Recently, I was having a spot of tea with an old friend of mine, Chuck. You might know him as Charles. He was telling me about this old school bet he had with some chums, something about who could tell the biggest lie, fool the most people, that sort of thing.
So, whenever I read a debate by evolutionists, I just chuckle, because Charles Darwin himself told me evolution wasn’t true.
What i’d like to know is why creationists always place the burden of proof on evolutionists? Admittedly, it would be nice to have absolute proof of everything, but at least those who adhere to the theory of evolution are generally honest enough to concede that it is just that - a theory that requires constant investigation, analysis and revision.
Creationists, on the other hand, spend so much time chasing imaginary flaws in the evolutionary argument that they never even attempt to prove their creationist arguments. And evolutionists spend so much time defending themselves against the trumped-up charges of creationists that no-one ever thinks to ask creationists for their proof regarding the creation of the universe.
Of course, it’s all just too easy to be a creationist. If you ask them how the earth came to be, you are told that God created it. If you ask them how they know this, they tell you that it’s in the Bible. If you ask them how they know that what the Bible says is true, they tell you that it is the word of God, so it must be. And if you ask how they know there’s a God in the first place, you are again referred to the Bible as proof. A lovely circular argument, in which proof for the existence of God is claimed to rest in something that God is claimed to have written.
I realise that belief in God requires faith, and fully support the right of people to have such faith. But i just wish that they would concede that faith is exactly what it is, and not confuse it with rational and logical argument. The only long-term satisfaction an evolutionist can gain from this is that, as surely as creationists “know” they are going to heaven, i know that i (and they) will just be dead and that our organic matter will be dispersed about the biosphere. And that’s it, nothing else.
“But then I read all the great thinkers- Marx, Lenin, L. Ron Hubbard…”
Anyway, who can believe for one moment that Einstein was a creationist?
-Ben
Was this meant to be ironic? That’s how it sounded to me. If that’s the case, then maybe you should read Marx; you would find that he really was a great thinker.
I’m not a Marxist, and you don’t need to spend any time demonstrating to me that many of Marx’s predictions about the development of capitalism have not been borne out by subesquent circumstances. But to simply dismiss him as a result is to fail to appreciate the level of investigation and analysis that went into his writing. If your post was ironic in the sense that you haven’t read him at all, then maybe you should restrict your sarcasm to authors about which you have some knowledge.
On the other hand, if i misinterpeted and your sentence was not ironic, then i apologise. But if that was the case, then L. Ron Hubbard…?
Libertarian wrote:
Well, looks like you won this round, Lib. I looked up 2 Chrinicles 4:2 in an on-line Interlinear Old Testament. The Hebrew word translated as “circular” in this NIV passage is `agol, which literally means “round.”
The vessel could indeed have been “round” without being “circular.” Perhaps King Solomon wanted his bathtub a little longer than it was wide.
However, I do feel a need to point out the following:
2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the vessel’s inner volume was “three thousand baths.” (One bath was a specific, well-defined, official unit of volume in Old Testament times, equal to about 5-and-5/6 gallons.)
1 Kings 7:26, which describes the exact same vessel, says that its inner volume was “two thousand baths.”
Hmmm…
It’s a quote from the movie “Top Secret.” I was responding to IGOTTHEANSWERS’s list of great minds who were creationists: Newton, Einstein, and… Russell Humphreys?
-Ben
(Incidentally, if the vessel were perfectly hemispherical and 10 cubits in diameter, its volume would be a little over 13,000 gallons, or around 2300 baths.)
My apologies; i didn’t catch the popular cultural reference.
Might I suggest you actually read a book or two about evolution? Evolutionists don’t deal with how DNA came into being. That it exists is sufficient; regardless how it got here, evolutionists deal with how it changes, and what effects those changes have on the organisms to which it belongs.
If you want to talk DNA Origins, go see “Biology, Molecular”. It’s down the hall, first door on the left.
**
You cite name dropping as evidence that he’s a major player in the science of evolution?! Well, here’re some other names for you, none of which mention mr. Clarke: Michael Benton, Robert L. Carroll, Steven J. Gould, Douglas Futuyma, James W. Valentine, Steve Jones, David M. Raup, Steven M. Stanley, Niles Eldredge, Joel Cracraft, and Jacques Gauthier, just to name relatively few. Perhaps you should wander over to the “Science” section of the bookstore, rather than the “Science Fiction” section
**
Yeah, those scientists are a wacky bunch - always modifying their ideas when new evidence presents itself, coming up with new thoeries to better explain the evidence. What a bunch of dopes, huh? Not like those creationists, who are so firmly convinvced of their own truth that nothing could possibly convince them otherwise.
The ability to ignore evidence and stick to the same old dogma is not the sign of a great thinker, nor the sign of a seeker of “truth”.
**
Been there. Done that. Can you say “lies”? How about “blatant lies”? How about even “soul-searing, sufficient-to-damn-one’s-eternal-soul-to-the-fiery-pits-of-Hell lies”? Personally, I’m living in the 21st century. Creationists are still living in, what, 4000 B.C.?
:rolleyes: Only Lib would even consider the possibility that the Earth doesn’t really exist.
And I suppose the ball-point pen I used this morning isn’t really straight? Or the desk upon which this computer sits isn’t really flat?
A ruler isn’t straight? A sheet of paper isn’t flat?
Yes, these are all flat. What Lib was talking about was the surface of the earth. If you have a line over 600 feet, you can’t measure its distance without taking into account the curvature of the earth.
Hmmm… I don’t even think ANY of the major churchs (non fundementalists) even try to make that claim anymore. The evidence that this is not true is so overwhelming that it isn’t worth arguing.
Clearly with your understanding of the odds and statistics, exactly the same odds exist for evolution… 1 out of 2. Obviously the 1 out of 2 that wouldn’t be God would be evolution. But, just because there are two choices in your mind, doesn’t mean they equally likely. Essentially nothing meaningful in that entire section.
I would ask you to cite ANY serious reference to the above by any mainstream scientist. Some things of interest though:
- Evolution does not even discuss the question of where the original piece of life came from. That would be biogenesis… but if we must discuss that…
- Throwing a bunch of chemicals in a container that match the best estimates of the early earth atmosphere and adding a source of energy will yield a stew of complex organic chemicals (including many amino acids) in a fairly short time. (You can even try this for yourself, if you have the urge)
- biogenesis typically posits that life probably didn’t even start are life as we know it. It seems more likely that it started as bunches of self replicating molecules. Then following normal evolutionary principals, these molecules became more complex and better and using the local resources to replicate (pushing out less effient molecules). It is quite conceivable that one became complex enough to meet our current definitions of life.
And most importantly, even the guys who are “experts” in this field have no real way to calculate the odds of it happening. One of two things need to happen first.
- They need to succeed in creating some type of primitive life in a sealed environment (if they succeed in this, life arising sponteneously is likely indeed. If life can arise in a suitable but very small environment in a few years, it must be much easier when you have millions of years and the whole earth the run the experiment on)
- Do a real survey of a fairly large number of other worlds that have similar properties as earth and see how many have life of any kind.
Who says A.C Clarke is large in the evolutionist ranks? And the factual state of affairs in the evolution theory says that it is as certain as one can be about anything that evolution has in fact happened and is still happening. The only squabbles are about the details. The fossil record is so completely clear on one detail. The further you go back, on average the less advanced the life you find. As to still happening, the whole mess with Antibiotic resistant pathogens is pure evolution in action.
Another person who believes the Bible is superior to science because science never has “the final answer.” I’ve encountered so many creationists who say the Bible is superior to anything Man has written because “it never changes”. Well, Moby Dick hasn’t changed since it was published either.
We haven’t found ANY terrestrial life-form without DNA. What’s your point?
Are you arguing that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics? Explain how.
Please explain the fact that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is more than 97% alike.
Hoaxes cannot falsify theories.
Been there, done that, did NOT buy the t-shirt.
The 21st. You seem to be living in the 13th.
I asked how you build something (like a cistern made of gold) in the shape of a non-Euclidian circle and Lib comes back with the observation that the Earth’s surface isn’t flat. What Lib did is called a non-sequitur. He avoided my question and he does this with aggravating frequency.
1 “that dna exists is sufficient”?!? To whom?? You can’t sweep it under a rug. We say that because God exists it’s sufficient but we can back it up with proof.
2 I see you name drop a bunch of names
heres Gould
“Instead of changing gradually as one generation shades into the next, evolution proceeds in discreet leaps”
Newsweek 29, 1982
So even your stephen J Gould is opposite of Darwin. He believes creatures just popped out brand new kinds rather than the slow changing evolutionists have been pushing for years.
3 Yes evolutionists do continue to change their ideas. Those dopes. Try to find 2 evolutionists to agree on anything. Slow evolution, instant evolution as in Gould. Or CLarke who says a god-like being put us here??? Looks like “truth” is what God said it was. His creation.
4 1+1 will always equal 2. They knew this in 4000BC. Quess what? it still holds true for today. So time has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH!
Two final notes
One Creationists and evolutionists both use the SAME facts. Evolutionists interpret the facts differently. So evolutionists do not have facts, they only have their interpretation of it.
Heres facts
1comets have a life span of 10,000-100,000 years old. Why are they still around!!!
2 helium fills into earths atmosphere daily it would only take 2 million years to get trace amount we have in atmosphere today
3 earth would erode into ocean in only 15 million years
4 our present population would have developed from a single family in just 4 thousand years.
measure data indicating age of earth maximums:
1 influx of radiocarbon into earth system 5000-10000 yr max
2 influx of nickel to the ocean via river 9000 yr max
3 decay of C-14 in pre cabrian wood 4000yr max
4 accumulation of peat in peat bogs 8000 yr max
These are facts and evolutionists agree with these facts. Their interpretation is where things get zanny
part 2 of final thought
The quantity of people believing in evolution has nothing to do with truth. God sai d way was narrow.
Romans 1 18-22
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world ARE CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
I notice that this debate is your first on the Straight Dope Message Boards. I can’t claim to speak for everyone around here, but when i get involved in a debate, i find it much more productive when those with whom i am debating are willing to provide some evidence to back up their argument, rather than simply repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions time after time. What you say in this thread may have some truth to it, but why should people accept you alone as the authority?
You have yet to provide a link to another website that supports your claims. Nor have you provided the titles of any books that people might look at in order to learn more about the points of view that you put forward. Despite the fact that we Dopers probably spend far too much time in front of our computers, evidence does indicate that many of us are willing to make a trip to the library every now and again.
Of course, you’re fully within your rights to say whatever you want without any evidence whatsoever - i can’t stop you, nor would i want to - but you might find that if you continue to mistake baldface opinions for informed debate then people will become tired of arguing and will just ignore you.
I’m sorry, but in “Great Debates” an argument replete with spelling and grammar errors that concludes with a Biblequote, is not very compelling.
For a more persuasive argument for theism, and a frankly, to get an image of a God worthy of belief, look at Polycarp’s posts. You would do well to model his approach if your goal is to persuade. As it is, I am afraid you will only bring more well deserved derision upon your arguments if you continue on your current path.
Hoping for the best but prepared for the worst,
MH
Is it Gaudere’s Law that I just fulfilled? The one that states that any post correcting a spelling or grammar error will itself contain a spelling or grammar error?
::sigh::
Two obvious solutions to this
1 cubit was the length of a mans forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. This method does not lend itself to the measuremnet of freactions. Come on people. The measurement around would have been taken either with a measured string or rod. If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits for exapmle, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumfrence would have been 30.32 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would have been 30.32 divided by 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even thought the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 divided by 10 = 3.
2 verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of the lilies’ (i.e. the brim or rim turned outward)
the diameter was measured ‘from one brim to the other’
the circumference was measured with ‘a line round about’
the formula from that point
diameter=circumferece divided by pi
=30 cubits divided by 3.14
=9.55 cubits
It is abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0!!! Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take in account all the data.