dear to me, when I want to do you a pleasure._ 5. The shape or appearance given to an object, especially one that is intended to make it more attractive. 6. The art of designing _Danish design of furniture is world-famous._ We know that man-made objects are designed a posteriori. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because of our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed 
Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long evolutionary process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that it was _designed_ for our benefit; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce _well-adapted organisms_. 
Continuing in the evolutionary vein, one of the beneficial adaptations of humans is the ability to infer intent. This allows us to anticipate behavior on the part of other organisms that might be detrimental (or beneficial) to our survival. However, this ability can be overgeneralized; we can see intent and purpose where there is none. Seeing design in nature is an example, since the religious view is usually that the universe was designed _for our benefit_. Thus, inference of design is really a kind of fallacious inference of intent. 
Paley compares the watch to a stone, noting that it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the stone occurred naturally, while the watch must be the result of intelligent design. This is entirely reasonable  and consistent with science, yet Paley fails to clearly identify the precise reasons we're able to make such a distinction. Additionally, proponents of this argument often portray this as an argument that complexity, order and beauty are, on their own, evidence for design. 
[edit]
*Special pleading p2: Recognition of design*

The truth that Paley only hinted at, and many creationists reject, is that we recognized _design_ by contrast to the _naturally occurring_. The very fact that Paley singles out the watch in the argument as an apparently designed object, implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which seems to refute the whole point of the designer argument. On some level Paley knows there is an intrinsic difference between the watch and the rock. 
The appearance of design is subjective. What features denote design? Complexity? Order? Beauty? Suitability to a purpose? Any of these can be lacking in objects we _know_ to be designed (i.e., manufactured by humans). We recognize designed objects by comparison with previously known designed objects and by contrasting them with _naturally occurring_ objects. 


 In the case of the watch, we have knowledge about how watches are designed, we can identify specific designers and manufacturers. We even teach these skills to new designers and manufacturers. Thus, we know the watch had a designer because there is no evidence that watches occur naturally and a mountain of evidence that they are designed and manufactured. Furthermore,
 

 Where the rock is concerned, the opposite is true. We have no evidence to support the idea that the rock was designed and overwhelming evidence that it is the result of natural processes.
 

 In the case of the tree theists sometimes instruct us to &#8220;just look at&#8221;, we also observe the proses of self replication and genetic variation. We do not observe this in any _designed_ human artifacts.
 [edit]
*False premise p2: Definitional paradox*

Following the implied definition of design to its logical conclusions, this view is logically flawed and raises problems which transcend Paley's original argument. If complexity and order are, on their own, evidence for design then everything must have been designed, as all things are complex and ordered at various scales, thus everything must serve as evidence for this designer. Essentially, that rock which Paley dismisses can also be considered complex and ordered and must also serve as evidence for a designer. Indeed this is precisely what many Christians claim, utilizing verses from the Bible to support it: 
However, if we consider the stone, the watch, the tree and all things as evidence of a designer, Paley's original argument is completely destroyed. The logical contrast between the _designed_ and the _naturally_ occurring, which forms the basic definitions of the argument is thereby eliminated, along with the argument. 
[edit]
*Special pleading: Intelligent designer*

The conclusion of this argument is also self refuting. The entire premise for the argument is based on notion that there are aspects of nature _too complex_ to have simply sprung into existence by chance (once again for the sake of the argument, ignoring the obvious evolutionary straw man). 
Though as Richard Dawkins points out in his Ultimate 747 Gambit, the idea of solving this problem of complexity by invoking an infinitely complex, and thus by their own argument, an infinitely improbable deity, doesn't really make sense at all. 
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ultimate_747_Gambit 
[edit]
*Which religion*

_Main Article: Which god?_ Even if we grant all the false premises, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, purple space pixies, Santa Claus, or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be Yahweh. 
During an interview conducted under false pretences for the creationist propaganda film Expelled, Ben Stein posed Richard Dawkins with a leading hypothetical question as to what Dawkins thinks about &#8220;the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.&#8221; 
_Richard Dawkins in Expelled_: 
_"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, *a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means*, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And *I suppose it&#8217;s possible that you might find evidence for that* if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, *you might find a signature of some sort of designer*."_ 
This is the point were Stein attempts to use &#8220;creative editing&#8221; by pausing in the middle of the interview to call &#8220;Shock! Horror! Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design!&#8221; 
_"And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. *But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously.* That's the point."_ 
Stein then continues with the tirade that &#8220;Richard Dawkins believes in space aliens.&#8221; and that &#8220;He doesn't have a problem with intelligent design, just when the designer is called 'God'.&#8221; Not withstanding Dawkins response was a hypothetical based on the premise that we actually had some _evidence_ of design, Stein didn't actually bother to address the issue that an argument for intelligent design supports space aliens just as well as his God, and without breaking any of the known laws of physics to boot. 
[edit]
*Other counter arguments*



Some proponents of Intelligent Design claim sightings of the Golden Ratioin nature as evidence that life was designed. The chambered nautilus in particular is often cited as an example. These claims have been discredited, however, because much variation in proportions has been observed in these cases.
 

[edit]
* Argument from poor design *

See the article Argument from poor design which seeks to display the imperfections of the natural world as a powerful atheistic argument against the existence of God. 
[edit]
* Bertrand Russell and Design *

"Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: "Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe." I am not very much impressed by the splendor of those people. Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless". 
[edit]
*Links*

[edit]
*See also*



 Anthropic principle
 Intelligent design
 Irreducible complexity
 Tornado argument
 Special pleading
 Evolution is not a theory of chance
 Ray Comfort
 Michael Behe
 [edit]
*External links*



 Argument from design - Skeptic's dictionary entry
 Uncommon Descent &#8211; William Dembski's intelligent design blog
 [edit]
*Reference*



 Wikipedia:Teleological argument &#8211; Wikipedia article on _argument from design_
 Wikipedia:Intelligent design &#8211; Wikipedia article on intelligent design
 Wikipedia:Irreducible complexity &#8211; Wikipedia article on Behe's theory of irreducible complexity


----------



## |3laze (Dec 13, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I had to take critical thinking classes in college.


Obviously you didn't pay much attention.....


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

|3laze said:


> Obviously you didn't pay much attention.....


Hahahaha, Yes.. I missed that. +Rep for you!


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 13, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Some of you just crack me up. You all are still just trying to discredit me. With all the info to discuss in these videos everybody just tries to make me out to be some tard. I had to take critical thinking classes in college. I keep posting this stuff to see if anyone will address these subjects. But I guess its too much to ask so you all can have this thread. I'm bored with this. Time for a new thread on a different subject.


We don't try to make you out as a 'tard'. You refuse to see any of our points, or to argue your points without using little tricks and deception. Even now you are pretending as if none of the points you made have been addressed. Only one side of this discussion has had to resort to lies and pretense.


----------



## |3laze (Dec 14, 2010)

Crackerboy is a 'tard as far as I am concerned. He lacks the most basic understanding of how critical thinking and the scientific method work. The entire creationist argument is based on a falsifiability fallacy. A proposed hypothesis is not considered valid if there is no experiment that can be performed that would, if the hypothesis is incorrect, fail. One cannot disprove that a creator exists - thus claiming this is proof that a creator exists is a logical fallacy and therefore unacceptable as a scientific theory. This is the crux of most creationist arguments - they insist that they have scientific proof that a creator exists simply because science cannot conclusively prove them wrong, even though the have no proof of their own to validate their theory. Essentially the whole argument boils down to "You can't prove me wrong so therefore I am right" which is a totally invalid and illogical argument. I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe but don't get up on your soap box and start trying to pass off religious views as science.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 14, 2010)

Google Ariel A. Roth and then look up his credentials. Then go read one of his books. Once you have done that come back here and we will have a real discussion. Try reading the opposite point of view that you hold. It will help you understand a lot more on a subject. The truth always lies in between.



B.A. Pacific Union College, 1948, Biology
M.S. University of Michigan, 1949, Biology
Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1955, Biology
 *[edit] Academic activities and honors*



Atomic Energy Commission Grantee in radiation biology 1960
National Institutes of Health Grantee for research on metabolism of schistosomes 1961-1963
Visiting Research Scientist, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology 1968, 1970
Visiting Professor, Andrews University Extension in Europe. 1970
Atomic Energy Commission Grantee for research on coral reefs at Eniwetok 1971, 1972, 1973
Member, NSF-AEC sponsored Symbios research team to study coral reef metabolism at Eniwetok 1971
Consultant on creation to the California State Board of Education 1971
Director, Loma Linda University Research Team for underwater research on coral in the Bahamas 1973, 1974 (Sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; lived on the ocean floor for 1 week)
Editor: ORIGINS journal 1974-1996
Keynote speaker, public hearing, House Education Committee, State of Oregon 1981
Witness for the State of Arkansas: Evolution-creation trial 1981
Visiting Professor of Biology, University of Eastern Africa, Baraton 1995
Visiting Professor of Biology, Spicer College, India 1995
Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1993&#8211;1996
Visiting Professor of Biology, Caribbean Union College 1997
Lecturer for the William A. Osborne Distinguished Lecture Series, Caribbean Union College 1997
Member, Loma Linda University Councilors 2000-
Recipient: Charles Elliott Weniger AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE 2003
 *[edit] Selected publications*



Roth, A.A. 1955. _Gametogenesis in the final generation of Schistosomatium dotthitti_ (Cort, 1914) Price, 1931 (Trematoda: Schistosomatidae). Dissertation Abstracts 15(4):647-648.
Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1957. _The anatomy of the male and female reproductive systems of Onco-melania nosophora._ Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 74:52-69.
Roth, A.A. 1960. _Aspects of the function of the bursa copulatrix and seminal receptacle in the prosobranch snail Oncomelania formosana Pilsbry and Hirase._ Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 79: 412-419.
Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1960a. _The development of sexual maturity in Oncomelania nosophora (Robson) snail vector of oriental schistosomiasis._ Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 79:429-438.
Roth, A.A. and E.D. Wagner. 1960b. _Notes on the production of eggs in Oncomelania nosophora and O. formosana._ Nautilus 73:147-151.
Roth, A.A. and L.N. Hare. 1966. _Effect of Schistosoma mansoni on amino acid levels in a chemically defined medium._ (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 41st Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, p. 60.
Roth, A.A. and H.E. Heidtke. 1966. _Removal of schisto-somes from hosts with minimal physiological disturbance to the parasite._ Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 85:422-426.
Tkachuck, R.D. and A.A. Roth. 1967. _Free amino acids in plasm of mice infected with Schistosoma mansoni._ (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 42nd Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona, p. 29.
Carter, C.E. and A.A. Roth. 1967. _Carbon dioxide fixation in Schistosoma mansoni._ (Abstract) American Society of Parasitologists, 42nd Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona, p. 30.
Roth, A.A. 1971a. _Effect of various light treatments of calcification rates in Acropora sp._ (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, p. 21.
Roth, A.A. 1971b. _Effect of the addition of nutrients on the variability of calcification rates in a single colony of Pocillopora damicornis._ (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceano-graphy, San Diego, pp. 21&#8211;22.
Roth, A.A. 1971c. _Estimate of carbonate production of some species on Japtan Reef._ (Abstract) R/V Alpha Helix Research Program, 1971, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, p. 22.
Johannes, R.E. and 22 other authors including A.A. Roth. 1972. _Project Symbios: an examination of the metabolism of some coral reef communities._ BioScience 22:541-543.
Roth, A.A. 1974c. _Factors affecting light as an agent for carbonate production by coral._ (Abstract) Geological Society of America Abstracts 6:932.
Roth, A.A. 1975. _The pervasiveness of the paradigm._ Origins 2:55-57.
Roth, A.A. 1975. Turbidites. _Origins_ 2:106-107.
Roth, A.A. 1975e. _Some effects of light on calcification in coral._ Abstracts of Symposia and Contributed Papers for the Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting (San Francisco State University, December 26&#8211;30, 1975) of the Western Society of Naturalists, p. 29.
Clausen, C.D. and A.A. Roth. 1975a. _Estimation of coral growth rates from laboratory 45Ca-incorporation rates._ Marine Biology 33:85-91.
Clausen, C.D. and A.A. Roth. 1975b. _Effect of temperature and temperature adaptation on calcification rate in the hermatypic coral Pocillopora damicornis._ Marine Biology 33:93-100.
Smith, A.D. and A.A. Roth. 1977. _Carbon dioxide and calcification in the red coralline alga, Bossiella orbigniana._ (Abstract) Pacific Division, American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, 58th Annual Meeting, San Francisco State University.
Roth, A.A. 1978c. _Creation concepts should be taught in public schools._ Liberty 73(5):3, 24-27; Rebuttal, 28-29.
Smith, A.D. and A.A. Roth. 1979. _Effect of carbon dioxide concentration on calcification in the red coralline alga Bossiella orbigniana._ Marine Biology 52:217-225.
Roth, A.A. 1980a. _Implications of various interpretations of the fossil record._ Origins 7:71-86.
Crabtree, D.M., C.D. Clausen, and A.A. Roth. 1980. _Consistency in growth line counts in bivalve specimens._ Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 29:323-340.
Roth, A.A., C.D. Clausen, P.Y. Yahiku, V.E. Clausen, and W.W. Cox. 1982. _Some effects of light on coral growth._ Pacific Science 36:65-81.
Roth, A.A. 1983b. _Why some scientists believe in creation._ These Times 92(3):6-11.
Roth, A.A. 1984a. _The current controversy over origins. Part I: teaching creation in public schools._ The Journal of Adventist Education 46(3):30-31,35-37.
Roth, A.A. 1984b. _The current controversy over origins. Part II: Seventh-day Adventists and the creation movement in the United States._ The Journal of Adventist Education 46(4):31-32,39-40.
Hodges, L.T. and Roth, A.A. 1986. _Orientation of corals and stromatoporoids in some Pleistocene, Devonian, and Silurian reef facies._ Journal of Paleontology 60:1147-1158.
Roth, A.A. 1995. _Fossil reefs and time._ _Origins_ 22:86-104.
Roth, A.A. 1998. _The disadvantage of collective ignorance._ The Record (Australia), August 29, 1998, p. 3.
Roth, A.A. 1998. _Origins: Linking Science and Scripture._ Review and Herald Publishing Association.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 14, 2010)

I just want to end this thread with on little fact. _*Over 80% of the worlds population are religious. Is it that they are all wrong about there being a God or are you wrong that there is not. *_


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I just want to end this thread with on little fact. _*Over 80% of the worlds population are religious. Is it that they are all wrong about there being a God or are you wrong that there is not. *_


The truth is not always somewhere in between. That's insane. 80% of the worlds population is religious, But 100% of them can't agree on what god to worship, even the ones who worship the same god make different contradictory claims about god. This is Argumentum ad Populum. It is also a logical fallacy.. Like every thing you say.. 

*Argumentum ad populum*

*From Iron Chariots Wiki*

Jump to: navigation, search
*Argumentum ad populum* ("argument from popular appeal", "appeal to the majority") is a logical fallacy whereby a proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by large numbers of people. 
*Contents*

[hide]


1 Examples
2 Discussion
3 Counter-apologetics
4 See also
 [edit]
*Examples*



 "Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong." (See also Wikipedia:50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong.)
 "All US presidents have been Christians. Maybe such a prestigious group of people is onto something."
 "90% of the people in the world believe in God. Are you saying that all of them are wrong?"
 [edit]
*Discussion*

_Argumentum ad populum_ comes in two varieties: 


 The first is to argue from sheer numbers: "Everyone knows X, so X must be true". This argument is appealing because in many cases, what "everyone knows" _is_ true: the Sun rises in the east, not the south; grass is green; and George Washington was the first President of the United States. This is effective because it pressures people to be "normal". People have a desire to be like their peers. Thus tactics involving alienation are often used to bully people into submission, this is often a sign of a bad argument.
 The second variety is "snob appeal": A proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by an elite or distinguished group of people. This argument often appears in advertising, (e.g., "Z Cola: The official soft drink of the Big-Time Sports Event").
 [edit]
*Counter-apologetics*

_Argumentum ad populum_ is a fallacy because the fact that many people believe something does not make it true. For many years, most people believed that the Earth was the center and most important feature of the universe. Millions of people believe that astrology works. Neither is true. 
One special case is that in which a statement is said to be true because it is believed by most of the experts in the field (_9 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X toothpaste!_). For example, if most astronomers say that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way around, then that is very likely to be true. In this case, however, we are trusting the judgment of people who have carefully studied the matter. In effect, we are trusting that the experts have reached their conclusions through valid arguments based on careful observation, so there is no need for us to research the matter ourselves. This type of argument is often reliable, but not always. After all, scientific knowledge is never perfect and complete. However, for most "mature" scientific fields, the likelihood of a complete reversal of views &#8212; such as moving the Earth from the center of the universe to the outskirts of one unremarkable galaxy among millions &#8212; is incredibly, and ever increasingly, small. 
[edit]
*See also*



 Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority)
 Appeal to emotion


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 14, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Google Ariel A. Roth and then look up his credentials. Then go read one of his books. Once you have done that come back here and we will have a real discussion. Try reading the opposite point of view that you hold. It will help you understand a lot more on a subject. The truth always lies in between.


 Let me guess. He makes no actual testable arguments but regurgitates the same 'evidence against Darwinism' that is so prevalent in popular literature. It looks like he doesn't have any problem getting published in a refereed journal. I wonder why none of his creation arguments are published in an actual science journal instead of education? 

Either way, you have just made an argument from authority. If you cannot present his arguments here on the forum, then his opinion is worthless. We have presented evidence from science that you still haven't been able to refute. It would be more correct to say that we can't continue this discussion until you post a reasonable response to those facts.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 14, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Let me guess. He makes no actual testable arguments but regurgitates the same 'evidence against Darwinism' that is so prevalent in popular literature. It looks like he doesn't have any problem getting published in a refereed journal. I wonder why none of his creation arguments are published in an actual science journal instead of education?
> 
> Either way, you have just made an argument from authority. If you cannot present his arguments here on the forum, then his opinion is worthless. We have presented evidence from science that you still haven't been able to refute. It would be more correct to say that we can't continue this discussion until you post a reasonable response to those facts.



I think that you would be pleasantly surprised at the stances that he takes on a lot of these issues. I'm not going to argue with you about this. But just read his book "Origins". Its a good read. He presents evidence from both points of view and discredits the BS on both sides. He attempts to stick strictly to the science. He also references over a 100 secular sources. He is not as biased as you seem to think he is.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 14, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I think that you would be pleasantly surprised at the stances that he takes on a lot of these issues. I'm not going to argue with you about this. But just read his book "Origins". Its a good read. He presents evidence from both points of view and discredits the BS on both sides. He attempts to stick strictly to the science. He also references over a 100 secular sources. He is not as biased as you seem to think he is.


 I do try to read as many books as I can. However, in the meantime, can you present a few examples of some of his arguments here? Otherwise, lacking any reasonable response to the posts I have made, I would say that idea of universal common ancestry is pretty safe.


----------



## |3laze (Dec 15, 2010)

So I googled Ariel A. Roth like you recommended. He believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and believes that the world did have a massive, global flood some 6000 years ago. His words, not mine. He also believes that the world was created in 6 days, and can of course, offer no proof of this, or proof of any of his idiotic claims. He has already formed his conclusion and is now trying to find information to back up that conclusion - another logical fallacy. Calling this guy a scientist is like calling the Jenna Jameson a registered nurse. (just because she wears a nurse outfit in her porn flicks don't make her a nurse) His most recent work: "Origins: Linking Science and Scripture." I nearly fell our of my char laughing after reading that - what a fucking fraud this guy is. If that is the best you can come up with crackerboy you really are retarded.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

|3laze said:


> So I googled Ariel A. Roth like you recommended. He believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and believes that the world did have a massive, global flood. He also believes that the world was created in 6 days, and can of course, offer no proof of this, or any of his idiotic claims. His most recent work: "Origins: Linking Science and Scripture." I nearly fell our of my char laughing after reading that - what a fucking fraud this guy is. If that is the best you can come up with crackerboy you really are retarded.



Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.

As a matter of fact there is a whole chapter dedicated to the Geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. In that chapter he shows several diagrams as well as references to 41 different secular sources for his information.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.


Umm. No.. He's actually telling the truth..

Ariel Roth dose believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. and according to wikipedia: 
*Ariel A. Roth* (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth#cite_note-0


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

Here is his conclusion to that chapter.


The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past. Such evidence fits well with a flood model. The incredibly widespread deposits in earths sedimentary layers also seem to support a flood model. The scarcity of erosion at the gaps in the sedimentary layers, where significant portions of the geologic column are missing, infers rapid deposition, as we would expect during the flood, without long intervals of time between. Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

Tym said:


> Umm. No.. He's actually telling the truth..
> 
> Ariel Roth dose believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. and according to wikipedia:
> *Ariel A. Roth* (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth#cite_note-0



What I was saying is that he is full of shit when he said he had already read his book. If that where true than he would not have had to google him. I never said that the info that came about from his google was bullshit. Just his lame attempt at pretending that he had read anything other than a wiki post about him. He is a well respected scientist in the field of biology and his book is based on facts with a great deal of references to back up any claims that he makes.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> What I was saying is that he is full of shit when he said he had already read his book. If that where true than he would not have had to google him. I never said that the info that came about from his google was bullshit. Just his lame attempt at pretending that he had read anything other than a wiki post about him. He is a well respected scientist in the field of biology and his book is based on facts with a great deal of references to back up any claims that he makes.


 He didn't say he read the book, just the title.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.
> 
> As a matter of fact there is a whole chapter dedicated to the Geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. In that chapter he shows several diagrams as well as references to 41 different secular sources for his information.


You will 't find that geologists don't accept his conclusions. I'm not a geologist, but I have read enough to know that 100% the claims of worldwide deluge are spurious at best and outright lies at other times.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Here is his conclusion to that chapter.
> 
> 
> The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past. Such evidence fits well with a flood model. The incredibly widespread deposits in earths sedimentary layers also seem to support a flood model. The scarcity of erosion at the gaps in the sedimentary layers, where significant portions of the geologic column are missing, infers rapid deposition, as we would expect during the flood, without long intervals of time between. Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood.


Notice how he says "Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood." And not "This data cannot be explained other than by a worldwide flood.". Cause he knows it can be explained without the use of a worldwide flood. 

Abyssal fans take thousands of years to form, they don't form in the short time the biblical flood was said to last.
There wouldn't be enough time for a global flood to show any changes to the turbidites, and submarine fans.

Abyssal (or submarine) fans are formed due to turbidites. Turbidites are essentially gravity-driven underwater avalanches. As sediment is deposited on the continental slope, the steepest part of the ocean, it is prone to sliding down onto the continental rise due to gravity. Once the weight of the sediment accumulating gets to be too much, the pile of sediment will slide down all at once falling down onto the continental rise. After thousands of years of turbidite deposition on the rise, a fan forms towards the top of the continental rise. This fan is similar to an alluvial fan found on land near mountains and rivers. The abyssal fan has characteristics of a standard turbidite. The Bouma Sequence is used to describe the nature and sediment patterns of a turbidite.

I suggest looking up "Geologic column" on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column
There are no missing columns, there are no indications of world wide floods, and there is every indication that the earth is 4 and a half Billion years old, not 6000.
He doesn't provide any evidence does he? Does he provide names of journals he's had peer reviewed on the subject?
He's had many peer reviewed papers. But not a single one that has anything to do with a flood or the age of the earth..


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> You will 't find that geologists don't accept his conclusions. I'm not a geologist, but I have read enough to know that 100% the claims of worldwide deluge are spurious at best and outright lies at other times.



Like I said, he provides several examples as well as alternative explanations to the flood theory. He simply presents the evidence and the theories presented by both sides. Even in his conclusion, you will notice that he does not make any definitive statements about it. He just states that there is not another explanation that adequately explains the data.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> Like I said, he provides several examples as well as alternative explanations to the flood theory. He simply presents the evidence and the theories presented by both sides. Even in his conclusion, you will notice that he does not make any definitive statements about it. He just states that there is not another explanation that adequately explains the data.


No he doesn't. He says it would be difficult to explain it any other way. But as I posted above, It's not. Please read my post. Thanks.


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

Tym said:


> Notice how he says "Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood." And not "This data cannot be explained other than by a worldwide flood.". Cause he knows it can be explained without the use of a worldwide flood.
> 
> Abyssal fans take thousands of years to form, they don't form in the short time the biblical flood was said to last.
> There wouldn't be enough time for a global flood to show any changes to the turbidites, and submarine fans.
> ...



I think this is why you just need to read it for yourself. He does not try to convince you that his opinion is the right one. He puts forth the data and then gives both sides of the the argument. He then provides sources that support both points of view. This book is more about presenting the arguments on both sides. And then on occasion compares it to scripture to see if any connection can be made when applicable. Obviously that can only applied to certain topics such as a global flood. He does provide several instances where aquatic fossils where found high up in mountainous regions that was very compelling. Just to show how unbiased he is here is a section from that chapter.

"For several reasons it does not appear that we can reconcile this idea with the biblical record and the worldwide distribution of sediments and fossils." In that section of the chapter he was addressing one of the creationists claims and then debunking it.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> I think this is why you just need to read it for yourself. He does not try to convince you that his opinion is the right one. He puts forth the data and then gives both sides of the the argument. He then provides sources that support both points of view. This book is more about presenting the arguments on both sides. And then on occasion compares it to scripture to see if any connection can be made when applicable. Obviously that can only applied to certain topics such as a global flood. He does provide several instances where aquatic fossils where found high up in mountainous regions that was very compelling. Just to show how unbiased he is here is a section from that chapter.
> 
> "For several reasons it does not appear that we can reconcile this idea with the biblical record and the worldwide distribution of sediments and fossils." In that section of the chapter he was addressing one of the creationists claims and then debunking it.


Yes, I understand. But the "evidence" he gives is just words in his own book. Just like how the bible doesn't prove the existence of god, his book does not lend credibility to his claims of evidence.
Scientifically peer reviewed papers are needed before any credibility can be given to his claims. He says there are missing Geologic columns, he says, "The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past.", but where does he give you the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are the studies? Where are the results of the myriad of tests that must have been done?


----------



## crackerboy (Dec 15, 2010)

Tym said:


> Yes, I understand. But the "evidence" he gives is just words in his own book. Just like how the bible doesn't prove the existence of god, his book does not lend credibility to his claims of evidence.
> Scientifically peer reviewed papers are needed before any credibility can be given to his claims. He says there are missing Geologic columns, he says, "The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past.", but where does he give you the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are the studies? Where are the results of the myriad of tests that must have been done?



No he also provided 41 secular sources to support his claims as well as diagrams and pictures to help demonstrate his point.
Your making claims about what he says without taking the time to find out for yourself. If I had a scanner I would scan the pages and let you read it yourself. But since I don't the only thing I can do is suggest that you read it for yourself or try and re write it on here. Once again I thing you would be surprised at how many resources he references.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

crackerboy said:


> No he also provided 41 secular sources to support his claims as well as diagrams and pictures to help demonstrate his point.
> Your making claims about what he says without taking the time to find out for yourself. If I had a scanner I would scan the pages and let you read it yourself. But since I don't the only thing I can do is suggest that you read it for yourself or try and re write it on here. Once again I thing you would be surprised at how many resources he references.


That's fine, and I will most likely take a look at his book (always looking for a good read). But as it stands, at this point it time. There is no evidence of a flood or the world being 6000 years old. He can reference as many sources that he wants. There is not 1 scientifically peer reviewed paper that supports a global flood or the earth being 6000 years old. If there was evidence, there would be at least 1 peer reviewed paper on the subject.
Till there is evidence to support his claim, I cannot accept it.

Some people don't care how accurate their view of reality is, I want mine to be as close to %100 as possible. And you don't get that way by faith, or be believing claims that are unsupported by evidence.
What was the name of that book again? I'll add it to my list  Hope it's in Ebook format!


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 15, 2010)

I've got another book that is full of evidence that a flood did in fact happen AND the earth is only 6,000 years old. It's called the bible. I suggest you read it cover to cover, it will answer all your questions.

But seriously I can't believe you guys are still debating with crackertard. It's clear he lost the debate, and refuses to concede. It is still humorous to watch him attempt though.


----------

