Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Creationism proof

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:05:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are there any creationist here who do not believe in evolution that have any substantial proof of creationism? As a sidenote, disproving evolution does not affirm creationism.

I will take scientific proof, not bible quotes.

And I'm serious. No quoting me and saying "LOLOLOL CREATIONISM AND SCIENCE IS A PARADOX"
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:13:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:05:36 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Are there any creationist here who do not believe in evolution that have any substantial proof of creationism? As a sidenote, disproving evolution does not affirm creationism.

I will take scientific proof, not bible quotes.

And I'm serious. No quoting me and saying "LOLOLOL CREATIONISM AND SCIENCE IS A PARADOX"

There is actually quite a lot of scientific creationism out there, some of it, at least superficially is quite intelligent. Oddly enough you might want to check out Jehovahs witness sites.

I have a great link to a website of creationists who like to harp on about anomalous artifacts, I'll try to track it down.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:13:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


There is actually quite a lot of scientific creationism out there, some of it, at least superficially is quite intelligent. Oddly enough you might want to check out Jehovahs witness sites.

I have a great link to a website of creationists who like to harp on about anomalous artifacts, I'll try to track it down.

Things that make you go Hmmm
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:24:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:13:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


There is actually quite a lot of scientific creationism out there, some of it, at least superficially is quite intelligent. Oddly enough you might want to check out Jehovahs witness sites.

I have a great link to a website of creationists who like to harp on about anomalous artifacts, I'll try to track it down.

Things that make you go Hmmm

Cerebral so desperately wants to be religious that he has even considered the validity of evidence for God and creation. Never thought I'd see the day.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:28:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do not believe in common ancestry, macroevolution etc., but I do believe in microevolution, and that species have changed their features over long periods of time, possibly millions of years. Abiogenesis etc. seem to be hard to explain.

It is in my opinion impossible for such a great system to have been made without one who had control over it. Gravitational forces, chemical reactions, etc., were all too strong/complicated for something properly functioning to come out of them.

I use the example of software programming. If {h=2i} and tons of similar codes are required to even make a blue color on a computer screen, would it ever be possible, with use of a random generator (generating the codes), to make a whole operating system, with tons of functions, on a computer? Will we see thousands or millions of pages with different numbers, so precise that they create an operating system, make it possible to do things that are very advanced, etc.? No, never. One mistake could ruin it all.

Similarly, a big explosion, chemical reactions, [etcetera etcetera etcetera] forming everything, and after billions of years giving these results, such as living beings communicating right now, is impossible. Judge for yourselves, but I have done that and my conclusion is compatible with my understanding of the ultimate reality.

And when it comes to God, yes, He is advanced, but He is not dependent on anything. He is one, compared to the universe that consists of billions of different things that are dependent on each other and whatnot.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:31:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:24:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:13:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


There is actually quite a lot of scientific creationism out there, some of it, at least superficially is quite intelligent. Oddly enough you might want to check out Jehovahs witness sites.

I have a great link to a website of creationists who like to harp on about anomalous artifacts, I'll try to track it down.

Things that make you go Hmmm

Cerebral so desperately wants to be religious that he has even considered the validity of evidence for God and creation. Never thought I'd see the day.

Pretty much.

I dream of the day Dawkins will organise a press conference and say something like, erm... I've looked at the evidence again... and well erm... I dont know how to say this... but the earth is aproximately 6000 years old, evolution is impossible... and well erm... I am hoping that we were created by aliens... but I am pretty certain it's God. Sorry.

But that aside, it is interesting to see an opposing view that has some sort of factual, intelligent backing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The dichotomy between Gods design and randomly generated Universe is a false one.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:34:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:31:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:24:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:13:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


There is actually quite a lot of scientific creationism out there, some of it, at least superficially is quite intelligent. Oddly enough you might want to check out Jehovahs witness sites.

I have a great link to a website of creationists who like to harp on about anomalous artifacts, I'll try to track it down.

Things that make you go Hmmm

Cerebral so desperately wants to be religious that he has even considered the validity of evidence for God and creation. Never thought I'd see the day.

Pretty much.

I dream of the day Dawkins will organise a press conference and say something like, erm... I've looked at the evidence again... and well erm... I dont know how to say this... but the earth is aproximately 6000 years old, evolution is impossible... and well erm... I am hoping that we were created by aliens... but I am pretty certain it's God. Sorry.

But that aside, it is interesting to see an opposing view that has some sort of factual, intelligent backing.

Perhaps this would make a good debate. "The religious paradigm is not a desirable one."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:38:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:28:10 PM, Mirza wrote:

I use the example of software programming. If {h=2i} and tons of similar codes are required to even make a blue color on a computer screen, would it ever be possible, with use of a random generator (generating the codes), to make a whole operating system, with tons of functions, on a computer? Will we see thousands or millions of pages with different numbers, so precise that they create an operating system, make it possible to do things that are very advanced, etc.? No, never. One mistake could ruin it all.


The analogy is flawed. The possible variables of a randomly generated code are immense. Reproduction and genetics are not so random, or varied. There are a limited (though still vast) number of results. Only that which is viable within that range will be born.

A better example would be to set up a computer program restricted to simply randomising the colour, with you selecting the one you most favour.

Let us say it produces 100 versions of code that crash the system, thus representing the auto-abortion that occurs in nature. 1000 versions that cause bugs and problems with the system, this represents negative mutations, 10,000 viable shades... from one you select one.

That is a more accurate analogy and puts evolution in a far more acceptable context.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 2:39:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:28:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
I do not believe in common ancestry, macroevolution etc., but I do believe in microevolution, and that species have changed their features over long periods of time, possibly millions of years. Abiogenesis etc. seem to be hard to explain.

Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time

What do creationists not get about this.


It is in my opinion impossible for such a great system to have been made without one who had control over it. Gravitational forces, chemical reactions, etc., were all too strong/complicated for something properly functioning to come out of them.

I use the example of software programming. If {h=2i} and tons of similar codes are required to even make a blue color on a computer screen, would it ever be possible, with use of a random generator (generating the codes), to make a whole operating system, with tons of functions, on a computer? Will we see thousands or millions of pages with different numbers, so precise that they create an operating system, make it possible to do things that are very advanced, etc.? No, never. One mistake could ruin it all.

Computers and their programs, are designed to function in a specific way. Of course this is untrue for our imperfect universe.


Similarly, a big explosion, chemical reactions, [etcetera etcetera etcetera] forming everything, and after billions of years giving these results, such as living beings communicating right now, is impossible. Judge for yourselves, but I have done that and my conclusion is compatible with my understanding of the ultimate reality.

Take a statistics class.


And when it comes to God, yes, He is advanced, but He is not dependent on anything. He is one, compared to the universe that consists of billions of different things that are dependent on each other and whatnot.

Oh, so God is independent of the Universe and the laws that govern it....somehow.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 10:29:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 2:39:14 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 6/21/2010 2:28:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
I do not believe in common ancestry, macroevolution etc., but I do believe in microevolution, and that species have changed their features over long periods of time, possibly millions of years. Abiogenesis etc. seem to be hard to explain.

Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time

What do creationists not get about this.


It is in my opinion impossible for such a great system to have been made without one who had control over it. Gravitational forces, chemical reactions, etc., were all too strong/complicated for something properly functioning to come out of them.

I use the example of software programming. If {h=2i} and tons of similar codes are required to even make a blue color on a computer screen, would it ever be possible, with use of a random generator (generating the codes), to make a whole operating system, with tons of functions, on a computer? Will we see thousands or millions of pages with different numbers, so precise that they create an operating system, make it possible to do things that are very advanced, etc.? No, never. One mistake could ruin it all.

Computers and their programs, are designed to function in a specific way. Of course this is untrue for our imperfect universe.


Similarly, a big explosion, chemical reactions, [etcetera etcetera etcetera] forming everything, and after billions of years giving these results, such as living beings communicating right now, is impossible. Judge for yourselves, but I have done that and my conclusion is compatible with my understanding of the ultimate reality.

Take a statistics class.


And when it comes to God, yes, He is advanced, but He is not dependent on anything. He is one, compared to the universe that consists of billions of different things that are dependent on each other and whatnot.

Oh, so God is independent of the Universe and the laws that govern it....somehow.

I have taken a statistics class; this is why I find evolution increasingly hard to believe.

Problems with mirco-evolution: none. It beats its alternative theory of spontaneous generation by an incomprehensible amount.

Problems with macro-evolution: many. Little fossil evidence for morphological evolution. Artifacts that contradict the evolutionary time-frame. No scientific evidence for morphological evolution. No scientific evidence for speciation. Incompatibility between the morphological evolution and the discrete, limited possibilities presented by genetics. Nigh-impossibility of the formation of a living cell from chemicals. I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.

Other Rebuttals:
Imperfect universe? By what standard do you call our universe imperfect? What is perfection? Natural laws seem to be pretty perfectly ordered to me. The universe seems pretty governed and predictable.

Since when does statistics not establish a system for rejecting hypotheses that are very, very unlikely, through significance testing? Statistics would indicate that, when the probabilities of all events leading to the world as we know it are totaled,the infinitesimally small probabilities of P(universe with physics that allow life)*P(position in universe allowing life)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution) leads to a probability of everything happening without intelligent intervention that is so very, very small that any statistician would reject the hypothesis as false.

Final Rebuttal:
God is independent of the universe; the universe is dependent on God. This is not logically impossible.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 10:30:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And no, I didn't prove creationism. I don't claim that I did.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 11:19:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 10:29:56 AM, Valtarov wrote:
I have taken a statistics class; this is why I find evolution increasingly hard to believe.
If statistics is convincing you that Evolution did not occur, you are making a fundemental mistake. The same goes for if statistics is convincing you that evolution did occur. Statistics has little or nothing to do with Evolution.

Problems with mirco-evolution: none. It beats its alternative theory of spontaneous generation by an incomprehensible amount.
Correct.
Problems with macro-evolution: many.
Incorrect.
Artifacts that contradict the evolutionary time-frame.
There are no artifacts that "Contradict" evolutionary time-frame. If there are, please provide them.

No scientific evidence for morphological evolution.

I dont quite understand what you mean by "Morphological evolution". Please explain. If you are talking about Common ancestry BASED on morphology, then you are incorrect. Utterly. We have a very good fossil lineage for many species. This claim is just not true.

No scientific evidence for speciation.

There is scientific evidence for speciation. Infact, speciation has directly been observed. I suggest you look up "observed instances of speciation" on Google. Remember, Google is your friend.

Incompatibility between the morphological evolution and the discrete, limited possibilities presented by genetics.

There are no incompatibilities with morphology and Genetics. Infact, guess what, species which are morphologically similar tend to have more in common genetics wise too. Infact, our current taxonomy is based off the morphological and physiological similarities, and coincidentally(or maybe not), genetics CONFIRMS this. There is a massive amou of compatibility between morphology and genetics. Your claim is false.

Nigh-impossibility of the formation of a living cell from chemicals. I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.

No no, Abiogenesis is still a growing field, but the possibility of the formation of a living cell from chemicals keeps INCREASING as the years go on. Weve found methods of created amino acids and peptides, creation of lipid bilayers, these things are steps that take us closerand increase the probability of the formation of life from non-life.

Please go on. Because, so far, all of your examples have failed.

Other Rebuttals:
Imperfect universe? By what standard do you call our universe imperfect? What is perfection? Natural laws seem to be pretty perfectly ordered to me. The universe seems pretty governed and predictable.

If this universe is perfect, then what is heaven?

Since when does statistics not establish a system for rejecting hypotheses that are very, very unlikely, through significance testing? Statistics would indicate that, when the probabilities of all events leading to the world as we know it are totaled,the infinitesimally small probabilities of P(universe with physics that allow life)*P(position in universe allowing life)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution) leads to a probability of everything happening without intelligent intervention that is so very, very small that any statistician would reject the hypothesis as false.

Fail. And this is why you fail.

What you are doing is looking at the current state of the universe as a goal, and calculating the odds from there. Yet, this is not the case.

Take a deck of cards. Imagine I hand the cards out to you, for a game of poker, and you receive a royal flush. What are the odds of getting such a hand? Somewhere between 1 in 60 million or something like that.
Now, I reshuffle the deck, and give you a new hand, that contains an ace, a 3, a 9, a 10, a queen and a king. What are the odds of getting that hand? The same as getting a royal flush.
You see? Getting ANY hand in poker has the SAME odds.

This is, i believe, a field in physics, called Statistical thermodynamics, which states that any system is INFINITELY improbable, yet the system must exist in a state regardless of the odds. If you hand out 5 cards to me, I could look at those cards, and say "How improbable! We could probably play Poker all week, and i could never get the same 5 cards handed to me again". Yet, this doesnt change the fact that you did infact get that hand. You cannot look at the current universe as a goal, and calculate the statistical probabilities from there.

Final Rebuttal:
God is independent of the universe; the universe is dependent on God. This is not logically impossible.

So youre saying that God never intereferes, has never interefered, and will never interefere in this universe? Good to know, but confusing, as you state you are a christian. Wouldnt a Deist be more fitting for you?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:03:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 2:23:52 AM, badger wrote:
how is micro-evolution the alternative theory to spontaneous generation?

Spontaneous generation was the notion that fully formed life arrived from inanimate matter (maggots in dead meat etc.) as opposed to parental origins which evolution falls under.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:05:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 2:23:52 AM, badger wrote:
how is micro-evolution the alternative theory to spontaneous generation?

What?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:07:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
but spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain where life came from in the first place. evolution explains change in life. i'd have thought abiogenesis was the alternative theory to spontaneous generation.
signature
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:18:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 3:07:03 AM, badger wrote:
but spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain where life came from in the first place.

Eh. People could visibly see and know most forms of life giving birth - it wasn't really about the initial origins, more about seeing life arise in some instances where no apparent cause could be attributed (though it was still treated as common).

evolution explains change in life. i'd have thought abiogenesis was the alternative theory to spontaneous generation.

Germ/Cell theory specifically refutes spontaneous generation of which they are included in modern evo synthesis.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:37:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 3:18:01 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:07:03 AM, badger wrote:
but spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain where life came from in the first place.

Eh. People could visibly see and know most forms of life giving birth - it wasn't really about the initial origins, more about seeing life arise in some instances where no apparent cause could be attributed (though it was still treated as common).

i still don't see how that's an alternative theory to micro-evolution.

evolution explains change in life. i'd have thought abiogenesis was the alternative theory to spontaneous generation.

Germ/Cell theory specifically refutes spontaneous generation of which they are included in modern evo synthesis.

i have no idea what you're talking about.
signature
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:42:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 3:37:17 AM, badger wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:18:01 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:07:03 AM, badger wrote:
but spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain where life came from in the first place.

Eh. People could visibly see and know most forms of life giving birth - it wasn't really about the initial origins, more about seeing life arise in some instances where no apparent cause could be attributed (though it was still treated as common).

i still don't see how that's an alternative theory to micro-evolution.

Because it proposed an origin of where certain species and effects like disease arrived from. At the time flies > maggots was unknown, bacteria was unknown etc.


evolution explains change in life. i'd have thought abiogenesis was the alternative theory to spontaneous generation.

Germ/Cell theory specifically refutes spontaneous generation of which they are included in modern evo synthesis.

i have no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 3:48:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 3:42:41 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:37:17 AM, badger wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:18:01 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/24/2010 3:07:03 AM, badger wrote:
but spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain where life came from in the first place.

Eh. People could visibly see and know most forms of life giving birth - it wasn't really about the initial origins, more about seeing life arise in some instances where no apparent cause could be attributed (though it was still treated as common).

i still don't see how that's an alternative theory to micro-evolution.

Because it proposed an origin of where certain species and effects like disease arrived from. At the time flies > maggots was unknown, bacteria was unknown etc.


evolution explains change in life. i'd have thought abiogenesis was the alternative theory to spontaneous generation.

Germ/Cell theory specifically refutes spontaneous generation of which they are included in modern evo synthesis.

i have no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

i get you. cheers for the links.
signature
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 4:32:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 3:40:40 PM, Puck wrote:
@ Panda.

What would you see as evidence for creationism? GODWAZHERE spelt out in the Cambrian? :P

hehe, I honestly don't know what to expect, but I'm presuming that they have something, or are going on blind faith and being idiots.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 4:39:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 10:29:56 AM, Valtarov wrote:

Other Rebuttals:
Imperfect universe? By what standard do you call our universe imperfect? What is perfection? Natural laws seem to be pretty perfectly ordered to me. The universe seems pretty governed and predictable.

Multiple flaws. The fact stars will eventually all die out and we'll be f*cked. The fact that there are millions of inhospitable planets which are not inhabited. The fact that, at any given time, a giant asteroid\come\whatever could collide with the Earth and we'd be finished. God was clearly either:

1) Completely f*cking stupid when he made the Universe (i.e. Not omniscient)
2) Didn't create the universe.


Since when does statistics not establish a system for rejecting hypotheses that are very, very unlikely, through significance testing? Statistics would indicate that, when the probabilities of all events leading to the world as we know it are totaled,the infinitesimally small probabilities of P(universe with physics that allow life)*P(position in universe allowing life)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution) leads to a probability of everything happening without intelligent intervention that is so very, very small that any statistician would reject the hypothesis as false.

This is of course presuming that this is the only universe. Of course if it isn't, then it's been hit and miss for eternity hasn't it?


Final Rebuttal:
God is independent of the universe; the universe is dependent on God. This is not logically impossible.

So, you are implying God is not bound by the laws of this Universe. Taking this assumption as true, then Christianity (York religion) is faulty insofar as the concept of the Trinity.

1. The Holy Spirit inside humans.
2.The Holy spirit is part of the Trinity, which is not bound by the Laws of the Universe.
=> Humans with the holy Spirit aren't bound by the Laws of the Universe.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:15:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 4:39:14 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 6/23/2010 10:29:56 AM, Valtarov wrote:

Other Rebuttals:
Imperfect universe? By what standard do you call our universe imperfect? What is perfection? Natural laws seem to be pretty perfectly ordered to me. The universe seems pretty governed and predictable.

Multiple flaws. The fact stars will eventually all die out and we'll be f*cked. The fact that there are millions of inhospitable planets which are not inhabited. The fact that, at any given time, a giant asteroid\come\whatever could collide with the Earth and we'd be finished. God was clearly either:

1) Completely f*cking stupid when he made the Universe (i.e. Not omniscient)
2) Didn't create the universe.
First of all, I was going from an atheistic viewpoint in saying this, pointing out an internal inconsistency.

Your options are a false dichotomy. I'll add 3) for you
3) God did not create mankind to be completely safe and secure nor to continue on forever.


Since when does statistics not establish a system for rejecting hypotheses that are very, very unlikely, through significance testing? Statistics would indicate that, when the probabilities of all events leading to the world as we know it are totaled,the infinitesimally small probabilities of P(universe with physics that allow life)*P(position in universe allowing life)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution) leads to a probability of everything happening without intelligent intervention that is so very, very small that any statistician would reject the hypothesis as false.

This is of course presuming that this is the only universe. Of course if it isn't, then it's been hit and miss for eternity hasn't it?
Multi-universe theory is definitionally non-falsifiable.


Final Rebuttal:
God is independent of the universe; the universe is dependent on God. This is not logically impossible.

So, you are implying God is not bound by the laws of this Universe. Taking this assumption as true, then Christianity (York religion) is faulty insofar as the concept of the Trinity.

1. The Holy Spirit inside humans.
2.The Holy spirit is part of the Trinity, which is not bound by the Laws of the Universe.
=> Humans with the holy Spirit aren't bound by the Laws of the Universe
Not really true in any sense of the Christian doctrines, although some would say that is true (as many claim that the Holy Spirit allows miracles and speaking in languages one doesn't actually know). But your argument, at best, is a semantic straw man.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:53:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 11:19:51 AM, tkubok wrote:
If statistics is convincing you that Evolution did not occur, you are making a fundemental mistake. The same goes for if statistics is convincing you that evolution did occur. Statistics has little or nothing to do with Evolution.
The application of statistics and its underlying theories is almost universally applicable.

Problems with mirco-evolution: none. It beats its alternative theory of spontaneous generation by an incomprehensible amount.
Correct.
Problems with macro-evolution: many.
Incorrect.
Provide reasons.
Artifacts that contradict the evolutionary time-frame.
There are no artifacts that "Contradict" evolutionary time-frame. If there are, please provide them.
Unless you're going to debate me, it's not worth my time to go and find all of them.

No scientific evidence for morphological evolution.

I dont quite understand what you mean by "Morphological evolution". Please explain. If you are talking about Common ancestry BASED on morphology, then you are incorrect. Utterly. We have a very good fossil lineage for many species. This claim is just not true.
Morphological evolution: evolution of the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. By scientific evidence, I mean lab reproduction of the said effect.

No scientific evidence for speciation.

There is scientific evidence for speciation. Infact, speciation has directly been observed. I suggest you look up "observed instances of speciation" on Google. Remember, Google is your friend.
Remember, Google results contain a lot of false or biased websites too. Show me an instance of observed speciation in the lab, that did more than separate two fish populations, wait a while, then put the populations back in a non-mating season, and, because the two populations didn't breed in the next 6 hours, called it speciation.

Incompatibility between the morphological evolution and the discrete, limited possibilities presented by genetics.

There are no incompatibilities with morphology and Genetics. Infact, guess what, species which are morphologically similar tend to have more in common genetics wise too. Infact, our current taxonomy is based off the morphological and physiological similarities, and coincidentally(or maybe not), genetics CONFIRMS this. There is a massive amou of compatibility between morphology and genetics. Your claim is false.
Not the point of my objection. Actually, according the Prentice Hall textbook on the subject, the current system of classification is based on genetic similarities. They used an example of some type of crustacean, originally put in one order, but then was put in a different order of the same family due to closer genetics.

The problem comes from evolving new traits. The only way you can get new genetic material is by mutation. But mutation happens, in most cases, one base pair at a time, and at an extremely low rate. To get the current amount of genetic diversity at the current mutation rate, evolution would have to have been going on for at least 6 billion years. To get to where we are today in the time frame currently speculated, the mutation rate would have to be so high that it would kill most species very quickly by harmful mutation.

Nigh-impossibility of the formation of a living cell from chemicals. I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.

No no, Abiogenesis is still a growing field, but the possibility of the formation of a living cell from chemicals keeps INCREASING as the years go on. Weve found methods of created amino acids and peptides, creation of lipid bilayers, these things are steps that take us closerand increase the probability of the formation of life from non-life.
Have you ever looked at the known chemical diagram of a cell? It's a lot more complex than a few amino acids and peptide chains and lipid bilayers. Yes, we've made them in the lab. No, we haven't made them in the currently theorized atmosphere of primordial earth. Please don't cite Miller's experiment that used a completely wrong mix of atmospheric particles.

This still doesn't address how DNA, which does not form naturally synthesize into chains (as this would exclude its use for storing information), arises randomly but with the right pattern of DNA so that it sustains the cell's life.

This is extremely unlikely.

Please go on. Because, so far, all of your examples have failed.
You are empirically denied.

Other Rebuttals:
Imperfect universe? By what standard do you call our universe imperfect? What is perfection? Natural laws seem to be pretty perfectly ordered to me. The universe seems pretty governed and predictable.

If this universe is perfect, then what is heaven?
Under an atheistic viewpoint, there can be no perfection. I was pointing out an internal inconsistency.

Since when does statistics not establish a system for rejecting hypotheses that are very, very unlikely, through significance testing? Statistics would indicate that, when the probabilities of all events leading to the world as we know it are totaled,the infinitesimally small probabilities of P(universe with physics that allow life)*P(position in universe allowing life)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution) leads to a probability of everything happening without intelligent intervention that is so very, very small that any statistician would reject the hypothesis as false.

What you are doing is looking at the current state of the universe as a goal, and calculating the odds from there. Yet, this is not the case.

Take a deck of cards. Imagine I hand the cards out to you, for a game of poker, and you receive a royal flush. What are the odds of getting such a hand? Somewhere between 1 in 60 million or something like that.
Now, I reshuffle the deck, and give you a new hand, that contains an ace, a 3, a 9, a 10, a queen and a king. What are the odds of getting that hand? The same as getting a royal flush.
You see? Getting ANY hand in poker has the SAME odds.

This is called Statistical thermodynamics, which states that any system is INFINITELY improbable, yet the system must exist in a state regardless of the odds. If you hand out 5 cards to me, I could look at those cards, and say "How improbable! We could probably play Poker all week, and i could never get the same 5 cards handed to me again". Yet, this doesnt change the fact that you did infact get that hand. You cannot look at the current universe as a goal, and calculate the statistical probabilities from there.

Fine. I'll revise my probabilistic equation. Now, it just looks like this:*P(existence of a planet in such a position in the universe that it can sustain life|physics)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life|physics)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention|physics and chemistry)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution|chemistry, biology)

None of these run into your stated problem with the poker deck.

Final Rebuttal:
God is independent of the universe; the universe is dependent on God. This is not logically impossible.

So youre saying that God never intereferes, has never interefered, and will never interefere in this universe? Good to know, but confusing, as you state you are a christian. Wouldnt a Deist be more fitting for you?

You should take a statistics class. Then you'd understand the meanings of dependent and independent.

Independent: not influenced by any other event/object e.g. God is not influenced by any natural event.
Dependent: influenced by the independent e.g. God influences natural events.

From the Christian pe
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 2:18:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:53:55 AM, Valtarov wrote:
The application of statistics and its underlying theories is almost universally applicable.

Keyword: Almost.

Bascialy, youve won the lottery, and after calculating the odds of winning the lottery, have concluded that you could not possibly have won.

Applying statistics is fine. The conclusion you are making, is wrong.
Provide reasons.
Be glad to, if you could expand on what exactly the problems are.
Unless you're going to debate me, it's not worth my time to go and find all of them.

Im not asking you to list every single one. Bring me one. Any single one that you believe is the best. If you are incapable of even posting ONE example, then the only conclusion i could make is that you have none.

Morphological evolution: evolution of the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. By scientific evidence, I mean lab reproduction of the said effect.
First of all, thats not the definition of what constitutes as scientific evidence at all.

Secondly, the fossil geneology for Equus, or horse, prov you wrong, in terms of "morphological" evolution.

Remember, Google results contain a lot of false or biased websites too. Show me an instance of observed speciation in the lab, that did more than separate two fish populations, wait a while, then put the populations back in a non-mating season, and, because the two populations didn't breed in the next 6 hours, called it speciation.

Gladly. Go google the Ensatina salamander. It is a great example of speciation.

Not the point of my objection. Actually, according the Prentice Hall textbook on the subject, the current system of classification is based on genetic similarities. They used an example of some type of crustacean, originally put in one order, but then was put in a different order of the same family due to closer genetics.

Well, i didnt quite understand what you meant by Morphological evolution, so yeah.

As for classification of species, uh, no. If you ever studied the original taxonomy system by Linnaeus, who, by the way, had no method of categorizing animals except based on their appearances, and compare them to todays taxonomy based on genetics, they are strikingly similar. But i think youve got it mixed up there, Orders supersedes Family.

Oh, and BTW, crustaceans are far harder to categorize, especially just by morphology, than animals. Animals have distinct tells even within their bone structure alone that can give away its species. I have no doubt that Linnaues or anyone else would have a hard time categorizing crustaceans based solely on morphology.

The problem comes from evolving new traits. The only way you can get new genetic material is by mutation. But mutation happens, in most cases, one base pair at a time, and at an extremely low rate. To get the current amount of genetic diversity at the current mutation rate, evolution would have to have been going on for at least 6 billion years. To get to where we are today in the time frame currently speculated, the mutation rate would have to be so high that it would kill most species very quickly by harmful mutation.

Fail.

First of all, mutation rates are actually quite high. Its just that most mutations are silent and therefore you dont notice it at all. It is said that the average mutation rate in a zygote alone stems around 60, and that EACH sperm cell has about 2 mutations, average, until it is formed. Since only about 10% of our DNA is useful, lets say that 6 mutations are passed down that actualy make a difference. Thats 6 in each generation, and each generation passes on its genes around once every 15 years. Apes have existed for about 30 million years. So thats about 12 million mutations. Times the number of apes that have ever existed before 200,000 years ago, which im guessin to be around 1 billion(A very conservative guess, im sure). So thats about 12 billion mutations. Lets say that 1 in 1000 mutations are benefitial. So, that leaves 12 million mutations. Thats quite a bit, dont you think?

Secondly, how did you come up with the number of 6 billion years?

Have you ever looked at the known chemical diagram of a cell? It's a lot more complex than a few amino acids and peptide chains and lipid bilayers. Yes, we've made them in the lab. No, we haven't made them in the currently theorized atmosphere of primordial earth. Please don't cite Miller's experiment that used a completely wrong mix of atmospheric particles.

Im glad you brought out miller, because that shows just how out of touch you are with modern science. But thanks for bringing up experiments that were done 50 years ago.

In any case, did i make a claim otherwise? I objected to your absurd assessment that we are still a "Far cry" from creating a single cell.

This still doesn't address how DNA, which does not form naturally synthesize into chains (as this would exclude its use for storing information), arises randomly but with the right pattern of DNA so that it sustains the cell's life.

Again, are you not aware that only 10% of our DNA which is supposedly stacked in the "Right pattern", as you so sadly put it, is actually used? So, when you find a test which has 1 in 10 answers correct, do you conclude that the person who wrote the test clearly knows what he is talking about? Mind you, the fact that our current DNA is stacked upon a massive chain of a trial-and-error system.

This is extremely unlikely.

I thought we already discussed about Statistics and LIkelyhoods and how they are meaningless?

You are empirically denied.

I dont understand what that means.

Under an atheistic viewpoint, there can be no perfection. I was pointing out an internal inconsistency.
Yet, we are not simply discussion this from an atheistic viewpoint, are we? Are you not apart of this discussion, as well as your beliefs?
Fine. I'll revise my probabilistic equation. Now, it just looks like this:*P(existence of a planet in such a position in the universe that it can sustain life|physics)*P(right proportions of atoms on planet to allow sustainable life|physics)*P(cell forming from chemicals with no intelligent intervention|physics and chemistry)*P(mutation rate much higher than today in all species to achieve macro-evolution|chemistry, biology)

None of these run into your stated problem with the poker deck.
How does restating your equation, address my argument of how you are looking at everything AS A GOAL when we know in fact that this is not the case?

Again, to use an old analogy, youve won the lottery, and calculated the odds of winning the lottery and therefore concluded that you could not have won the lottery because it is against the odds. Please address this argument.

You should take a statistics class. Then you'd understand the meanings of dependent and independent.
Didnt know you were talking in terms of Statistics. next time, a "Statistically speaking, " wouldve been a nice starter for your sentence. Now that i know what youre talking about, heres my rebuttal.

How do you know that God influences natural events, anymore than someone who wins the lottery, knows that the lottery commission influenced the draw so that he would win?