Atheism versus Science

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by mynameisDan, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    "A cause sufficient to cause all of the material world is by definition God."

    Then who created god ? What came before god ?

    Are you saying god came from nothing ? if so then god can't exist.

    ja
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Spider,

    "He believes in dinosaur fossils, but pre-human Homo fossils are made of pieces of different animals... uh huh."

    Exactly, there are no more cherries left on the tree. I feel a song and dance coming from Dan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    I am not in favor of either. I am referring to taking the battle of ideas to the atheist scumbags and shoving it down their throats, in a nice way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
  8. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "He believes in dinosaur fossils, but pre-human Homo fossils are made of pieces of different animals... uh huh."

    why do atheists always put words in theists mouths? I don't reject any fossils, except those which exist only as drawings in evolutionists textbooks. The "pre human" home fossil evidence is filled with fraud and unproven assumptions.
     
  9. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    "The "pre human" home fossil evidence is filled with fraud and unproven assumptions."

    Filled with fraud ! Bullshit. Unproven assumptions ! If you have a 3 ft piece of chain, and there are a few pieces of the chain still missing but so few that it is clearly a chain you are claiming that there is an assumption of a chain, not proof. We may not know if the chain is slightly longer or shorter without the missing pieces but we know it's a chain.

    You act as if we don't have the fossils that make up the chain and we are guessing without any fossils that make up the chain. However, we will continue to compile more and more pieces of the chain and the evidence will become stronger.

    You have nothing but guesses with no evidence of anykind.
     
  10. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "So then please tell me again why you believe in Dinosaurs?"

    this will be the last time I answer this infantile question which you believe somehow trips me up.

    1). fossil evidence in the present prove they once existed. Science can tell us nothing about how they evolved, just that they existed.
    2) history is replete with stories of dinosaurs (most often using the term "dragon")
    3) the bible records beasts which can only be understood to be dinosaurs.

    "Fossils were from the past, that is how they come to been known as fossils."

    brilliant!

    " Do you see any fossil skeletons walking around ? Why don't you just say that scientists are putting these things together to try and confuse us believers and trick them and make them question their faith."

    Why would I want to spread lies, this is your game.... Fossils exist, but they don't prove evolution. Evolutionists claim relationships because they assume relationships exist.

    "Again, if you are saying that science can't study the past. Are you trying to say that Dinosaurs are still with us ? That they are alive walking around in our present time now ?"

    When a scientist digs up a bone or bones from dinosaurs, he/she is studying the present, and making inferences about the past. He cannot use bones found in the present to prove an evolutionary relationship in the past.

    "You can't side step that question. You can't pick and choose when you apply science and when you don't apply it."

    I didn't side step the question. Science is what it is. If you don't believe that science is 100% based upon observations in the present then you can take it up with any number of definitions of the word:

    " Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena."

    How do you observe the past while standing in the present? Answer, you can't? You can look at the stomach contents and speculate pretty accurately as to what he ate, but you cannot say anything about his origin or whether he was created or evolved.

    Neither Creationists nor evolutionists can strictly speaking, analyse the past scientifically. All they can do is look at observations in the present and infer things about the past. This is done by erecting models. I have no problem with erecting models of origins and looking at the data to see which model appears to fit better. But neither model can arrive at a level of certainty whereby you could call them a "theory". There is no way to repeat or observe what actually happened.

    Evolutionists assume the stratigraphy we see in sedimentary rocks impies vast ages. Creationists believe sedimentary rock striations represent a relatively recent flood. Neither can be proven. This is what I meant by my statement that we cannot do science in the past.
     
  11. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "Filled with fraud ! Bullshit."

    Earth to foolish atheist believer. There is no chain, there are only pieces which you have arranged to tell your fairytale story.

    Dr. Sunderland interviewed the leading evolutionist curators of the world and here is what he found:

    "None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

    Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

    Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

    ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

    ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

    ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’

    Above is just a brief summary of his interviews. Sunderland pinned these experts down and found they could not offer any watertight case for any transitional forms. If the leading curators of the worlds natural history museusms have no case, why should I care what some anonymous atheist poster on this forum who likely doesn't even posses a Ph'd in any field of science thinks?

    Read Pattersons quote again: "I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

    You are a lazy brainwashed atheist believer.

    You state that I have no evidence whatsover, but it is you who makes the claim for the greatest miracle of the ages, the total transmutation of all living things from a single cell to the entire universe! It is you who needs to provide the case, not me. Your beliefs are positively anti-science and anti-knowledge. Science tells us that life comes from life. Genetics is anti-evolution because its intent is not to create new novel organisms but to preserve the current one. Mutations are mistakes, the vast majority of which are deleterious and never do we see the type which could bring about your miracle. You have no case, you are just ignorant.
     
  12. gurglingmonkey More Amazing in RL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    What support do you have for those premises? Why must the universe have had a beginning? Remember not to make inferences from things that have had beginnings in the present, as I believe you were arguing against that.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Deduction of events from present evidence is science. Observations and morphological evidence can show trends over time, since fossils are found in levels that broadly correspond to periods in time. So far, they all fit the theory of evolution. In fact, the transitional tetrapod between water dwelling and land dwelling has been found.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    You clearly have not been reading along. Science agrees that the universe has had a beginning. It is the prevailing theory these days. In addition, the laws of thermodynamics demand it as we are heading to heat death. There must have been a winding up, therefore a beginning.

    This is a logical deduction from those premises. It is perfectly acceptable to make inferences based upon things which have beginnings in the present. This is our experience. We have no knowledge of things that do not have causes and in fact, if it weren't so how could we do science?
     
  15. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    "1). fossil evidence in the present prove they once existed. Science can tell us nothing about how they evolved, just that they existed.
    2) history is replete with stories of dinosaurs (most often using the term "dragon")
    3) the bible records beasts which can only be understood to be dinosaurs."

    Fossil evidence in the past proves they once existed. Exactly, then what do you say about the pre-human fossils ? Are you saying they are a fraud ? If not then explain how they were not here before us, if they were here with us they would still be here now or we would have historical records of them roaming with mankind. Otherwise they were here before us and your whole biblical argument is bull.

    Dragons indeed. All of the historical evidence of all kinds of various dinosaurs which are obviously by fossil record, carnivore, herbivore and/or omnivore and all you can come up with is dragons. What hogwash. No try again.

    Records beasts, which were animals alive at the time. Wouldn't you call a lion who just killed and ate your friend a beast. Try again all of your arguments for your ridiculous position are pure leaps of faith.

    And yes they do prove evolution is the best answer to date. Not all of the missing pieces of the chain are there yet and will not be for a long time. But it is growing stronger while your position is getting weaker.

    You are stuck in time, you are making yourself more significant than you are, you want all the answers to the universe now. You and I are not that important, get over it.

    You never answered my question as to WHY you believe in dinosaurs. You just keep stating the fossils do exist in our present.

    If you believe in dinosaurs based on the fossil record, then you must also believe in the fossil record of pre-humans and all in between. Get it.

    So which is it, do you believe in dinosaurs or not. If you do, you are contradiciting yourself.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Science is not agreed on wether the Big Bang represents the true beginning, it is just impossible at present to say what was before it.
     
  17. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    He is one who failed to prove it, yes.
    And as I said, it cannot be proven logically, without fallacious assumptions.

    Both premisses are fallacious; illicit assumptions, both unsubstantiated.

    Ergo, conclusion non sequitor.
     
  18. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    Do a little more research and you find this:

    "This is from Strahler's book, page 354, It's a letter from Patterson to Steven Binkley:
    "Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists -- sorry. The story behind the 'Impact' article is that last November I gave a talk to the systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism,' and knowing the meetings of the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among specialists, I put a case for difficulties and problems with evolution, specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit, since it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say. Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.
    There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particualr I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should been [sic] resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument."

    The point being is that you keep picking and choosing words from humans prone to error in statement and judgement from time to time. Also, prone to weakness. As if they are the only authority of all of science and all of evolutionary study.

    Show me a person who has converted to creationism and I'll show you someone who thinks they are so significant that all of the discoveries of our time should have happened in their lifetime, damn it. They are weak becuase they are claiming greater significance than they are due. Nobody guaranteed them anything, the search for the truth is all that was asked and they failed in the end because of their own ego's.

    Science is not one field, there are many and each is very complex and requires specialist because as we get deeper and deeper into such a vast amount of information it becomes more and more difficult and impossible to be an expert in all fields.

    That is why creationist don't believe it, they like things wrapped up nice and simple like, because it becomes too difficult to grasp. They would literally rather have things told to them as truth then to question for themselves and that is not learning and that is not understanding. It is only believing.

    You want things in sound bites. The real world is too complex for that.
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    This one made me laugh...

    Heh heh.
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    You're failing miserably at both.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    hahahaha! QFT
     
  22. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    "Earth to foolish atheist believer. There is no chain, there are only pieces which you have arranged to tell your fairytale story."

    Then why do you believe in Dinosaurs if we just arranged the pieces. If it's a fairytale, why do you believe ?

    Do you believe in fairytales ?
     
  23. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "as I thought off the record, "


    hahahahaha. where have I heard this before? Evolutionists don't want their candid comments to be "on the record", which is of course is understandable. Trouble is, excluding the revealing reference quoted, which is about the biggest "sound bite" in all of history, Patterson and others were interviewed completely on the record. These shifty little snakes get pummelled by fellow evolutionist believers when they tell the truth, so naturally they must back track later on. When evolutionists state things like "let me make myself perfectly clear, I am not a creationist nor have I at any time been a creationist nor did I intentionally assist in their efforts" they are trying to protect their standing in the evolutionist believers community. We know they are not creationists and it is their "hostile witness" which is most damning to the "mountains and mountains of scientific evidence prove evolution" mantra. Evidence? There is no evidence accept in the immagination of pin head atheist evolutionist believers. No information gaining mutations, no widely agreed upon transitional forms, no mechanism, no abiogenesis, nothing!

    The rest of these "rebuttals" amount to "Dan, you are wrong, but I have no idea why", such as the rebuttal to the first cause argument.

    On another, separate thread, I will go into the fossil record further upon returning from vacation. Later...
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2008

Share This Page