Evolution vs Religion

[Ragnarock]

Could you start huge populations from just two members of a species?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<blockquote>Quote

<hr> If your answer to questions that show the absurdity of the flood myth are "god happens", where is there any value in intellectual discussion? <hr></blockquote>

 

You are *absolutely* right.

 

My intention was to show that according to the Bible, the Ark would have been HUGE. Also, attB, the pairings represented each 'kind' of animal, not neccessarily every breed. I should have stopped there, as the rest was my opinion, and not based on fact, but personal feelings. Thanks for the reminder!

 

1) NONE of your post is based on FACTS. It is based on the bible. There are no historical FACTS that support it.

 

2) even if for discussion we allow the biblical size claims, there are so many scientific realities that are violated by the myth, that by admitting that all the rest are NOT facts, or SCIENCE, you preclude the flood from being FACTUAL. The ONLY way any of it can be explained is "god happens".

 

If you are not aware of the MASSIVE complications of the flood myth, we can explore them. A few:

 

1) WOOD is not structually strong enough by itself to hold together in a ship that large, much less that large and loaded as heavily as required. Even with today's technology and additional materials, the longest wood ship is only 300'. And these are held together with metal straps and leak like crazy. The bible claims the ark was 450'!

 

2) even with a limited assortment of species, with only 7 days to load them, ignoring the impossiblity of getting animals from all over the world there in 7 days, just getting them on the ship would require about 30 secs per pair continually for 7 days. THIRTY SECONDS EACH!

 

3) Diets, Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves.

 

4) How are the existing polar ice caps possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10,000 year) climatic conditions.

 

5) heat generation, There are roughly 5 x 10^23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10^26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil off all the waters on earth! And this is just ONE of many heat sources.

 

6) How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.

 

These are just a small sampling.

 

How do you explain even ONE without "god happens"?

[rileyj]

"Could you start huge populations from just two members of a species? "

 

yes

[lindagarrette]

According to the text, God repented of his creation. That's why he essentially wiped it out to start over. As he is supposedly omniscient, onmipotent, and omnibenevolent (well maybe not), he is also omnisilly to have taken such drastic steps when all it would have needed was a wave of his almight hand.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

According to the text, God repented of his creation. That's why he essentially wiped it out to start over. As he is supposedly omniscient, onmipotent, and omnibenevolent (well maybe not), he is also omnisilly to have taken such drastic steps when all it would have needed was a wave of his almight hand.

 

Your bringing logic and reason into a discussion with Christians. You realize how useless that is don't you?

[IrishEyes]

Your bringing logic and reason into a discussion with Christians. You realize how useless that is don't you?

 

You really are my very favorite person on this site, Freetinker. Well, ok, second to sanctus, but still.... that's just because i'm SURE i'd love his accent!! lololol

[Sergey Victorovich]

Ok, to START this discussion, I will state this:

Evolution is obsolete. There is so much proof in nature that God exists, and evolution doesn't. Try this: If people evolved from monkeys, then why arent they doing so today? Evolutionists say that the world is billions of years old, and that evolution took millions of years to happen. Now, take monkeys; today monkeys live and then die. Other monkeys are born, no different from the others. They live and die. More are born, no difference. They are not evolving at all. Then you think, "then who or what created the earth?" Isn't it obvious? How can mere particles create the shape, and complexity of human biengs? How can mere particles create the perfect circle of nature and the balance of the world? How can mere particles create thought? How can they create life? Then who created the particles? How did they come into existance?

[Tim_Lou]

Sergey Victorovich brought this "god" topic up again...

plz take a look at all the posts in the topic "god" in Philosophy and Humanities....

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Sergey VictorovichTry this: If people evolved from monkeys, then why arent they doing so today?

 

However we CAN correct the ignorace of Evolution promoted here.

 

Evolution does NOT say that Humans evolved from monkeys. Only people ignorant of what Evolution IS and SAYS uses this Straw Man fallacy.

 

Evolution SHOWS US that homo sapien sapien and modern monkeys share a COMMON ANCESTRY. No Evolutionary Biologist ANYWHERE claims that modern man evolved from modern monkeys. Only people that are trying to disprove evolution or those ignorant of the facts pretend that modern man evolved from modern monkeys

 

Evolutionists say that the world is billions of years old,

 

What is an "Evolutionist"? Do you mean Evolutionary Biologists? Scientists that are directly involved with the study of Evolution. Or do you mean people that are NOT Creationists? Are you using it as a credible defining term or a personal attack?

 

Now, take monkeys; today monkeys live and then die. Other monkeys are born, no different from the others.

 

So every monkey born, living or recently alive look(ed,s) EXACTLY like every other monkey born, living or recently alive? I'd love to see you prove that one!

 

Then you think, "then who or what created the earth?" Isn't it obvious?

 

Actually, the question has no validity what so ever. It is the fallacy of "PETITIO PRINCIPII", BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING) a FALLACY that assumes as part of its premises the very conclusion that is supposed to be true.

 

How can mere particles create the shape, and complexity of human biengs?

 

Your inability to comprehend the process does not serve as disproof of it.

 

How can mere particles create the perfect circle of nature and the balance of the world?

 

QM handles this perfectly. Quantum Pairs. At any one time, the total energy of the universe is ZERO. Thus ALWAYS perfectly balanced.

[Freethinker]

Whoa, somehow I did not post my first reply of this series, so the one above may not seem to make sense RE reference to an earlier post from me. Here is the post that was supposed to be first:

Originally posted by: Sergey Victorovich

Ok, to START this discussion, I will state this:

 

1) this discussion was already started

 

2) you are merely entering into this EXISTING discussion

 

3) how typically selfrighteous of a Christian you are. Assuming that no discussion exists unless your personal god myth is interjected!

 

There is so much proof in nature that God exists,

 

Should I waste all of our time trying once more to get a Christian to provide actual FACTUAL VERIFYABLE proof for their particular god myth? Or should we learn from history, here as well as everywhere, that when pressed for this overwhelming proof they claim to have, that they eventually either get to the point of admitting they don't have any, or stop replying all together.

 

But you never know. Perhaps Sergey Victorovich can do what no one else has EVER done throughout the entire history of mankind, PROVE a god exists. So here's your chance Sergey Victorovich. You can post ANY of your claimed "so much proof in nature that God exists". With that much I am sure it will be very easy to produce at least ONE verifyable factual proof. One that can not as easily be shown to have a totally NATURAL explanation, thus allowing the Scientific tool of Ockham's Razor to reject a supernatural explanation of it.

 

Until you are able to PROVE that your god myth is NOT a myth, that there is FACTUAL support for it, then there is no reason to allow the god myth to enter into an intellectually honest discussion.

 

Lest you want to claim you missed the direct question (A ploy I often see), here it is:

 

Sergey Victorovich, you claim there is "so much proof in nature that God exists". Please provide ANY FACTUAL VERIFYABLE proof.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: FreethinkerLest you want to claim you missed the direct question (A ploy I often see), here it is:

 

<b>Sergey Victorovich, you claim there is <i>"so much proof in nature that God exists"</i>. Please provide ANY FACTUAL VERIFYABLE proof. </b>

 

Once more we see the repetitive process from believers. They drop in here full of piss and vinegar. Ready to proclaim to the world (and all of us stupid nonbeleivers) that god in all his glory DOES exist and they have all the proof anyone would need in order to prove it!

 

Then some fool, like me, asks to actually SEE this overwhelming proof. SOme actually try once or twice. Until they are shown that what they THINK is proof, is just their personal wishful thinking.

 

Then they either hang around trying to find an occasional in for their personal wishful thinking, or like Sergey, they disappear. Leaving a gap for the next one to utter meaningless platitudes.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<blockquote>Quote

<hr> If your answer to questions that show the absurdity of the flood myth are "god happens", where is there any value in intellectual discussion? <hr></blockquote>

 

You are *absolutely* right.

 

My intention was to show that according to the Bible, the Ark would have been HUGE. Also, attB, the pairings represented each 'kind' of animal, not neccessarily every breed. I should have stopped there, as the rest was my opinion, and not based on fact, but personal feelings. Thanks for the reminder!

 

OK, so based on "biblical Fact" (oxymoron?) as there are an estimated 10 MILLION species on earth today, How many was he able to get on the ark and how did he acheive the additional diversity needed in 4,000 years along with the specific distribution we have. e.g. marsupials almost exclusively in Australia. With no archaeological evidence of any migration across any other area.

 

How does the flood myth fit into our KNOWN distribution and variety of species?

[gravmania]

hello everyone, I just had to register and reply..

 

What I fail to understand is that religionists limit their god so terribly.

 

Wouldn't it be much more believable/rational if God defined an elegant mathematical equation to which the universe behaves? If he just created the right circumstances for stars, planets and eventually life to be born in?

A true all-powerfull god wouldn't need to micromanage his creation.

 

 

Gravmania

[Freethinker]

<blockquote>Quote

<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>gravmania</b></i>

hello everyone, I just had to register and reply..<hr></blockquote>

 

Welcome to the discussion. Hope you stick around.

 

<blockquote>Quote

<hr>What I fail to understand is that religionists limit their god so terribly.

...

A true all-powerfull god wouldn't need to micromanage his creation.<hr></blockquote>

 

That is pretty much what the Deist movement of the most influential of the Founding Fathers of the US held. Science had not progressed enough to provide a fully intellectual rejection of god myth all together. There were still many issues which did not have solid theories to explain them, e.g. Relativity, Evolution, BB, DNA...

 

So the more intellectual were typically Deists. It gave them a philosophy which allowed for a first cause without further involvement. A convenient answer to things they did not yet have a handle on without requiring acceptance of obviously illogical assertion of a personal directly involved god and all the philosophical and scientific convolution that required.

 

Fortunately we are not stuck in time. Our knowledge advances virtually daily. Each advance fills another gap. Each gap used to be filled by god myths and those myths get destroyed with each new FACT we uncover. WHile some choose to personally stay stuck in time, often based on some 2,000 year old myth.

 

While there are no gaps big enought to stuff a god into anymore, many people still cling to any of the various god myths for personal reasons. So now the efforts of believers are to chip gaps back into FACTUAL SCIENCE so they can justify their superstitious myths again. They want to return to the days when ignorance was the norm and they could comfortably accept superstition over FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.

yep

[Freethinker]

yep

[gravmania]

<blockquote>Quote

/snip..While there are no gaps big enought to stuff a god into anymore../snip

<hr></blockquote>

 

There is still a sizeble gap at the beginning of time...

 

The whole creation vs evolution debate can (in my view) be cut short. Even creationists have to acknowledge that natural selection is taking place at this very moment all over the world. This in turn leads to evolution because the strongest survive. So creationists would have to agree that on day 8 evolution took over..

 

Gravmania

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: gravmania

<blockquote>Quote

/snip..While there are no gaps big enought to stuff a god into anymore../snip

<hr></blockquote>

 

There is still a sizeble gap at the beginning of time...

I see no gap at the beginning of time. Perhaps a variety of potential processes are being evaluated to determine the best fit, but a gap suggests a holein which a non-science assertion would be valid.

 

The whole creation vs evolution debate can (in my view) be cut short. Even creationists have to acknowledge that natural selection is taking place at this very moment all over the world. This in turn leads to evolution because the strongest survive. So creationists would have to agree that on day 8 evolution took over..

 

This helps show how dis-ingenuous the creationist camp is. They want to clump together to claim numbers of support. But they can't even get close to agreeing upon the point at which evolution DOES function. Some actually try to pretend it does not happen at all. Some try to tell those how bad of a front that outright rejection makes them look.

 

Plus it lead to the usual emtional knee jerk approach of inventing termonology and forcing it into the mainstream. Suddenly there is micro and macro. As if there is also micro-gravity and macro-gravity.