Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by kaminsky
I enjoyed Dawkins God Delusion for the same reason many atheists enjoyed it , you could laugh at the god squad . I just wonder wether Dawkin as a prof of the public understanding of science ,should write a laymens guide to the philosophy of science. Asking questions about the definitions , assumptions , meanings etc about the scientific method is more enlig ...[text shortened]... I find unreadable) would illustrate a fundamental principle of the scientific method , openess.

Oh he has done that in so many books! Just check him out on Amazon or Google or something. He has written beautifully about the way science is done and has systematically examined absolutely every Creationist diversion. His engagement in public debate is only one aspect of his contributions.

Originally posted by finnegan
Oh he has done that in so many books! Just check him out on Amazon or Google or something. He has written beautifully about the way science is done and has systematically examined absolutely every Creationist diversion. His engagement in public debate is only one aspect of his contributions.

LOL , your right ive just dug out A Devils Chaplain , chapter 1.2 is headed WHAT IS TRUE? and refers to Popper and Kuhn . In my defence it's a few years old as am I.

Originally posted by kaminsky
LOL , your right ive just dug out A Devils Chaplain , chapter 1.2 is headed WHAT IS TRUE? and refers to Popper and Kuhn . In my defence it's a few years old as am I.

It's not all atheistic squabbling you know. He is best when he gets on with describing how biologists work and what they have discovered so far. He has a passion for communicating what evolution actually is and obviously gets passionately angry when this is misrepresented. Even then, he takes the trouble to spell out in exhaustive detail the answers to each creationist debating point, no matter how stupid the creationist argument or how laborious the necessary explanation.

His book The Ancestor's Tale is probably his most boring book, but I refer to it often because it does the very useful job of setting out in mind numbing detail the full ancestry of humanity, identifying at each branch of the evolutionary tree those diverse species with whom we share a common ancestry. This is an antidote to those who still refer to the proverbial missing link and also those (RJHinds for example) who foolishly think that worms suddenly transformed into humans at some point in history.

Originally posted by jaywill

The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.

There are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. W ...[text shortened]... of the creation is [b]not part of the Bible, in case you're confused.[/b]

In case we forget Jaywill, if one were to insist on treating Genesis as a literally true account of the origin of the planet and its life forms, then it would be flatly in contradiction with the scientific account, since the formation of our star, the Sun, was followed ( and not preceded) by the fashioning of planets from debris floating in orbit around the Sun, acting under both the gravitational pull of the Sun itself and the gravitational attraction of the matter in orbit. In its early years ( and that means lots of years measured by orbits of the Sun, whose light would have shone brightly) the Earth would have been extremely hot and masssive forces would have been at work, making it physically impossible for a layer of water to have formed on its surface until the planet cooled. The process by which earth acquired an atmosphere and ....

I am not bothering to look this all up or recite it all. It is crazy to say that Genesis is compatible with the scientific account. Jaywill does not have to accept the scientific account but he does have to accept that it flatly contradicts Genesis.

That said, not many Christian regard Genesis as a literally true account of the formation of the Earth in any case. Only a fundamentalist sect centred in the USA has that delusion and is seeking to promote it as a serious proposition.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Show me the 'science' that says there was a world wide at the same time flood in the last 5000 years.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Ok, I read that, how bout you reading, and I mean reading every word, of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

For instance, if the Ark had only 8 people, some of those animals had specialized diets like panda bears, some animals would have to have been fed by hand.

Also, the idea of baby animals doesn't fly since in the bible it clearly says each one had his mate, a clear reference to sexual maturity.

BTW, the so-called evidence presented about world wide floods are totally bogus, disproven time and time again. Some of the evidence they suggest is evidence for the flood happened millions of years ago, a lot of the so-called evidence happened way too far apart in time to even consider as one event yet the creationists latch onto that like someone jumping from a sinking ship, which is exactly what creationism and the flood is, a sinking ship, bound to be relegated to laugh central archives, to be brought up every now and again in realization of the big joke.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Bible and truth eh? Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Not as much of an oxymoron as 'Creation science'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, I read that, how bout you reading, and I mean reading every word, of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

For instance, if the Ark had only 8 people, some of those animals had specialized diets like panda bears, some animals would have to have been fed by hand.

Also, the idea of baby animals doesn't fly since in the bible i ...[text shortened]... to laugh central archives, to be brought up every now and again in realization of the big joke.

You reference an article called "Problems with a Global Flood" by Mark Isaak.

No one knows the complete story of Noah's ark and all the details as to how it happened. We only know the Holy Bible says it happened and no one can prove otherwise. They can only give speculative reasons why they believe or disbelieve that it happens. The purpose of this author is to give speculations and questions that express his doubts that a worldwide flood occurred. He says he has no problem accepting a local flood, however. He lists the problems in eleven categories that are listed as follows and I will make a brief comment on each.

1. Building the Ark

He claims Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints.

All I can say to this is apparently it was strong enough.

2. Gathering the Animals

He claims bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems and loading all those animals in 7 days seems impractical.

He forgets that God created the heavens, the Earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all life on Earth in 6 days.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

He makes all kinds of speculations and then concludes that an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.

It has been estimated that the capacity of the ark was about 522 railroad cars, (1.4 million cubic feet). Only 188 railroad cars would be required to hold a pair of each of the 17,600 species of animals presently known to man, according to Dr. John Morris.

4. Caring for the Animals

He speculates on the problems of providing the special diets some animals require, preservation of food, pest control, Ventilation, sanitation, exercise, and lack of manpower to take care of the animals.

I believe God would have instructed Noah, if any of this had become a problem.

5. The Flood Itself

Here He asks where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go?

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
(Genesis 7:11-12 NASB)

and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.
(Genesis 8:3 NASB)

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.
(Psalms 104:6-9 NASB)

6. Implications of a Flood

He thinks a global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

Finding fossils of marine animals on mountains doesn't seem supportive of evolution to me.

7. Producing the Geological Record

Here he makes more speculations and asks questions about them, such as:
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?

However, creationists claim the deposit and sorting of the fossil record supports creation.

8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology

Here he mainly question the possiblity that any plants an marine animals could survive.

But apparently they could for they did survive.

9. Species Distribution and Diversity

Here he doesn't have a clue as to how the different kinds of animals got to were they are today.

Hint: The dividing of the land into continents after the flood.

10. Historical Aspects

He wants to know why there is no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time of the flood, which he believes was about 2250 B.C. according to Biblical chronology? How did the human population rebound so fast? Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

Biblical scholars believe that the flood story was written around 550–450 BC as a reworking of the ancient Mesopotamian myth of the flood-hero Utnapishtim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Egyptian flood myth:
People have become rebellious. Atum said he will destroy all he made and return the earth to the Primordial Water which was its original state. Atum will remain, in the form of a serpent, with Osiris. [Faulkner, plate 30] (Unfortunately the version of the papyrus with the flood story is damaged and unclear. See also Budge, p. ccii. )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Egypt

11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points

He doesn't believe a literal interpretation of the flood story can be consistent with reality.

I have no control over what people believe. All I can say is I think it is true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You reference an article called "Problems with a Global Flood" by Mark Isaak.

No one knows the complete story of Noah's ark and all the details as to how it happened. We only know the Holy Bible says it happened and no one can prove otherwise. They can only give speculative reasons why they believe or disbelieve that it happens. The purpose of this auth ...[text shortened]... lity.

I have no control over what people believe. All I can say is I think it is true.

Interesting, there seems to be a bit of copy and paste from Egyptian myth to Genesis, Atum as some kind of god, I assume. And then there is Adam, favorite toy of your god. Co-incidence?
One thing clear about you, no matter what evidence supplied, you would reject it. Even if you went back in a time machine and met Jesus, a move I would personally endorse, and going back further in time and seeing no flood, you would just say you were just transported to a different Earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Interesting, there seems to be a bit of copy and paste from Egyptian myth to Genesis, Atum as some kind of god, I assume. And then there is Adam, favorite toy of your god. Co-incidence?
One thing clear about you, no matter what evidence supplied, you would reject it. Even if you went back in a time machine and met Jesus, a move I would personally endorse, ...[text shortened]... in time and seeing no flood, you would just say you were just transported to a different Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ujR0z3DS1js

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ujR0z3DS1js

Well there you go. Everyone should be convinced by that video. At least, convinced they want money.

Exactly what did you have in mind presenting that video.

I didn't have any doubt about the sand drawings being signs to aliens, it was clearly not but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well there you go. Everyone should be convinced by that video. At least, convinced they want money.

Exactly what did you have in mind presenting that video.

I didn't have any doubt about the sand drawings being signs to aliens, it was clearly not but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Just like those people believing in alien visits in the past wrongly interpreted facts that they observed, people believing in evolution are interpreting the facts wrongly to agree with their misconceptions that nature accounts for everything.

P.S. It is like Dawkins seeing design in nature but refusing to accept the obvious that there must be a designer. He says nature designed itself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just like those people believing in alien visits in the past wrongly interpreted facts that they observed, people believing in evolution are interpreting the facts wrongly to agree with their misconceptions that nature accounts for everything.

P.S. It is like Dawkins seeing design in nature but refusing to accept the obvious that there must be a designer. He says nature designed itself.

The only claim you have to that is the universe may have had a designer, science cannot refute that claim. Other than that, science 1, creationism 0.

There is no such thing as creation science since they start out with an agenda. A true scientist strives for the truth, wherever that goes. Creation 'scientists' try to bend nature to their creation agenda.

You never seem to get that point. They use science as a weapon, not as an unbiased seeker of truth. They would have unbounded joy if they could destroy evolution. Then all presence at science would be out the window and it would be back to pure bible.

The ONLY reason they, in their vain attempt to use science, is to destroy, not build up knowledge.

You also refuse to see the concept that evolution does not have to explain how life started, that is the job of another scientific field, nothing to do with evolution, which seeks to explain what happens to life AFTER it started.

You can't even accept THAT basic fact.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only claim you have to that is the universe may have had a designer, science cannot refute that claim. Other than that, science 1, creationism 0.

There is no such thing as creation science since they start out with an agenda. A true scientist strives for the truth, wherever that goes. Creation 'scientists' try to bend nature to their creation agenda ...[text shortened]... s to explain what happens to life AFTER it started.

You can't even accept THAT basic fact.

Well, evolution doesn't even explain that because there is no evolution, only creation and adaptation (including mutations from reproductive errors).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, evolution doesn't even explain that because there is no evolution, only creation and adaptation (including mutations from reproductive errors).

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Everyone here on the evolution side has said evolution does not have to answer the beginnings of life but like I said, you cannot get past that. Evolution MUST explain the origin of life. NO IT DOESN'T and it never will. Get that through your thick and self cauterized skull.

I assume you cannot accept that because in your mind that would be capitulating to the entire evolutionary scam, right?