tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post6675906649646788147..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: There must be 50 ways to be a creationist?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-56650392731401335982009-04-08T13:01:00.000+12:002009-04-08T13:01:00.000+12:00Isn't this a cop out? It's a non-explanation to sa...<EM>Isn't this a cop out? It's a non-explanation to say something exists "outside of time".</EM><BR/><BR/>No, this is the direction science is heading too, with speculation of other "universes" and variations on string theory and 11 dimensions to attempt to explain things we do not yet understand.<BR/><BR/>An interesting example (sort of) of this was from a guy who wondered if this universe and its contents was simply a computer simulation running an AI program of an entire universe, from boot time (the big bang) to now. <BR/><BR/>All it's inhabitants think there can be nothing outside of the program they are running in, but they are wrong. And in that sense a programmer can load new modules and pan through the simulation in seconds or millions of years as they require.<BR/><BR/>Just because we don't think it worth discussing "well who invented the programmer then" doesn't mean you aren't just a subroutine with a few bugs....ZenTigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888629207437612884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-47000332295343868382009-03-12T23:37:00.000+13:002009-03-12T23:37:00.000+13:00"The Christian position is that time and space had..."The Christian position is that time and space had a defined beginning, while God exists outside of time and therefore by definition has no "beginning" or "end", because such concepts only apply to the material world we live in today".<BR/><BR/>Isn't this a cop out? It's a non-explanation to say something exists "outside of time". What evidence do you have for this? How did you arrive at this conclusion, and what does it actually mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28424598458181270502009-03-12T22:49:00.000+13:002009-03-12T22:49:00.000+13:00"The atheist must have faith that life can arise f..."The atheist must have faith that life can arise from non-life naturally somehow"<BR/><BR/>Nope. It's just the most likely explanation. I don't claim absolute knowledge, I am an athiest.<BR/><BR/>You have this warped idea that to be an athiest is to claim an absolute lack of doubt in what we consider to be scientific fact. A view which obviously points to the fact that you haven't bothered to listen to any of the more thoughtful athiests around. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins said that if you were to rate his certainty that god does not exist between 1 and 7, he would be a 6, and then went on to change that to a 6.9 out of 7, a rating which he then applied to Santa Claus, fairys, and the holy teapot that circles the sun. To be a scientist, and to be an athiest, is to be a sceptic, it does not require faith.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that I am entirely lacking in faith. It would be impossible to live as a complete nihilist. All of us believe things from time to time. It may just be believing a friend or family member, without checking the details of their account. When it concerns the nature of the universe however, I view it as an evil thing.<BR/><BR/>"despite this being contrary to what modern science can teach - and you cannot prove this faith is reasonable to me either, frankly I think it's ridiculous, but that's my opinion."<BR/><BR/>An opinion based in ignorance.<BR/><BR/>I do see some athiests take the extreme point of view that god does not exist, that there is no possibility of him/her/it existing; but considering the complete lack if evidence for a god, the lack of requirement for god in our existence, and the extreme unlikelyhood that the gods talked about by the major religions are real, it's not really a statement I would bother refuting personally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-45956074693631308892009-03-12T22:07:00.000+13:002009-03-12T22:07:00.000+13:00Mr. Dennis, what is the difference between:#1) the...Mr. Dennis, what is the difference between:<BR/><BR/>#1) the claim that Maui, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Ika-a-M%C4%81ui" REL="nofollow">fish out the whole of NZ north island</A>.<BR/><BR/>#2) claim by christians that Jesus, was the son of God based on biblical stories, where he could perform miracles such as turning water into blood for examples.<BR/><BR/>#3) the claim by scientists that humans evolve from Monkey, where eventually all living things started out from a primitive organic soup?<BR/><BR/>Can you explain the differences here. Give us a clear differentiations between the 3 historical examples ?<BR/><BR/>If you can't then I think that you're evading, because to dismiss one or 2 of them must lead to the dismissal of all. The fact is , you can't dismiss all. There is one example there that you can't dismiss, while 2 can be dismissed easily, based on facts.<BR/><BR/>I am keen to see your respond here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1842447265808495742009-03-12T21:11:00.000+13:002009-03-12T21:11:00.000+13:00This is a good long conversation, should keep your...This is a good long conversation, should keep your blog up in the Tumeke rankings PC!<BR/><BR/>At this point I must reiterate what I said right back at the start:<BR/>"I am not attempting to prove God's existence to you in this one discussion, as I have already said that is a matter of faith. I am trying to show you that your own position is also a matter of faith."<BR/><BR/>twr: "Well, the one obvious example is all the life we see around us. It proves that life can come from non life. If you'd like an example that assumes God exists, then God presumably came from nothing as well, and then he created everything."<BR/>My original statement should have read "life cannot come from non-life through natural processes", so yes, my original statement was incorrect.<BR/><BR/>The Christian position is that time and space had a defined beginning, while God exists outside of time and therefore by definition has no "beginning" or "end", because such concepts only apply to the material world we live in today. Of course you'll reject that as a load of nonsense, because you believe that the material world is all there is. We are coming from starkly different presuppositions and cannot really meet on common ground.<BR/><BR/>The Christian must have faith that God exists - which I cannot prove in any way that you would accept. The atheist must have faith that life can arise from non-life naturally somehow, despite this being contrary to what modern science can teach - and you cannot prove this faith is reasonable to me either, frankly I think it's ridiculous, but that's my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Both points of view involve faith, which is why neither side in this debate is getting anywhere near changing the view of the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-12811461307228795492009-03-12T16:36:00.000+13:002009-03-12T16:36:00.000+13:0050th comment.Dennis said...believe me if I refer y...50th comment.<BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I>believe me if I refer you to a website of testimonies of healing.</I><BR/><BR/>This is your fundamental error here. Faith healing has got nothing to do with the laws of Physics. I could give some cancer sufferers out there, some grass juice to drink and there will be a non-zero chance that they could heal. A faith healer could do the same and pray for the patient, and again there is a chance that he/she could heal. <BR/><BR/>The question is, if those patients are healed with my grass juice or the preacher's praying, then can you tell me what exactly the physical laws that were contradicted? None at all.<BR/><BR/>The proof of miracles that contradicted the physical laws should be something demonstrable, as those described in the bible. Can you get a preacher to walk on the surface of water? Can you get a church minister to change water into blood? These examples are physics and these examples are what needed for the theists to demonstrate in front of everyone else in order to claim that it is the power of God and God exists? Can you do that? I bet not. Why? Because you will fall back to faith healing as some sort of proof which has got nothing to do with physical laws.<BR/><BR/>Show us something definitive as I have mentioned above. Show us that the existence of God can be demonstrated by some priests out there who can levitate, or he can change a material object such as a TV into a car, etc,... Why can't you do those things which those examples are littered in the bible.<BR/><BR/>I know the reason. It is because the law of Physics is clear cut, you either have the capability (omnipotent power) to change a TV into a car or not. It is either or, there is no middle ground. Religious people always fall back to the fuzzy example, such as faith healing in order to claim the validity of the existence of an omnipotent power. Such examples are no different from claims made by psychics.<BR/><BR/>Show us something why God exists and where is the proof?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4346217979438924452009-03-12T16:25:00.000+13:002009-03-12T16:25:00.000+13:00"Christians have faith that God exists. Certainly ..."Christians have faith that God exists. Certainly - because that is reasonable."<BR/><BR/>No, it isn't<BR/><BR/>"It is easy to believe in evolution when you know little about cellular functions (Darwin knew little). It becomes harder the more you learn about the complexity of life."<BR/><BR/>So all the biologists who know a lot about cell functions also believe in a creator? unlikely.<BR/><BR/>Your arguments are becoming even weaker the more you post.<BR/><BR/>Basically, Mr Dennis, your arguement comes down to, "This subject is too complicated for me to think about rationally, I don't know how life has come to exist, therefore god did it".<BR/><BR/>My argument comes down to the fact that evolution is the most likely explanation available (Once again, using thermodynamics to disprove the possibility of biogenesis is a very old, very stupid idea). It isn't absolute proof, but there are no absolutes in science, hence why there is no faith involved in accepting it. I accept it's not absolute in it's findings, but that does not make it inferior to faith, because it's honest, and far more useful than reading chicken entrails, or the stars, or the book of genesis. A lack of absolute proof on either side does not make these views equal.<BR/><BR/>I think you've probably been the victim of creationist propaganda, you've probably either read books by the late A.E Wilder Smith and his cohorts, or watched "documentaries" about "irriducibly complexity" and other such bullshit. But then, isn't that what religeon is? Propaganda? I think it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-91834230683460063732009-03-12T15:53:00.000+13:002009-03-12T15:53:00.000+13:00Be my guest, sir. :-)(That was 49.)Be my guest, sir. :-)<BR/><BR/>(That was 49.)Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84161595287165856602009-03-12T15:30:00.000+13:002009-03-12T15:30:00.000+13:00...There must be 50 comments to make on being a cr......There must be 50 comments to make on being a creationist...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-71418075115542939732009-03-12T15:29:00.000+13:002009-03-12T15:29:00.000+13:00"As science shows life only comes from life (a fac..."As science shows life only comes from life (a fact until you can find ONE example refuting it), the very existence of life is solid evidence for a Creator. What more solid evidence do you want?"<BR/><BR/>Well, the one obvious example is all the life we see around us. It proves that life can come from non life. If you'd like an example that assumes God exists, then God presumably came from nothing as well, and then he created everything. <BR/><BR/>The existence of life is no more evidence of your God than it is evidence of someone else's god or a cookie monster. <B>Just because science can't <I>prove</I> the start of life from non life by demonstrating it happening in a lab, doesn't mean a random alternative hypothesis <I>is</I> proved.</B><BR/><BR/>And when I say there needs to be proper proof of God for him to be taken seriously, I mean we need to know where he lives, or see him walking around, or see words in the sky or something, not a bunch of intangible crap that can be explained other ways and that any God worth his salt should be ashamed of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18106527230316419242009-03-12T14:55:00.000+13:002009-03-12T14:55:00.000+13:00"You should have seen a documentary on Sky" Yes, I..."You should have seen a documentary on Sky" Yes, I believe everything I watch on TV too.<BR/><BR/>""As an example, miracles could be used to prove God's existence."<BR/>Do you have an example?"<BR/>Just as I don't believe you just because you saw something on TV, you won't believe me if I refer you to a website of testimonies of healing. We're at a bit of a stalemate!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57068983314613098862009-03-12T14:01:00.000+13:002009-03-12T14:01:00.000+13:00Denis said...science only studies the natural, not...Denis said...<BR/><I>science only studies the natural, not the supernatural.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. Science studies the natural which exists. You may want to read up on meta-physics in the following link and try to understand the concept of existence, before you delve into the non-existence of supernatural:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Main.html" REL="nofollow">Importance of Philosophy</A><BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I>As an example, miracles could be used to prove God's existence.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have an example?<BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I><BR/> A miracle is by definition something that occurs that is contrary to the laws of nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but these contradictions of the laws of Physics has never been observed, let alone repeatable. Perhaps you're talking about the miracles in the Bible, where Jesus was claimed to walk on the surface of the water without sinking in defiance of the law of gravity. That biblical historical was completely bullshit, there was no evidence that Jesus did that or the laws of gravity was suspended while Jesus performed his miracle.<BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I>I believe that there is a historical record (the Bible) that explains life far better than the modern theories of man.</I><BR/><BR/>You should have seen a documentary on Sky (Documentary Channel) with title "The real Jesus". There were many scholars in theology, ancient history, etc, who appeared in the show, and it was obvious that Jesus, wasn't what the bible made him out to be as the son of God. Jesus's wife was Mary Magdalene and Joseph was indeed his real father and not God, so Mary the mother wasn't virgin after all. Jesus was born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem. Bethlehem was written by some of his followers as a birth place of Jesus after his death was just to made it fit in with the prophecy in the old testament, which predicted that the King of the Jews would be born in Bethlehem.<BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I>The more I study science, the more science fits in with the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>For example? You mean that Jesus walked on the surface of the water, or when he fed thousands over the mountain after his service with 5 loaf of bread and 2 fish, and a few baskets of food leftover? Man this likes a violation of the conservation laws of Physics and science. Mass (food) just seemed to appeared from nowhere to feed 5 thousand people. The 5 loaf of bread and 2 fish just seemed to multiply or grow out of thin air. You should check your premise then Mr. Dennis.<BR/><BR/>Dennis said...<BR/><I><BR/>Therefore I do not make up some arbritary belief, but rather accept the historical account.</I><BR/><BR/>No, that is exactly what you have described in all your posts here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30594413390340588212009-03-12T14:00:00.000+13:002009-03-12T14:00:00.000+13:00"Rather than using miracles to prove God exists, i..."Rather than using miracles to prove God exists, if he's so fundamental to the existence of the universe, you'd think that there would be some pretty obvious, completely irrefutable proof, especially if he expects us to spend so much of our life kowtowing to him."<BR/><BR/>As science shows life only comes from life (a fact until you can find ONE example refuting it), the very existence of life is solid evidence for a Creator. What more solid evidence do you want?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+1&src=esv.org" REL="nofollow">Romans 1:19-20:</A> "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11024947136357620892009-03-12T13:53:00.000+13:002009-03-12T13:53:00.000+13:00twr: I am sorry to hear that Christians have prese...twr: <BR/>I am sorry to hear that Christians have presented such foolish arguments to you on the Creation / Evolution issue. I understand now why you have little respect for my point of view - no wonder when you have been told such nonsense in the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-10789615119737202942009-03-12T11:26:00.000+13:002009-03-12T11:26:00.000+13:00"The more I study science, the more science fits i..."The more I study science, the more science fits in with the Bible." ...unless it doesn't fit, in which case you have "A miracle is by definition something that occurs that is contrary to the laws of nature. ". So you've pretty much covered your bases there, using logic when it suits you, and miracles to account for the huge swathes of the bible that are completely contrary to accepted scientific fact.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe it is unreasonable to accept historical writings and I should ignore the historical accounts of the holocaust and other controversial events too." There is plenty of supporting physical evidence for the holocaust, whereas there is none for the events described in the bible that can't be explained better another way. Furthermore, the bible contradicts *itself* in numerous passages. It is fanciful to compare the documenting 18-30 centuries ago of urban legends describing events that had happened anywhere between decades and hundreds of years before, with live eyewitness accounts, photographs, and physical evidence such as graves presented in support of the holocaust. <BR/><BR/>Rather than using miracles to prove God exists, if he's so fundamental to the existence of the universe, you'd think that there would be some pretty obvious, completely irrefutable proof, especially if he expects us to spend so much of our life kowtowing to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-51630140576929386372009-03-12T11:15:00.000+13:002009-03-12T11:15:00.000+13:00And yet they have all been used in debates with me...And yet they have all been used in debates with me by Christians in support of arguments about why the physical evidence doesn't match what the bible says. That and "I don't believe in carbon dating", etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17162185881538507592009-03-12T10:25:00.000+13:002009-03-12T10:25:00.000+13:00LGM:Christians have faith that God exists. Certain...LGM:<BR/>Christians have faith that God exists. Certainly - because that is reasonable. As Francis Bacon (the founder of the modern scientific method) stated:<BR/>"A little philosophy inclineth man's heart to atheism, but depth in philosophy inclineth man's heart to religion". <BR/><BR/>The deeper I study science, the more I see that it could not happen by chance, even when on the surface it appears like it may. It is easy to believe in evolution when you know little about cellular functions (Darwin knew little). It becomes harder the more you learn about the complexity of life.<BR/><BR/>Science is the study of nature, the physical. The Christian postulates that the supernatural exists. You wish for proof of God. It is possible to provide rational arguments that will prove his existence for many. But you would only accept scientific proof. By definition, science only studies the natural, not the supernatural. It is impossible to study God through science, so we are at a stalemate there unless you wish to study philosophy and theology.<BR/><BR/>As an example, miracles could be used to prove God's existence. A miracle is by definition something that occurs that is contrary to the laws of nature. Science only studies the laws of nature. A miracle cannot therefore be tested scientifically - you cannot run a trial on miracles - so cannot be proved by science. I could give you a list of people who claim to have been miraculously healed, and even have doctors accounts to back them up, but you would want a medical trial - which is impossible on once-off events. So you will never get the "proof" that you want handed to you.<BR/><BR/>"Science says clearly that life comes from life."<BR/>What's wrong with that? All our current scientific knowledge shows that life only comes from life. It would only take ONE observed instance of spontaneous generation to disprove that. Find me ONE example and I'll accept that I was wrong. Until that, I'll keep believing the science.<BR/><BR/>"Final point, it is not reasonable to make up arbitrary beliefs in order to explain that which you do not possess knowledge about. You are being unreasonable by doing it."<BR/>I am not doing that. I believe that there is a historical record (the Bible) that explains life far better than the modern theories of man. The more I study science, the more science fits in with the Bible. Therefore I do not make up some arbritary belief, but rather accept the historical account. <BR/><BR/>The atheist rejects this historical account as untrue and makes up their own arbitrary belief (spontaneous generation and associated ideas) in order to explain life without God. As I stated earlier, I trust historical writings more than the speculations of people today. Maybe it is unreasonable to accept historical writings and I should ignore the historical accounts of the holocaust and other controversial events too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-52989403553910967262009-03-12T10:07:00.000+13:002009-03-12T10:07:00.000+13:00twr:Your illustration of Christianity is one long ...twr:<BR/>Your illustration of Christianity is one long line of straw men. Christians do not believe that God put fossils in the ground to deceive people, nor that he designed animals to look like they had evolved, nor that he started chemical decay early or any other nonsense. These beliefs would all be absurd and well worth criticising.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-34499290553733999262009-03-11T17:16:00.000+13:002009-03-11T17:16:00.000+13:00Atheism is the absence of faith in theism. A pers...Atheism is the absence of faith in theism. A person does not have faith in not having faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70616274513167115632009-03-11T12:12:00.000+13:002009-03-11T12:12:00.000+13:00Mr DennisYou're presenting purile bullshit in an a...Mr Dennis<BR/><BR/>You're presenting purile bullshit in an attempt to avoid dealing with the substantive. <BR/><BR/>The substantive is your assumption that God exists. You need to provide proof for that. In the absence of that proof your entire position is philosophically bankrupt. It's not even false. It's less than that; it's arbitrary and hence not worthy of consideration. Now you can duck and dive and rationalise all you like but that is and remains the position.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>The notion that an atheist requires "faith" to not believe in the existence of a God is silliness. What you are attempting to do is invert the burden of proof, requiring a proof of the negative. That's invalid and irrational. Athieism is nothing more than a person taking the position that theism does not correspond with reality as there is not proof. That does not require faith. It's a simple observation.<BR/><BR/>I read an analogy a while back and it goes something like this. A man claims that fairies and pixies exist at the bottom of the garden. He proclaims their existence to anyone who'll listen. He's seen them and they talk to him, or so he claims. They have supernatural powers and perform miracles, so he says. Most people he approaches refuse to accept his claims. Some quietly go along with the idea while in his presence, as they hope to keep on his good side. Some ignore him. Some say nothing out of a sense of misguided politeness. Then there are those who challenge him for proof. "Show us your fairies", they challenge. He responds by claiming they require greater faith then he since they can't prove that his fairies do not exist. Note that he has done nothing to show that what he claims is true. In the absence of any evidenial proof his position remains an arbitrary nonsense. <BR/><BR/>He can't provide proof of existence, so he evades it by attempting to denegrate those who do not share his belief, reducing them to his own level. That strategy does nothing to support his position. It merely demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty- evasion of the substantive. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/><BR/>Regarding science.<BR/><BR/>Science is the study of aspects of reality. Entities are identified, as are their attributes. They are studied to learn what they are, how they behave and what they do. Laws and theories developed by scientists are simply a means of recording and summing up what has been learned about reality by studying aspects of reality. There is no place in this for blind faith or arbitrary assaertions. <BR/><BR/>Your comment, "The atheist must have faith that science is wrong and there is some way for chemistry and thermodynamics to work backwards in nature" is false. For a start it demonstrates that you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In essence this says that for a closed system the total entropy increases over a suitably selected period of time. First point for you to understand is that there are some premise that must be made BEFORE attempting to apply the Second Law to a thermodynamic system. You must understand what a closed thermodynamic system actually is and what it is not. The system under consideration must be closed. The Earth certainly isn't that. Secondly, while some people take the term "disorder" as equivalent with entropy, it isn't the same thing all. Beware of making that error. There's more, but that'll suffice to let it be known that you sure do not understand thermodynamics, let alone chemistry. They do not "work backwards" just because entities in reality do not behave according to your arbitrary assertions. Nor do they "go backwards" because you fail to understand their basis or assumptions, derivations, application and meaning. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>This one is really a dozer:- "Science says clearly that life comes from life." <BR/><BR/>Arbitrary assertion again; that's a bad habit you need to kick sometime soon. Where is your evidence for this latest assertion?<BR/><BR/>What you are really saying is that you, personally, do not know how life is generated. That's fine, but do not be attempting to hijack the entire field of scientific endeavour to bolster your silly position. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Final point, it is not reasonable to make up arbitrary beliefs in order to explain that which you do not possess knowledge about. You are being unreasonable by doing it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2307742416148140802009-03-11T11:56:00.000+13:002009-03-11T11:56:00.000+13:00How much less illogical is "the lightning hit the ...How much less illogical is "the lightning hit the soup and it came to life!" than "A guy shaped like a man decided to create everything as it is one day, and then to put people off the track, embedded fossils in the ground, designed bits of animals to look just like they have evolved from something else, started light half way through its trip from distant stars, started chemical decay half way through it's life cycle, etc).<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's ludicrous, it's outdated based on everything we know about all branches of science these days, and it's just plain wrong, no matter how hard you argue the minutae of the details of the alternative theories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28177126638311481892009-03-11T09:45:00.000+13:002009-03-11T09:45:00.000+13:00Marcus:No serious creationist believes God created...Marcus:<BR/>No serious creationist believes God created life just as it is now. Creationists accept natural selection, mutation etc as these are processes observed in nature.<BR/><BR/>However the creationist also accepts that there are limits to what can happen through natural processes. Life cannot come from non-life for example. <BR/><BR/>When you breed organisms (natural or artificial selection) you select between pre-existing traits. Therefore you can breed wolves to get miniature poodles, or Great Danes. In so doing you are selecting for the genes for small size or large size. But you cannot breed miniature poodles to get Great Danes, because the genes for large size have been bred out of the population. You would have to crossbreed with a larger dog to get the size to increase much again. Basic high-school Mendelian genetics. The selection process has a limit as to how far it can change an animal.<BR/><BR/>Mutations add some more variability that can be selected from. But in general they damage features, causing the loss of information. You may get a mutation causing a fish to have no eyes, which is a selection advantage in a dark cave as eyes are just prone to injury, but is a loss of information, not "onward and upward" progress. A mutation in bacteria can cause them to overproduce the penicillinase enzyme, giving them penicillin resistance - but making them less likely to survive in most circumstances as they are wasting energy producing so much penicillinase.<BR/><BR/>The creationist therefore believes animals were created in distinct "kinds" - dogs, cats, sheep, parrots etc - and selection and mutation has given us the variation within those kinds.<BR/><BR/>The atheist must follow their faith to the end, however illogical their ideas become (such as "the lightning hit the soup and it came to life!"), while the theist is free to follow the science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74252782543579908652009-03-11T09:29:00.000+13:002009-03-11T09:29:00.000+13:00libertyscott:You are correct that the divisions be...libertyscott:<BR/>You are correct that the divisions between different branches of science are arbritary. In the end all science comes back to physics - ultimately to thermodynamics. That is precisely where I have been arguing from all along.<BR/><BR/>LGM:<BR/>Any belief in origins requires faith. As I have said previously, I am not out to prove God's existence or my viewpoint here. All I want to show is that the atheist needs as much faith, if not more, than the theist. <BR/><BR/>The atheist must have faith that science is wrong and there is some way for chemistry and thermodynamics to work backwards in nature. Science says clearly that life comes from life. The atheist must believe this is wrong.<BR/><BR/>The theist must have faith that God exists. It is up to you to decide which is most reasonable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-39116991369687889922009-03-11T08:27:00.000+13:002009-03-11T08:27:00.000+13:00What I don't understand is why Creationists can't ...What I don't understand is why Creationists can't believe in evolution as well - if they believe God created life, why do they have to believe that he created life <I>exactly as it is now</I>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67850415546169568502009-03-11T08:00:00.000+13:002009-03-11T08:00:00.000+13:00Over thirty contributions and this thread is still...Over thirty contributions and this thread is still going strong!<BR/><BR/>The debate between creationism and evolution at base is one between blind unwavering faith in an arbitrary idea and the logical application of the human attribute of reason to entities existing in reality.<BR/><BR/>At heart, this debate rests on the substantive question of whether a God exists or not. So, that is what needs to be addressed. <BR/><BR/>The situation is that a sub-group of God believers, known as Christians, concentrate much of their efforts on opposing a branch of science known as Theory of Evolution. They do this because portions of this theory directly oppose their cherished faith in a God-Creator of the Universe. Let's assume they were able to show that the Theory of Evolution was incorrect, false, contradicted by evidence of reality (that's a wild assumption and it hasn't been done, but bear with me for a moment). The elimination of that theory is not sufficient to allow for a God-Creator to be accepted as real or for said entity's existence to be accepted as fact. <BR/><BR/>So, the state of play is this. Those with a faith in the existence of God posit that such an entity exists and created everything that now exists. Since it is they who claim the positive (God exists etc.), it is they who MUST produce the clear evidence in order to prove their claim. This requirement falls upon said believers regardless of the state of the Theory of Evolution. <BR/><BR/>In conclusion, unless the believers produce proof for the existence of God their claim remains arbitrary and hence without basis in fact. As an arbitrary it should be dismissed as unworthy of further consideration. <BR/><BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com