Slashdot Mirror

they still want to believe that the whole Bible is literal and that God through his holy scribes was incapible of metaphor?

Of course the Bible has metaphors. Jesus taught using "parables", the ancient counterpart to the modern "car analogy". Several "weeks" in the Bible have proven to be weeks of years as in Daniel 9, and some "days" may be a thousand years (2 Peter 3) or longer. Where the denominations differ is which parts of the Bible are considered literal and which metaphors.

We still love our Christian brothers and sisters - even when they're uncomforttible eating Dino-shaped chicken nuggets.

Of course dinosaurs were around in biblical times: what do you think taninim were?

I understand there have been historical interpretation of the Earth as the center of the universe, but this was not universally held even within Catholicism even at the time of Galileo--Copernican heliocentrism was a "minority view". And as far as the original sources go, we have such notations as the Earth "hanging on nothing" (re: Job 26:7) which is a notably-accurate description rather arguing against the notion of the Earth being specified as fixed. "An" interpretation does not equate to "the" interpretation for the purposes of demonstrating an overall view has been refuted.

The view of the original authors, who should be able to lay claim to special revelation, was that the Earth was fixed with a dome over it: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

That Catholics in later centuries, with the advantage of being informed by science, didn't believe this is uninteresting. It is interesting that their view does not match the views of those who supposedly had direct access to the source.

I'm not at all surprised that you are unaware of and hostile to these religious claims you claim were not made. The truth, even if you don't like it, is that they are still being made. Or do you think that a religious idea has to be universal before it can be considered stupid?

I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible. If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin. The famous muller experament (in ~1957 I think) shows a chemical trap required to get proteins but in that shows the enormous problems of the information. For life, aka the simplest of self sustaining cells require all the proteins to be either left or right handed. If a left protein attaches to a right protein then the chain is terminated. all of the human body is right handed. The experiments also require that there be no water and no oxygen in the environment. DNA at 0 degrees break down in under 10,000 years and all the goo stories I've heard are "hot" pools where the proteins break down even faster. (at 100' I remember it being 90minues.) I remember reading about a scientist creating 2 of the RNA molecules in just under 13 steps which each step was then filtered because the process in each steps produces side products which are "fatal". e.g. left and right handed proteins. So saying there are long periods of time is actually harmful to the process of chemicals self assembling themselves. Since I am holiday and board out of my mind, I'll try and google for this book.

btw:
A resource I look at often is the website http://Creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers. that link contains alot of information many people just dont know about. They are a "christian" .website but it dosn't matter that you dont believe the christian stuff which is usually at the bottom of the webpages. Read about the science articles and come to your own conclusions they will show in science things in the different light and will make you think.

just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.

what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10^130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 10^80 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10^103 experiments. We are still 10^27 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!

But I'll will look at the book mention above, I just hope some of you people will read the things I said from the other side of the fence.

I doubt you'd hear that argument out of an actual creationist, but there you go.

That actually comes close to the arguments used by creationists: http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers#starlight

I won't dig them up now because you've read it, and know them, and ignore them.

Yes, I know of many supposed flaws and, no, I do not ignore them. I research them and answer whoever I've been discussing it with. One of the great periods of life in which my confidence in the bible was solidified was answering a multitude of people who presented supposed flaws, errors or contradictions in the bible. The great thing, in this day and age, is that finding somebody who has already studied and resolved the supposed flaw is just a google away.

If you're an American conservative Christian, most of what is preached in your church as dogma (Creationism, the Rapture, Christian Capitalism) didn't exist 150 years ago.

Well, I think you know that's false because, only up until the last few hundred years, people took the scriptures at their word. If Genesis said a 6 day creation, and genealogies indicated a 6,000 year age, they believed that. See Creation Scientists for a list of just some present and past.

...why Christians deny evolution?

Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.

For further reading on what I meant about evidence fitting the bible better: http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview

I'm confused, I can't find anywhere in the bible where they even mention the existence of molly fish in Mexico let alone any scripture that suggests how they might go about adapting to increased toxicity levels.

Looking at the link you provided I don't see how evidence of weakness in current theory is to be taken as proof of Biblical correctness, particularly considering the Bible makes no claims in the first place.

...why Christians deny evolution?

Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.

For further reading on what I meant about evidence fitting the bible better: http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview

Does this concept, if proven true, contradict something in the bible so directly that it would prove Christianity is false?

Yes. Here's one example of many but perhaps the most crucial: Jesus quoted Genesis as literal history. If Genesis is not literal history, than Jesus is ignorant or lying: Either of which denies his deity. That is important because the bible is one, single story about the fall and redemption of mankind. There was a plan from the beginning for Jesus. Jesus had to be a perfect sacrifice. There is none perfect but God. The entire bible and its message relies on its truthfulness.

This is a much more thorough look at it: http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally

...why Christians deny evolution?

Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.

For further reading on what I meant about evidence fitting the bible better: http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview

Does this concept, if proven true, contradict something in the bible so directly that it would prove Christianity is false?

Yes. Here's one example of many but perhaps the most crucial: Jesus quoted Genesis as literal history. If Genesis is not literal history, than Jesus is ignorant or lying: Either of which denies his deity. That is important because the bible is one, single story about the fall and redemption of mankind. There was a plan from the beginning for Jesus. Jesus had to be a perfect sacrifice. There is none perfect but God. The entire bible and its message relies on its truthfulness.

This is a much more thorough look at it: http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally

Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?

That's the only part of your post that wasn't stark raving stupidity. I understand you don't like me. That's fine, I'm even happy that you don't like me. Because your behavior is beyond help. You copy amazon reviews as comments (and I've called you out on it because you keep doing it). And I'm calling you out again. The above post that you put up there is copy pasted from creation.com. You can't even come up with your own troll posts.

You have the weird CmdrTaco sexual fetishes under your name. You manage to pack homophobia and xenophobia all into one post. You are well versed in the art of cruise control for awesome. You're all over the road in the spectrum of what's wrong with posts on Slashdot ... and yet you login to relay these ramblings to us. Does not compute.

I'm honored to be so diametrically opposed to you that you must call me an idiot in your sig but seriously what drives you, man?

OK. So the claim made about the water is that the entire Earth was flat so it wouldn't need nearly as much water.

Not entirely flat. Just not what we see today. It's interesting that the biblical text says the water covered all the "high hills" and not all the "mountains." This is actually quite in agreement with regular plate tectonic theory. The major difference is the timeline. Secular theory puts it way in the past. Creationist theory puts it recently at the time of Noah's Flood.

See Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood. The subtler point here is to show how serious Creationists have become about researching and theorizing scientifically plausible mechanisms that would produce what we observe today.

Rubbish. First, don't use "by definition" when something isn't a definition.

From the wikipedia article on fossils,

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

In the context of fossil formation, fossils must, by definition, be buried and preserved quickly, one way or another.

That's nonsense. First of all, as someone who can read Genesis in the original Hebrew, nothing in the text says anything at all about humans being created for diversity and adaption. So how you are getting that from there is beyond me.

There are a number of occurrences of the command to "populate the earth," both to humans and to animals. Using good deductive reasoning, if God did really do what he said he did and in the way he said he did it, then it is reasonable to also say that animals and humans were designed up front for adaptation to a large number of environments. It follows that if they needed to survive in different environments, they must have had the genetic diversity from which natural selection specialize traits to best fit the environment.

There's far more genetic diversity in even just the human population then what you would get from about a dozen people on a boat 5000 years ago, even if if every single one of them had very different genetic backgrounds.

The assumption is that that information has not been there the whole time. If the Genesis account of creation is true, all that genetic diversity was present at the beginning and benefited animals, given the command to populate the earth, by natural selection helping the animals to adapt to all sorts of environments.

For the last two issues above, see Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics.

The geology alone doesn't allow people honestly looking at the evidence to reach any other conclusion.

Actually, it does. The problem is that we're inundated with the popular view, that of an evolutionary take on the evidence. It is no longer questioned in the mainstream. There are counter-arguments and there are failures and set-backs to evolution, but you don't hear about them. You hear about the new discovery but not the later debates between secular scientists, themselves, realizing the discovery doesn't mean much at all. It's a system into which all the pro arguments enter but none of the con arguments enter and so it's vastly imbalanced.

Take some time to rationally consider the links I've been leaving and this list of creation/evolution topics with a Creationist perspective. Taken with a level head, I

OK. So the claim made about the water is that the entire Earth was flat so it wouldn't need nearly as much water.

Not entirely flat. Just not what we see today. It's interesting that the biblical text says the water covered all the "high hills" and not all the "mountains." This is actually quite in agreement with regular plate tectonic theory. The major difference is the timeline. Secular theory puts it way in the past. Creationist theory puts it recently at the time of Noah's Flood.

See Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood. The subtler point here is to show how serious Creationists have become about researching and theorizing scientifically plausible mechanisms that would produce what we observe today.

Rubbish. First, don't use "by definition" when something isn't a definition.

From the wikipedia article on fossils,

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

In the context of fossil formation, fossils must, by definition, be buried and preserved quickly, one way or another.

That's nonsense. First of all, as someone who can read Genesis in the original Hebrew, nothing in the text says anything at all about humans being created for diversity and adaption. So how you are getting that from there is beyond me.

There are a number of occurrences of the command to "populate the earth," both to humans and to animals. Using good deductive reasoning, if God did really do what he said he did and in the way he said he did it, then it is reasonable to also say that animals and humans were designed up front for adaptation to a large number of environments. It follows that if they needed to survive in different environments, they must have had the genetic diversity from which natural selection specialize traits to best fit the environment.

There's far more genetic diversity in even just the human population then what you would get from about a dozen people on a boat 5000 years ago, even if if every single one of them had very different genetic backgrounds.

The assumption is that that information has not been there the whole time. If the Genesis account of creation is true, all that genetic diversity was present at the beginning and benefited animals, given the command to populate the earth, by natural selection helping the animals to adapt to all sorts of environments.

For the last two issues above, see Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics.

The geology alone doesn't allow people honestly looking at the evidence to reach any other conclusion.

Actually, it does. The problem is that we're inundated with the popular view, that of an evolutionary take on the evidence. It is no longer questioned in the mainstream. There are counter-arguments and there are failures and set-backs to evolution, but you don't hear about them. You hear about the new discovery but not the later debates between secular scientists, themselves, realizing the discovery doesn't mean much at all. It's a system into which all the pro arguments enter but none of the con arguments enter and so it's vastly imbalanced.

Take some time to rationally consider the links I've been leaving and this list of creation/evolution topics with a Creationist perspective. Taken with a level head, I

Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "uh huh." Dinosaurs."

Well, I hope people don't take comedians seriously, they're just trying to make a living making things funny.

In reality, it's actually even more humorous. What is supposed to sound so obvious is actually one of the more loaded topics you'll ever come across. Of course, no one would expect a comedian to know better. They're just doing their job.

If I were to add one more line to the script, I would add: "How about a one word answer?", "...", "Dragon", "...", "The word dinosaur was only invented relatively recently. Dinosaurs would have had another name.", "...", "...dragon." But it kind of kills the comedy when you have to bring reality into it, right?

What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs? Quite a bit actually: Dinosaur Questions and Answers

First, there's not enough water on Earth. So if it did occur, where did the other water go?

Where did all the water go?

Second, we don't see in the geological record evidence for a flood all at the same point in history. We see at different levels in the geologic column floods in different locations and some with no floods at all.

Actually, creation theories have been talking about tectonic effects coinciding with the flood. With such upheaval, on the epic scale, you might actually expect to see variation in these things. It's not just as simple as water gently pouring into a container. A global flood would have been immensely chaotic. At the same time, tectonic movements would have been shifting many areas in many different ways.

But, it's always a good idea to read up on it: Geology Questions and Answers.

Third, and related to the above, we don't see any global die off that is closely connected to flood deposits.

Fossils, by definition, must be buried quickly. It might be surmised that most fossil deposits are actually a mark of a global die off and the reason for many might be Noah's Flood.

Fossils Questions and Answers

Fourth, we don't see the genetic bottlenecking that would have wiped out that many species. The genetic diversity of many species shows us that a global flood could not have occurred in the last 50,000 years at least, on genetic evidence alone.

On the other hand, this is actually what you would expect if the earth was ~6000 years old and Noah's Flood was real. A thorough grasp of Genesis indicates animals and humans were created for diversity and adaptation which, it would seem natural, they were made such because they had to populate the earth from a relatively small number. So, you would not expect a genetic a bottleneck. All creatives had all the genetic information with which to propagate and create the variations we see today.

If it turned out there had been a global flood anytime in the last billion years, we'd have to be so wrong about so much of basic science that it is difficult to find a good analogy for how wrong we'd have to be.

Perhaps it's not that dramatic of a case. Many common concerns about Noah's Flood have long had responses, as early as the 1950s IIRC. The theories being developed by creationists are every day progressing to propose credible scenarios to the scientific questions pointed at the creation account in Genesis.

Different view points will give different responses to the same facts. Secular people assume evolution and millions of years. Creationists look at your interpretation of the data, see that it disagrees with their assumptions, and attempt to see how the facts can logically be interpreted to support them. This is actually a tribute to creationists: They have to put more effort into their research and theorizing in order to think of a reasonable solution that the majority are unable to think of.

This personally interests me: In a subtly different light, creationists are putting on their "God-caps" and trying to think of how an omnipotent, omniscient God might have done things to turn out the way that we see them now - all the while thinking in natural terms, not supernatural. It's personally fascinating that God said we were created in His image, as if we had the intelligence to ponder His (mysterious) ways...and yet we do, and he allows it and encourages it, and we often discover that, after all, he was telling the truth.

Finally, let me suggest this: We're all bombarded by evolutionary science and media coverage. It has no real competition in mind-share. That makes it something like an echo chamber or a feedback loop, serving to reinforce itself without the need for hard critique. It would all do us a world of good if we investigated as much of the contrary science as we do the mainstream science.

First, there's not enough water on Earth. So if it did occur, where did the other water go?

Where did all the water go?

Second, we don't see in the geological record evidence for a flood all at the same point in history. We see at different levels in the geologic column floods in different locations and some with no floods at all.

Actually, creation theories have been talking about tectonic effects coinciding with the flood. With such upheaval, on the epic scale, you might actually expect to see variation in these things. It's not just as simple as water gently pouring into a container. A global flood would have been immensely chaotic. At the same time, tectonic movements would have been shifting many areas in many different ways.

But, it's always a good idea to read up on it: Geology Questions and Answers.

Third, and related to the above, we don't see any global die off that is closely connected to flood deposits.

Fossils, by definition, must be buried quickly. It might be surmised that most fossil deposits are actually a mark of a global die off and the reason for many might be Noah's Flood.

Fossils Questions and Answers

Fourth, we don't see the genetic bottlenecking that would have wiped out that many species. The genetic diversity of many species shows us that a global flood could not have occurred in the last 50,000 years at least, on genetic evidence alone.

On the other hand, this is actually what you would expect if the earth was ~6000 years old and Noah's Flood was real. A thorough grasp of Genesis indicates animals and humans were created for diversity and adaptation which, it would seem natural, they were made such because they had to populate the earth from a relatively small number. So, you would not expect a genetic a bottleneck. All creatives had all the genetic information with which to propagate and create the variations we see today.

If it turned out there had been a global flood anytime in the last billion years, we'd have to be so wrong about so much of basic science that it is difficult to find a good analogy for how wrong we'd have to be.

Perhaps it's not that dramatic of a case. Many common concerns about Noah's Flood have long had responses, as early as the 1950s IIRC. The theories being developed by creationists are every day progressing to propose credible scenarios to the scientific questions pointed at the creation account in Genesis.

Different view points will give different responses to the same facts. Secular people assume evolution and millions of years. Creationists look at your interpretation of the data, see that it disagrees with their assumptions, and attempt to see how the facts can logically be interpreted to support them. This is actually a tribute to creationists: They have to put more effort into their research and theorizing in order to think of a reasonable solution that the majority are unable to think of.

This personally interests me: In a subtly different light, creationists are putting on their "God-caps" and trying to think of how an omnipotent, omniscient God might have done things to turn out the way that we see them now - all the while thinking in natural terms, not supernatural. It's personally fascinating that God said we were created in His image, as if we had the intelligence to ponder His (mysterious) ways...and yet we do, and he allows it and encourages it, and we often discover that, after all, he was telling the truth.

Finally, let me suggest this: We're all bombarded by evolutionary science and media coverage. It has no real competition in mind-share. That makes it something like an echo chamber or a feedback loop, serving to reinforce itself without the need for hard critique. It would all do us a world of good if we investigated as much of the contrary science as we do the mainstream science.

First, there's not enough water on Earth. So if it did occur, where did the other water go?

Where did all the water go?

Second, we don't see in the geological record evidence for a flood all at the same point in history. We see at different levels in the geologic column floods in different locations and some with no floods at all.

Actually, creation theories have been talking about tectonic effects coinciding with the flood. With such upheaval, on the epic scale, you might actually expect to see variation in these things. It's not just as simple as water gently pouring into a container. A global flood would have been immensely chaotic. At the same time, tectonic movements would have been shifting many areas in many different ways.

But, it's always a good idea to read up on it: Geology Questions and Answers.

Third, and related to the above, we don't see any global die off that is closely connected to flood deposits.

Fossils, by definition, must be buried quickly. It might be surmised that most fossil deposits are actually a mark of a global die off and the reason for many might be Noah's Flood.

Fossils Questions and Answers

Fourth, we don't see the genetic bottlenecking that would have wiped out that many species. The genetic diversity of many species shows us that a global flood could not have occurred in the last 50,000 years at least, on genetic evidence alone.

On the other hand, this is actually what you would expect if the earth was ~6000 years old and Noah's Flood was real. A thorough grasp of Genesis indicates animals and humans were created for diversity and adaptation which, it would seem natural, they were made such because they had to populate the earth from a relatively small number. So, you would not expect a genetic a bottleneck. All creatives had all the genetic information with which to propagate and create the variations we see today.

If it turned out there had been a global flood anytime in the last billion years, we'd have to be so wrong about so much of basic science that it is difficult to find a good analogy for how wrong we'd have to be.

Perhaps it's not that dramatic of a case. Many common concerns about Noah's Flood have long had responses, as early as the 1950s IIRC. The theories being developed by creationists are every day progressing to propose credible scenarios to the scientific questions pointed at the creation account in Genesis.

Different view points will give different responses to the same facts. Secular people assume evolution and millions of years. Creationists look at your interpretation of the data, see that it disagrees with their assumptions, and attempt to see how the facts can logically be interpreted to support them. This is actually a tribute to creationists: They have to put more effort into their research and theorizing in order to think of a reasonable solution that the majority are unable to think of.

This personally interests me: In a subtly different light, creationists are putting on their "God-caps" and trying to think of how an omnipotent, omniscient God might have done things to turn out the way that we see them now - all the while thinking in natural terms, not supernatural. It's personally fascinating that God said we were created in His image, as if we had the intelligence to ponder His (mysterious) ways...and yet we do, and he allows it and encourages it, and we often discover that, after all, he was telling the truth.

Finally, let me suggest this: We're all bombarded by evolutionary science and media coverage. It has no real competition in mind-share. That makes it something like an echo chamber or a feedback loop, serving to reinforce itself without the need for hard critique. It would all do us a world of good if we investigated as much of the contrary science as we do the mainstream science.

Then there are the people who care very much about worldly "facts" or perhaps "axioms" are the word since they exist without proof only by Holy Scripture, like that the world is 6000 years old, all men come from Adam shaped of mud and Eve shaped from a rib, the earth is the center of the universe and so on. They are hostile to science because science is dangerous to their religion, every time evidence builds that these facts are wrong it threatens their religion as a whole. To them the Bible or Qur'an can't be wrong, where science and religion clash science must yield.

Yes, the Bible is authoritative. But it does not conflict with science, except the science that insists that naturalism is required.

It is claimed that the world is more than 6000 years old. It is essential for the naturalistic world-view that it be older, because if the world is young there is no time for evolution and there must have been a divine creation.

It is claimed that the evidence proves that the world is old. There is a difference between evidence and data. Data is neutral; evidence is data interpreted according to a set of beliefs.

A few years back, someone found unfossilised soft tissues in tyrannosaur bones. Rather than accept that this demonstrated that the bones were not very old, she insisted that somehow the soft tissue must have survived 60 million years. The age of the bones was not allowed to be questioned.

It has been demonstrated that the amount of helium remaining in zircons is consistent with a recent creation and incompatible with an old universe. The same project showed that inconsistencies between different methods of radiometric dating could be accounted for by one or two periods of accelerated radioactive decay which affected alpha and beta emitters differently. (Look up the RATE project.)

People like to say that creationists hate science! In fact, all modern science is founded on the work of creationists; what creationists hate is the "science" that tells stories about what it cannot observe and claims the stories to be scientific proof!

There is so much evidence for a young earth. I can only imagine that the people who speak pejoratively about AiG etc do not actually read the sites, or don't allow themselves to think about what they read.

To a creationist, faith in the bible is founded on the demonstrated faithfulness of God. The resurrection of Jesus proves his claims to be the Son of God and he verifies the scripture as true to the letter. Therefore we can safely trust what the scripture says. It is the atheist/naturalist who has blind faith: that by some unknown means the universe created itself; that the unimaginable complexity of living cells was somehow developed by chance; that the unobserved and unobservable must inevitably have happened.

Try some links:
Evidence for a young earth
Creation-Evolution Headlines
True.Origin Archive
Biblical Geology
RATE project

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

It need not necessarily be irrational without a creator If the theory predicts neither a rational nor irrational universe, you are left with only the assertion that we have a rational universe purely by coincidence (and absolutely no confidence that this rationality is anything more than illusory). Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

This appears to be falling back on neo-darwinian evolution as a logical axiom. Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it. I refer you to the overwhelming body of evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 . Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

So, this statement,

we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time

is proved invalid by denying one of its axioms. Unless of course, you can prove me wrong and build a cell personally. Then I'd have something to think about. I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

It need not necessarily be irrational without a creator If the theory predicts neither a rational nor irrational universe, you are left with only the assertion that we have a rational universe purely by coincidence (and absolutely no confidence that this rationality is anything more than illusory). Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

This appears to be falling back on neo-darwinian evolution as a logical axiom. Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it. I refer you to the overwhelming body of evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 . Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

So, this statement,

we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time

is proved invalid by denying one of its axioms. Unless of course, you can prove me wrong and build a cell personally. Then I'd have something to think about. I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

It need not necessarily be irrational without a creator If the theory predicts neither a rational nor irrational universe, you are left with only the assertion that we have a rational universe purely by coincidence (and absolutely no confidence that this rationality is anything more than illusory). Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

This appears to be falling back on neo-darwinian evolution as a logical axiom. Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it. I refer you to the overwhelming body of evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 . Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

So, this statement,

we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time

is proved invalid by denying one of its axioms. Unless of course, you can prove me wrong and build a cell personally. Then I'd have something to think about. I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

It need not necessarily be irrational without a creator If the theory predicts neither a rational nor irrational universe, you are left with only the assertion that we have a rational universe purely by coincidence (and absolutely no confidence that this rationality is anything more than illusory). Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

This appears to be falling back on neo-darwinian evolution as a logical axiom. Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it. I refer you to the overwhelming body of evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 . Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

So, this statement,

we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time

is proved invalid by denying one of its axioms. Unless of course, you can prove me wrong and build a cell personally. Then I'd have something to think about. I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

It need not necessarily be irrational without a creator If the theory predicts neither a rational nor irrational universe, you are left with only the assertion that we have a rational universe purely by coincidence (and absolutely no confidence that this rationality is anything more than illusory). Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

This appears to be falling back on neo-darwinian evolution as a logical axiom. Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it. I refer you to the overwhelming body of evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 . Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

So, this statement,

we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time

is proved invalid by denying one of its axioms. Unless of course, you can prove me wrong and build a cell personally. Then I'd have something to think about. I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

Here's all the confirmation you will need!! http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Please check out this link. Don't judge it before you read it. http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it. We've observed speciation in plants for almost a hundred years and observed it in insects since the 1960s. Speciation in birds and mammals have also been repeatedly observed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

At this point the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that even many young earth creationists acknowledge that it occurs. See http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use. At this point anyone who is who thinks that speciation doesn't occur is so colossally ignorant that discussing matters with them should probably be done only if one is amused by talking to people under mass delusions by people so estranged from reality that reality probably got a restraining order against them.

I agree with you that it is a shame that people like that get any airspace at all. As a Christian and a creationists I can say that people like him are a problem for us. Maybe you will look up some articles on rapid speciation by other creationists scientists here here here and here. Oh, and thank you for correcting me on that point.

I agree with you that it is a shame that people like that get any airspace at all. As a Christian and a creationists I can say that people like him are a problem for us. Maybe you will look up some articles on rapid speciation by other creationists scientists here here here and here. Oh, and thank you for correcting me on that point.

I agree with you that it is a shame that people like that get any airspace at all. As a Christian and a creationists I can say that people like him are a problem for us. Maybe you will look up some articles on rapid speciation by other creationists scientists here here here and here. Oh, and thank you for correcting me on that point.