Re: In the beginning?

Smoley wrote, on 2008-10-25 18:17:
On Oct 25, 12:56 am, Cory Albrecht<coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Smoley wrote, on 2008-10-24 18:13:

On Oct 24, 2:13 pm, Cory Albrecht<coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Smoley wrote, on 2008-10-23 22:24:
*snip*
And yet you don't give that evidence. Since you're making teh positive
claim that God created life, you need to supply that evidence. Why do
you keep avoiding that?
I can't prove that God exists.
You know, at first I was going to give you points for finally being
honest. But then I noticed something. Even though you marked it, you
snipped a very important piece of context in this conversation between
us. That missing part is this:

>>>> God created life, God created time, God created matter which exists
>>>> purely by His own energy.
>>> Got eny evidence for that?
>>Yes. do you know of an alternative?

LOL, I just snipped all the loose ends. I DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF GOD.
There is a big difference between "evidence" and "proof". A pile of
poop in your yard is evidence that some animal may have been in your
yard, but you certainly couldn't prove it. Maybe someone tossed it
there?

Oh, so now you *do* have evidence of God. Another 180 degree flip. Will you make up your mind, please?

You see, I believe that God wrote the DNA code and built the precise
little factory that churns out living creatures. This is evidence of
God.

No. Your "belief" is not evidence. For it to be evidence you need to actually show that God did "write the DNA code" rather than simply claiming it.

Evidence does not prove anything. People interpret the evidence as
they see it, but not all people have the same interpretation.

Except some "interpretations" are better than others. Last week I found that my coffee mug had been knocked off my desk and smashed to bits on the floor. One theory say that leprechauns did it, another theory says that a cat did it. Clearly my cat being responsible is the better theory because a cat does own me and makes me buy it gooshyfood (<http://picasaweb.google.ca/CoryCA/Edmund#5261290193813788962>). I have never seen any leprechauns in my apartment.

For example: Parents are skeptical when receiving accusations against
their own children, but are easily persuaded that it could have been
someone else's children.
It's very much the same with scientists today, they see what they want
to see from the evidence that is presented.
You have been primed to see "missing links" and therefore you are
thinking "missing links".

My whole point is not to prove that God exists. The Bible tells me
that many will change the truth of God into a lie, and that will never
change, or the Bible would become false. However, I KNOW that creation
could not have organised itself in such a manner as it exists today.

Just because you "KNOW" it doesn't mean it's true, any more than a Hindu who "KNOWS", just as strongly as you "KNOW" - that Brahma created the world.

And that KNOW-ing is still not evidence that God exists.

Here are some of the impossibilities that I see in your model of
creation:

What "model of creation"? I have given no such thing to you.


An eternal universe presents some problems for me: How can an

Where did I say anythgn about the universe being eternally old? Where does any cosmological theory say the universe is eternally old?

infinite amount of time be spanned? Looking back, if there were no
beginning, then the universe is eternally old. This is an
impossibility. The rocks shouldn't just read billions of years old
then.

You are conflating age of the universe with age of the Earth. Even were the universe eternally old it would still be possible for teh Earth to have be formed 4.5 billion years ago and thus not be eternally old as well. Thus this problem of yours is a a made up problem that doesn't really exist.


A finite universe also presents some problems for me: This means that
there was "nothing" before the universe. I find great difficulty in
trying to understand the concept of nothing becoming everything. This
is not possible either.

You know, I don't claim to understand high-level cosmological physics or that I fully grokk any of the theories tha attept to explain how our universe started, but heck, <sarcasm>I'm sure that yu know so much better than any cosmologist or qantum physicist about what is or is not possible f rteh early universe.</sarcasm>

The only way that I can understand these questions is by understanding
that the universe did not come into existence by natural occurrences,
and that the current laws of time, space, energy, matter, gravity, and
so on.. must have been defied (actually created) at the beginning of
the universe. Therefore, the current laws of nature are not going to
explain an entity which does not follow the current laws.

Just because you want to believe that because you can't understand cosmological physics either does not mean what you beleieve is true.

And your beliefs are still not evidece for God.

I think you are in error to "believe" that the current laws of nature
contributed to the creation of themselves. Or to "believe" that the

Where did I say that I did? You seem to enjoy putting words in other people's mouths.

current laws of nature existed before the universe itself. Or to
"believe" that all laws have never had a beginning.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.

I makes more sense to "believe" that God exists in the true reality
where there are no rules. For example, we believe that death is a
reality, but in the true reality, death is just an illusion. Just as

Argument from incredulity or inability to understand physics is not evidence that God exists.

you might believe that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of
Liberty disappear, when in reality He only created that illusion.
That's why I believe the Bible when it tells me that God created all
things from things which do not appear. In other words, all is vanity
(emptiness) which appears to be something important to us.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed
by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of
things which do appear.

The Bible is not proof that Bible is true. Or that God exists. If it is, then the Nordic Eddas are proof that Odin exists and teh Rigveda is proof that Brahma exists.

The things which are seen, are made of "nothing". It's ironic, The
things that we are "sure of" are the things that are not sure of at
all.

Epistimeological(sp?) bull.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the
works that are therein shall be burned up.

The Bible is not proof that the Bible is true.

I have been involved in the creation/evolution debate online for 19
years, and in that time virtually every snip like that I have seen has
been for dishonest purposes. Either snipping something that they want to
avid because they know it hurts their argument, or snipping in order to
twist context so they can make it seem like something else was said
rather than what really was said. Both sides have their faults, but my
experience shows me that this fault is one which creationists are
partcularly prone to.

Well, you may be wrong about this Creationist. I will leave all your
posts from now on if you like. I just find it harder to read when it
is so cluttered.

You'll notice, if you reread what I wrote, that I was complining *specifically* about snippage that removed valuable context, not about snipping in general.


So first you were claiming that that you did have evidence for God's
existence, now you've flipped 180 degrees to saying that you don't have
evidence for this but ypu've snipped that which shows you've made this
switch.

You are being dishonest. I didn't say that I didn't have evidence.

Most creationists use "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably, seemingly not knowing the difference. Heck, so do I in a colloquial setting. But this post is the first indication that you, unlike so many other creationists, actually understand the difference between the two.

But if you do have it I really wish you would get around to presenting it instead of just rambling on about what your beliefs are.

There is evidence that a Jewish holocaust took place, but I can't
prove that it actually did. Or at least some still deny it, inspite of
the evidence, and I doubt if I can prove it to them.

Do you have any convincing reson why I should *not* assume you are
engaging in the same dishonesty I have seen unnumerable times ober the
last two decades? Or should I just go with that accumulated cynicism?

Yes, I am dishonest. It does not matter what you thing about me. I
could lie about the existence of the moon, but that wouldn't change
the truth. So if evolution is true, what does it matter if I am lying.

Is that a statement that you're going to believe what you're going believe, regardless of what the evidence shows?

For most people, He doesn't and that's
the way it should be. If I could prove that God exists, then
Christianity would not be by faith, would it? This is why so many
people stumble and fall and never recover.
1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by
wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to
save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the
world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath
God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things
that are:
Psalms 2:1 ¶Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from
us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have
them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his
sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 ¶I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in
pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 ¶Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of
the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when
his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in him.
Can you describe our ancestor from 200 million years ago?
200 million years ago? Let me see, that would make it a make it a
Synapsid (a.k.a. "mammal-like reptile") probably a lot like Morganucodon
and having a jaw bone/ear joint make-up transitional between reptiles
and mammals.

I am not convinced. Do you have proof that this animal was not just
another species?

What do you mean, "not just another species"? I do not understand what you mean, please clarify.


Or Or are you going to play the common creationist "trick"

Show me the evidence? or do you plead ignorance?
No, I do not plead ignorance, as my ention of Morganucodon has already
shown.

By far he most convincing evidence would be that we share DNA with not
only other mammals but birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. We know how
fast DNA can changein various situations anf rom that we can make
educated estimates as to how long ago it was that we and "species X"
shared a common ancestor.

The fact that we all were given life by the same Life Giver, does not

There is no such fact. That is merely an unsupported assertion by you.

prove evolution is true. As I stated before, It fits very nicely into

Science is not about proof, it is abour evidence. No scientific theory is ever proven 100% true. However, if a a theory keeps being able to explain all teh evidence and facts found, then there comes a time where it is simply stubbornness and not valid skepticism to not accept thet validity of that theory.

my personal belief of the Designer/Creator. Nobody is arguing that

Again, personal beliefs are not evidence.

changes dont' take place in DNA as sexual reproduction processes
occur. The argument is over the range of changing that can take place
through recombination. We do not see this as addition, but as the

"We"? Who is this "We"? Oh, and provide some evidence that there is a limit to the amount of changes that can happen over time through teh imperfect recombinations of any kind of biological reproduction.

recombination of the code that God has given us to work with.

God is the common ancestor, but I don't care to prove that to you.

Oh, isn't *that* convenient.

I've settled it in my own mind until someone can prove otherwise. That
is all I need to know.

That sounds to me supiciously like "I've already decided what the truth is so who cares what the evidence actually shows?" and makes it seem unlikely that you woudl accept any evidence which does not already conform to your beliefs.

Other supporting evidence includes fossils which, to the non-biologist
average joe are often the most visibly evidence for evolution.
Transitional forms like Morganucodon (205 Mya) illustrate how mammals
split off from reptiles. Plesiadapis (58 Mya), which can best be
described as squirrel like with some primate features, illustrates the
start of the move from the forest floor up into the trees in the early
post-Chicxulub era. From there to Notharctus (50Mya), then
Aegypopithecus (34 Mya), Proconsul (22Mya), Pierolapithecus (13 Mya)
Drypoithecus (12 Mya), Oreopithecus (9 Mya, but controversial in
placement), Sahelanthropus (7 Mya), Ardipithecus (5 Mya),
Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 Mya), Au. afarensis (3.9 Mya), Au.
africanus (2.5 Mya), Homo habilis (2.4-1.4 Mya), H. ergaster (1.8-1.4
Mya), H. erectus (1.4-0.7 Mya), H. antecessor (1.2-0.5 Mya), H.
heidelbergensis (0.8-0.3 Mya), H. sapiens (starting .25 Mya).

I am going to leave all of your evidence, because I don't want to be
accused of aggresively snipping "good arguments". Perhaps all of

Oh quit playing the wounded party. It comes across as neither convincing nor sincere.

those animals were links, but they could also have simply been other
species that have just gone extinct. There is quite a bit of liberty
given to the scientists who reconstruct these animals. I just read an

Back up your claim about such liberty.

article yesterday that showed how one scientist had erroneously
slanted a skull in the wrong direction, but this was corrected to show
the correct slant.

Science corrected itself. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you trying to imply that there was something intentionally malicious about the first palaeontologists mis-construction ratehr than a honets mistake?

Also, please provide a cite for that article.

You know, who decides these things? What if they
are pulling my leg?

Ah, right, it's a big conspiracy of scientists deliberately faking evidence and putting skeletons together wrong just to fool the uneducated masses.

The fact that a second paleontologist published an article with such a correction should show you the silliness of that consiracy idea.

Why do you think peer-reviewed journals are so important in science? it's not for scientists egos, thats for sure, becuase every time a journal article is pub;ished otehr experts in teh field go over it witha fine toothed comb, doing everything they can to find some flaw in the methodology or an erroneous conclusion not supported by the data.

There is no way a conspiracy of misinformation by scientists to the public could ever survive because one of the ways a scientists "makes points" in the community is by showing where another scientist has made a mistake. Especially if the one they prove wrong s a big name in the field.

Now the fossil sequence for primates through humans is a bit spotty at
times and not as fleshed out as the amazingly full Horse family, we
still have may important transitionals - Notharctus as a mxture of lemur
and simian characteristics, Aegyptopithecus a mixture of new-world and
oldwork monkey features, Proconsul a mixture of old world monkey and ape
and Australopithecs a mixture ape and human features.

Good evidence perhaps, but certainly not proof.

Science deals in evidence not proof. And there is a point where teh evidence becoes so abundant it becomes perverse to ignore it.


That we have other series like fish to amphibians, amphibians to
reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, early ungulate to
whales and the famous horse series shows us that were are very unlikely
to be wrong about the Plesiadapus->Homo series, even if it is not as
amazingly complete as for horses.

Of course, there is 150 years of accumulated evdence for the theory of
evolution.

You mean that people have been looking to prove it for 150 years. It's
still unproven.

Science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence. If you think that science deals in proof, then you do not actually understand how science works.

I seriously believe that scientists today could go grave robbing and
construct a human family tree from their findings in modern skulls.
Probably back to pre-apes.

You belief doe snot make that true. Show me a modern adult human who'se skull looks like an adult autralopithecines's skull.

*snipped one of my Bible verses from here*

Or, if you don't believe:
One day this universe will die on its own. It will become a cold dark
place.... full of death. This will be the end of all things in which
you trusted.
Either way, Your whole life is "vanity", full of emptiness and lack of
purpose.
Ecclesiastes 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of
vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the
sun?
Ecclesiastes 5:15 As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall
he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour,
which he may carry away in his hand.
16 And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so
shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind?
Unfortunately the Bible is not proof of the Bible. If it is, then
logically one must also accept that the Rigveda is proof that the
Rigveda is true or that every scripture of every other religioin is as
equally true as the Bible simply because they themselves say they are true.

Actually it doesn't matter if the Bible is true or not. The above
verses are very true. There is no purpose in life. No one will ever
remember that you ever existed 1 million years from now. Everything
is dying, and therefore that is the end of all things. All of your
"good" deeds are meaningless. We have made huge advances in science,
just to be one day lost forever, remembered no more.

So who cares if the Bible is true or not, life is still pointless in
the end and that's all that counts.

You must have a very sad existence if you think that life is pointless and you are not able to give yourself meaning for your life.

There is no purpose in life.
Oh? Then you must lead one very unhappy life.

The purpose of your life is what you make of it. Who do you think has
given themselves the better purpose in life - an atheist doctor who
works for Médeceins Sans Frontiers because "it's the just the right
thing to do?" Or the Christian doctor who helps teh less fortunate
because he's afraid of going to Hell?

So to recap: Christian doctors only help people because they are
afraid of Hell, whereas Atheist doctors have much better motives and
are trying to do the right thing.

Where did I say that? Did I say all christian doctors only help because of fear of hell? Or did I only mention a single doctor?

Why do you like putting owrds in other people's mouths?

You might have evidence to support your conclusion, but you certainly
didn't prove it to me.

Science isn't about proof, it is about evidence.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the beginning?
    ... you need to supply that evidence. ... I can't prove that God exists. ... Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the ... Plesiadapis (58 Mya), which can best be described as squirrel like with some primate features, illustrates the start of the move from the forest floor up into the trees in the early post-Chicxulub era. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the beginning?
    ... I DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF GOD. ... The fact that we all were given life by the same Life Giver, ... Transitional forms like Morganucodon (205 Mya) illustrate how mammals ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lets get it on evolution vs creation
    ... What does it actually matter to the current life of anyone whether ... God created you or you evolved from a primordial organism? ... however that's not what the evidence indicates. ... quite irrelevant to the science of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... maybe God did the same thing with this universe. ... the fact that there is life on some planets. ... We can conclude nothing of the sort as there is no evidence to base ...
    (talk.origins)