YEC part Trois(407 Posts)
So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?
Incidentally, ICE, I never received that last email you referred to and I thought you had stopped responding to me. I apologize for the confusion. We were making progress but the last thing I recall is that you had redefined "information" in a way that was convenient for your theory but not the true definition as per Claude Shannon.
I am still open to discussing this privately with you and, as always, am open to changing my view based on valid evidence. But are you?
Well, it didn't take long for this thread to die after I was no longer coming around. Just 6 days. I'm in school now for social work and don't have time to engage with people who don't want to listen and only want to argue.
I came to this site with the intention of having an honest sharing of ideas and quickly got attacked and called names. I stuck it out for far longer than I should have and that's only because I knew there were people behind the scenes who believed in what I was doing. It's too bad that it turned out this way.
I thought the very first post (2 threads ago) seemed like people were genuinely interested and wanted to understand the Young Earth view. I quickly learned they were just looking for someone to bully.
To those who still have genuine questions, I am willing to finish out this thread but I am very busy and can probably handle only about one brief question per day. I still refuse to tolerate abuse and will not answer questions that have been covered in the past 2,400 posts. Assume that we are never going to come to agreement but that perhaps you can learn something.
Thanks for the votes of confidence
Ellie you can add me to the list of people who previously had no idea that the evidence for a physical jesus was so tenuous....like most I had been sold on the real person, inaccurate story telling business.
It really makes me wonder how many other things I 'know' are actually factually incorrect - although QI is usually good for debunking those!
Yes, I felt from the outset that it was a fishing expedition to gain more fodder for books/videos etc for the ridiculous point-scoring 'debates' that YECs seem to think are a valid substitute for evidence.
Don't feel downhearted, ICBINEG, I have learned a huge amount on these threads from you, Ellie and so many others.
I must find and read Ellie's Jesus thread.
There was a chap on R4 fairly recently who had studied conspiracy 'theories'/'theorists' - things like 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landings were faked etc.
He concluded that you cannot debate with conspiracy theorists. Just cannot. Because whatever actual fact you present them with, they will just modify their 'theory' to account for this fact, or try to rubbish the science/evidence behind the fact.
He said, that in during a series of interviews with some of them, he was truly astounded at the lengths they would go to to cling onto their belief system, whilst (seemingly) genuinely believing that the rest of us were having the wool pulled over our eyes by shady 'government agencies' or whatever, and they were the only ones party to the truth.
Which is pretty similar to what Best did on these threads.
And of course, as distinguished scientist Baron Robert May once said, when asked to debate a creationist: "that would look great on your cv, not so great on mine"
Don't be depressed. You may have gotten precisely nowhere with Best, but I promise you this thread has had a LOT of readers, and every one of your clearly written posts has been commented on.
It's a bit like my Jesus thread - I knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that the people I was actually talking to wouldn't change their minds - not in a month of Sundays. But there were various people who contacted me to say, "Wow...I always thought there was loads of evidence for Jesus. I'm astonished that there's none at all" - as far as I'm concerned, that's a result.
I think all of us on here (and in particular the scientists like you) have done a bang up job of showing people who weren't clear just how baseless & dishonest creationism & creationists actually are.
So, don't be disheartened in the slightest.
Threads like this here and elsewhere would be frustrating if not for all the other people looking on and thinking:
"Hey, I thought there was proof of creationism. That's what I was taught in Sunday School".
"I thought evolution was just a guess. I didn't realise that it can be shown to be working".
There should always be one thread going for new people to see that exposes creationism for what it is.
And one for religion in general for those people who were taught that the gospels were written at the time by the disciples and that the Romans had records showing that Jesus even existed.
I am glad you work in science. You have a brilliant way of explaining complex concepts.
I haven't been joining in here because I thought I was making progress in a Pmed conversation with best about evolution...
I think I should probably make you aware of how that panned out.
I spent A LOT of time and effort explaining that the whole concept of a 'bit of DNA code that makes a ducks bill' is factually incorrect (because humans have the same proteins that make ducks bills but we use it for hair etc), and hence the creationist 'problem' with evolution suddenly producing a new organ/limb/piece of information was not actually a problem that relates to reality.
And you know, encouraging noises were made...enough to make me persist any way.
And then I got asked in what way the argument that 'the rate of genetic change seen in bacteria nowadays is too slow to allow for the spontaneous creation of say a new ribosome in the amount of time it is generally thought that the original first ribosome was developed' was flawed.
I pointed out that:
1. modern bacteria have a massive suite of error checking protocols in the form of their already existing ribosome. This means that errors are made in much lower frequency than error would have been made in an organism that lacks a ribsome system altogether.
2. there is a fantastic evolutionary advantage to having any error checking system at all...so non-existent is replaced with crappy is replaced with better and better in a rapid fashion. There is however no evolutionary advantage whatsoever to introducing a secondary crappy system to an organism that ALREADY HAS a fuck off awesome system in place.
Hence the fact that modern bacteria do not evolve a second ribosome system gives you no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a first ribosome system could not have arisen spontaneously.
You will be utterly amazed to hear that this is the point that best stopped responding....
I am too depressed to look through this thread and find out if he is still trotting out the same nonsense that was spouted in the first YEC thread that caused me to engage in the first place....but I would be utterly unsurprised to find it is so.
So what can I say to all you lovely advocates of truth?
DO NOT ENGAGE WITH CREATIONISTS
You may as well be talking to your own reflection.
If it helps you clarify your own ideas then go right ahead but do not fool yourself that there is an intelligence on the other end of the line that can accept, learn or change their views in response to your arguments.
Watched the first of a new series on BBC2 last night Rise of the Continents. It's presented by Iain Stewart, Professor of Geoscience Communication. The first episode was 'Africa' and covered plate tectonics, geology, evolution, diamonds, pyramids and more. It even had transitional fossils!
Made me think of Best and made me for him.
Bad day best? You come here to vent?
New age crazies?
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Of course I agree this was written much later and that you can't go around believing something just because it was added to the bible, but you might get some opposition from those who think Luke lived in the time of Jesus and was his disciple and friend.
I've provided plenty of evidence for my beliefs
Even if what you had put forward was evidence for 'a' god it wouldn't be evidence for 'your' god.
Christians everywhere assume that the alternative to no god at all is that theirs is the real one.
Condell also misquotes Jesus by claiming he said, "Seek the kingdom of heaven within." New Age crazies get this from the Gospel of Thomas which was written centuries after the events. Jesus did not say the kingdom of heaven is "within" you but "among" you or "in your midst". He was talking about himself. If Condell can't get a simple thing like that right, you can't trust a word he says.
"To anyone: I don't always agree with Pat Condell, but my goodness me THIS is absolutely spot on."
Pat Condell is the spawn of Satan.
"There is NO evidence for the god you believe in. None whatsoever. Your faith has blinded you."
Keep deluding yourself, Bore. I've provided plenty of evidence for my beliefs every step of the way. You, not so much.
"As Ellie has so eloquently said, we are all animated stardust, quite literally children of the universe."
Ellie wouldn't know eloquence if it smacked her in the face. If you want true eloquence, read the Bible. Start with the book of Psalms.
"That is wonderful and awe-inspiring and enough."
'Wonderful' and 'awe-inspiring' should never be 'enough' for any rationally- thinking person. Evidence is all that matters.
Oh dear it is like that is it?
Hey Bore! LOL! You beat me to the punch with that video! It's a really good one... what are the odds we both had the same video picked out?
For anyone who has been wondering - I've been in touch with Best and he will be returning shortly! Someone should remind Ellie to buy a new bottle of Aspirin...
Talking of the Grand Canyon being created by a flood event, I really like this exploration of the creationist 'evidence'
That is BLIND faith and should not be enough to satisfy any rational thinker
How so? Faith is belief without evidence (and ALL faith is blind) - what am I asserting without evidence? As Back said, the fine-tuning argument only makes sense, or represents any kind of conundrum, if you begin with a starting assumption that we were somehow meant to be.....that the universe wants us here. And why on earth should we assume any such thing?
We evolved in the only kind of universe we could evolve in (as far as we know) - that's why we're here.
I would be more impressed, and more inclined to believe in a designing deity, if we somehow managed to exist in a universe that didn't suit us at all. Why would your god have to "design" the universe for us - he could stick us anywhere he liked. We could live in absolutely any kind of universe, with any kind of properties, if we assume an omnipotent creator. The fact that we can clearly ONLY exist in a universe with these particular properties strongly, strongly suggests that we have evolved through natural processes without the need for any creator at all.
It's also worth mentioning that if you construct a model (as has been done) of a universe that came to exist only through natural processes without an intelligent, guiding thought process behind it it looks precisely like......wait for it....THIS ONE! Isn't that one almighty coincidence, Best - the universe looks EXACTLY the way it should look if no god were responsible for designing it?
You don't see a contradiction between these two statements?
No. Should I? You think we can only be amazing if we're of such supreme importance that the entire universe was made just for us? That's some ego you've got there!
It's our complete and total lack of importance on a cosmic scale that makes us precious & rare, in my opinion. If we were nothing more than the playthings of some ranting, homophobic, genocidal lunatic as you seem to believe, then THAT would make us unimportant. My life would be truly meaningless if your god exists - and I'm awfully glad it doesn't.
Because I have to follow the evidence where it leads
You have no evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Sorry about that.
Welcome back, January! And Age!
I cant believe I missed all of this. You guys fell off my active thread list. Off to have a good read x
Applause for Ellie! Cries for more!!
Best, if you have actual evidence for creation in general or for the God of the bible specifically - please provide it! AND please provide a reason why, although the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field(s) reject it, you believe it to be valid. To make it a little harder for you, can you do that without suggesting that all those dissenting scientists are either blindly following their teaching, or are willfully denying the existence of a god to live a life free of "his" rules?? Those are terrible arguments anyway, so I'm actually doing you a favour here.
One last thing Best, and it you've already covered this and I've forgotten, then I apologize. Do you believe the Grand Canyon was actually created in a few days by a flood event? (Yes, I realize your 6-10K year old Earth views force you to reject the scientific explanation, but do you hold it as a mystery yet to be solved or do you subscribe to the aforementioned flood hypothesis?)
There is NO evidence for the god you believe in. None whatsoever. Your faith has blinded you.
As Ellie has so eloquently said, we are all animated stardust, quite literally children of the universe. That is wonderful and awe-inspiring and enough.
"We exist in a universe capable of supporting us. That is enough to satisfy me."
That is BLIND faith and should not be enough to satisfy any rational thinker.
"I think we, and all the stars and planets are just flotsam and jetsam, a bit of contamination in an otherwise empty and cold universe."
"I think we're amazing, Best - why don't you?"
You don't see a contradiction between these two statements?
"Why don't you grow up, face reality and enjoy life for what it is instead of buying into the quite staggeringly stupid stories invented by bronze age cave dwellers? Seriously."
Because I have to follow the evidence where it leads. God is for grown-ups. Atheism is for little children.
Thanks for that, Ellie. I agree. Spot on.
Join the discussion
Please login first.