gcthomas
New member
I suppose a response that would embarrass a teenager is an alternative to genuine criticism of my argument, if mathematical probabilities and Physics are beyond you.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
I suppose a response that would embarrass a teenager is an alternative to genuine criticism of my argument, if mathematical probabilities and Physics are beyond you.
6days
New member
SILENT Dodger....the challenge was contradictions in the Bible that effect doctrine. The challenge was for you to come up with even one Bible contradiction that changes any doctrine or belief.SilentHunter said:
( Use any modern translation where the translation team members are not anonymous)
6days
New member
Yes.....
One of many examples where atheists believe in a type of magic.
Rosenritter
New member
You realize that the illustration that paints the sheer impossibility of evolution, being "rejected by all evolutionary scientists", is an exercise in circular reasoning? The scientists that accept the illustration aren't evolutionary scientists. Think!
6days
New member
Hoyle is more correct than ever. Science continues to reveal life requires far more sophisticated complexity than Hoyle imagined.
gcthomas
New member
Would you care to assess my more technical arguments, please? The 'rejection' comment was just padding.
gcthomas
New member
Hoyle was wrong about many things.
Rosenritter
New member
It's an old joke, you see. You challenge that you could do God's job, he asks you to try. You start to scoop together dirt and He tells you, "get your own dirt." If you don't get it then you fail to understand the sheer hopelessness of your assumptions. See, even if I were to accept your assertion for sake of argument, you already asked for the heavens, the earth, and all the raw building blocks to be be created and delivered to your doorstep. Metaphorically speaking, of course, because I think what you really want is for sheer nothingness to explode into the world around us, violating basic laws of conservation of matter and energy.
I suppose you will also want an oxygen-free environment and an oxygen-rich environment at the same time too, but a logical impossibility like that seems like a small thing in comparison.
Rosenritter
New member
GcThomas wrote:
I'll ask you a question instead if I may. Good definitions make for good arguments. For the purpose of defining terms, do you understand a difference between Evolution and Natural Selection?
I'll ask you a question instead if I may. Good definitions make for good arguments. For the purpose of defining terms, do you understand a difference between Evolution and Natural Selection?
Jose Fly
New member
Not only that, but Hoyle et al.'s calculations are premised on the notion that chemistry works "by random chance". IOW, they believe if you take a set of reagents and mix them, the result will be a random collection of atoms and molecules.
Anyone who believes that's how chemistry works has no business talking about chemistry.
gcthomas
New member
Where did you get that idea? Surely you must have read somewhere that observations suggest that the universe has zero total energy, which makes the big bang an energy neutral event. (Conservation of matter isn't even a real basic law. Your arguments are weaker when you include such nonsense.)
As for the presence of a world with the building block elements, Fred Hoyle himself contributed a lot to the physics that explains where that all came from, naturalistically.
gcthomas
New member
Guards, guards.
Guards, guards.
This is like a Guards, Guards scene. You present creationist canard after canard, to see each one knocked down, only to produce another without even bothering to defend them. It is like the famous Gish Gallop, but without the supporting intellect.
Come on, make a stab at proving you aren't just reposting non-understood rubbish from random creationist sites. Defend your claims.
Guards, guards.
This is like a Guards, Guards scene. You present creationist canard after canard, to see each one knocked down, only to produce another without even bothering to defend them. It is like the famous Gish Gallop, but without the supporting intellect.
Come on, make a stab at proving you aren't just reposting non-understood rubbish from random creationist sites. Defend your claims.
6days
New member
Sure...so are you and me.gcthomas said:
But Hoyle was correct about the super intellect... " A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Jose Fly
New member
I spotted that a few weeks ago. Rosenritter likes to do the "creationist conveyor belt".
6days
New member
Good point..... We know who created the laws which govern chemistry, making science possible.
Jose Fly
New member
Again, so if I post a quote from a physicist saying the opposite, would it be just as compelling? Or is this another of your heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setups?
Jose Fly
New member
Yep. Hoyle's calculations are one giant straw man.
Rosenritter
New member
I take it that you don't understand the difference then. As such you really have no idea what you're arguing. How can you offer alleged "proof of evolution" if you don't know what (or refuse to define) evolution to begin with?
There is another possibility that you do know the difference but refuse to speak, knowing that arguments get settled and arguments won (one way or the other, and you fear the other) if we do define our terms.
Jose Fly
New member
The bigger question is why would anyone try and prove evolution to a creationist? Isn't that about like trying to prove to a Jewish person that it's ok to eat shrimp?
Rosenritter
New member
First, it does seem typical that you want to claim "scientific" yet avoid any definition of terms or proof of your claims. Instead of wasting space, why don't you help him out with a definition? You're a giant hive mind back there behind the curtain anyway, aren't you?
Second, I object to your analogy, seeing that we have scriptural example of Jesus having proved to the Jew that it is OK to eat shrimp. Peter comes to mind. I still dislike shrimp because of its texture and flavor, but I am persuaded that it need not be rejected for reasons of law.
- Status