Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

@Brandon9000,

Russl Humphreys is still alive and opumping out his pseudo science and irrational dating mathe, nd really stupid ignorance of organic chemistry. Yet, like many ayuthoritaian chasers, hs got a hug following of ignorant, wrong evidenced, Creation an ID believers.
no one ever seems to check his math.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The creationist argument about chance is a straw man argument.

Frank's point isn't about chance, however much you try to pivot to that straw man irrelevancy. It's about the possibly of everything having always existed, no start, no finish.

In regard to your argument about chance, long odds do not equate to impossibility.

You're confusing 0≤P(A)≤1 with 0≤P(A)≤0.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Frank's point isn't about chance, however much you try to pivot to that straw man irrelevancy.

Oh I knew that.
In the post in question, Frank was using his superior intellect to make fun of another. He says he enjoys that.

I was trying to bring it back to an actual scientific/numerical argument which could actually be discussed.

By the rest of your response, I see that you and Frank are equally unprepared to go there.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Thanks, but I don't want to go to your red herring, straw man argument.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well, that argument actually has merit.

The eternal universe is one of the better viewpoints. Even though scientists largely walked away from it. Most scientists today typically take the Big Bang theory by Lemaitre.

A theory that really only works if you're a theist. By all means, that's fine to accept that the universe is eternal. I don't share that, but it's not egregious like uncreated creation.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Bullshit.

My only goal is to answer your question.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Whose theory?

Darwin's? Darwin's natural selection was never proved by any part of his own travels. (My dad says it might be Spencer who actually coined "survival of the fittest", and that Darwin never explained the mechanics)

Darwin did manage to prove catastrophism, the theory that the prime cause of evolution is to adapt to sudden changes of environment (an island got split apart, and one half had completely different nuts and berries, and they developed different beaks). He did not however prove that a species thrives on infighting which is at the core of natural selection. In fact, if a hive of bees were to compete among themselves for fitness, the hive would die. Neither is there "survival of the fittest" with regard to species. Predator and prey keep each other in check. They evolve together, in response to each other. Nor is it really the fittest, but rather evolution often branches different ways. The existence of pack behavior undermines the idea of natural selection (the group is not selecting the best, it is working together that all might survive) as are some forays into epigenetics and inherited environmental traits.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Quote:

Take, to begin with, the Swedish chickens. Three years ago, researchers led by a professor at the university of Linköping in Sweden created a henhouse that was specially designed to make its chicken occupants feel stressed. The lighting was manipulated to make the rhythms of night and day unpredictable, so the chickens lost track of when to eat or roost. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, they showed a significant decrease in their ability to learn how to find food hidden in a maze.

The surprising part is what happened next: the chickens were moved back to a non-stressful environment, where they conceived and hatched chicks who were raised without stress – and yet these chicks, too, demonstrated unexpectedly poor skills at finding food in a maze. They appeared to have inherited a problem that had been induced in their mothers through the environment. Further research established that the inherited change had altered the chicks' "gene expression" – the way certain genes are turned "on" or "off", bestowing any given animal with specific traits. The stress had affected the mother hens on a genetic level, and they had passed it on to their offspring.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Thanks, but I don't want to go to your red herring, straw man argument.

I would appreciate it if you follow through on that.
Your past efforts have been half hearted at best.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The creationist argument about chance is a straw man argument.

Frank's point isn't about chance, however much you try to pivot to that straw man irrelevancy. It's about the possibly of everything having always existed, no start, no finish.

In regard to your argument about chance, long odds do not equate to impossibility.

You're confusing 0≤P(A)≤1 with 0≤P(A)≤0.

Thank you, InfraBlue.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

c

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Well, that argument actually has merit.

The eternal universe is one of the better viewpoints. Even though scientists largely walked away from it. Most scientists today typically take the Big Bang theory by Lemaitre.

Thank you for agreeing that the argument has some merit.

However, scientists have NOT walked away from the notion of an eternal/infinite universe. NOT at all. The Big Bang applies ONLY to what we humans call "the universe." It does appear that this thing we humans call "the universe" (the space, time, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) is the result of a "Big Bang" event.

But scientists of any stature recognize that we do not know what existed before the Big Bang...or if the Big Bang was just one event in a series of events that go back infinitely...or if what we humans call "the universe" is actually THE UNIVERSE...or just a small part of it...a small part of a MEGAVERSE.

Quote:

A theory that really only works if you're a theist. By all means, that's fine to accept that the universe is eternal. I don't share that, but it's not egregious like uncreated creation.

By definition...NO CREATION can be uncreated. BUT to insist that the universe/megaverse IS A CREATION simply to posit a creator...is absurd.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Thanks, but I don't want to go to your red herring, straw man argument.

I would appreciate it if you follow through on that.
Your past efforts have been half hearted at best.

Pointing out the fallacy of your simplistic argument doesn't require a whole lot of heart; about a quarter or so, if that.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Pointing out the fallacy of your simplistic argument doesn't require a whole lot of heart; about a quarter or so, if that.

You have not even attempted to falsify my protein argument.

Calling it 'simplistic' is not a legitimate counter argument. Unless you’re a twelve year old.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

What's simplistic is your conclusion.

In regard to chance, your protein argument is a fallacy in that you've convinced yourself of its impossibility, whereas the truth is that, statistically, it is possible.

I've shown you an eyeball argument that's more detailed than your protein argument that is equally fallacious because it also assumes impossibility.

What you don't get is that your protein argument is irrelevant to the argument that possibly everything has always existed with no start, and no finish.

Yours is an irrelevant fallacy.

1 Reply

since the Creationists assert that their belief is not "somthing from nothing" they totally dismiss their own " vience free imposibility" CReation starts ad nihilo, just as they claim about appearance of life on the plant by non supernatural means.

Science is still trying to figur out which process led the way at the dawn of if. Creationists merely like to assert, they dont dive very deeply. Ctreationists gt all jazzed up re DNA and forget about the billions of other inorganic an organic ompouns that are self asmelblig (even a few hundred thousand inorganic that areDouble helices (like the iron band roks of the Mesabi Range an the Flinders Hills. Even rocks have evolved.

Natural Selection is about EVOLUTION, not CREATION. evidence havily supports that process of evolution is tied to the changes of th environment, Creationist s/IDers must agree with that simpl fact. There appears no spiffy ID driven process of anagenesis, so when IDrs agree thatthe environment seems to evidence a major cause of speciation "and higher".

PS, Spencer's coining of the phrase "Survival of th fittest", it was coined merely an answer to the question that was NOT a tautology in the form it was first used.
Spncer was asked "what is evolution anyway"
He answered that "evolution is nothing but survival of th fittest".

Yes , it is true that Darwin NEVER spoke th term in his work at all ( in its present sense) , he only used itas a transitive verb in the last sentence of Ed 1 of ",,,Th origin...", in which h spoke of "forms most beautiful an most wonderful have been, an are being, evolved"(p270 [a]).
It intresting that, in hi s second edition of th "origin", Darwin added that
"breathed by th Creator into a few..."

Darwin at that time was still a frustrated theistic guy who had NOT become an atheist at tha time of hi second edition.
He did remove that statement at th behest of his bulldog.
I had a minor part in an editorial re-review of Morse Pekhams "Variorum " of Darwin's "Origin"
It was in 2004/5 when the U of Penn came out with Peckhams paprback edition of the Variorum, and once we had all 6 volums and their illustrations and references computrized, w actually found mor changes that Darwin made than Peckham did.

"

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yet this is exactly what many atheistic "scientists" propose.

Big Bang really only works for monotheism, pantheism, and polytheism.

This is why I despise ppl in the media talking about Hawking like he's some super-genius. Maybe in terms of science, but for religion and philosophy, he's just some joker in a wheelchair. He tried to propose this and proved he doesn't understand.

If the universe had a beginning, then it has to have someone to create it. If it does not have a beginning, then the discussion of whether someone caused it is an apples-and-oranges discussion.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Not all theists accept ex nihilo creation tho.

I read Genesis 1, and they talk about how things were a formless Void. Then God created Light. But Light isn't a creation, it is some sort of nuclear reaction.

Converted into scientific terms, In the Beginning, there was a endothermic universe with no chemical bonds. And God said, "Let there be a massive fusion reaction approaching Planck Temperature, and let all matter explode outward combining into matter as it forms." This is an explosion that unlike all other explosions in the universe, does not destroy matter ( returning it to components) but rather creates matter.

This is the only one even suspected as ex nihilio, all others are division of previous things (Light into light and darkness, dark and night, matter and space; heat into earth and water, sea and sky, inorganic and organic stuff). Not creation from nothing, but rather a sudden and massive reshuffling of matter.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

What's simplistic is your conclusion.

Simpler than what? Simpler than Your nonexistent explanation for biological life emerging? Simpler than your 'maybe it was always here'?

Please, come back when you have a real argument.

Quote:

In regard to chance, your protein argument is a fallacy in that you've convinced yourself of its impossibility, whereas the truth is that, statistically, it is possible.

No dear boy, I didn’t say it was 'impossible', I said it is so mathematically and statistically unlikely that it is not possible for anyone who understands the magnitude of the problem to accept that it happened by chance. You clearly do not understand it.

But forget my conclusion, I challenged you to find any fault with the facts or logic in my protein argument. I don’t believe you can and so far you have not.

1 Reply

I wonder.
since IB accepts that it is definitely possible that he will win the lottery if he spends all his money on tickets, is that the choice he would make?
It’s way more likely than biological life by chance.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

To put it in perspective.

Chance of winning Powerball Lottery: 1 in 292,201,338
Chance of life arising by chance: 1 in 4^300 (remember, this is 4 multiplied by itself 300 times, with each result 4 times the previous. It only taks 4^4 to make a triple digit number. This is a number so big that most calculators will not display it, but I used a large number calculator).
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
So...
1
in
4,149,515,568,880,992,958,512,407,863,691,161,151,012,446,232,242,436,899,
995,657,329,690,652,811,412,908,146,399,707,048,947,103,794,288,197,886,
611,300,789,182,395,151,075,411,775,307,886,874,834,113,963,687,061,181,
803,401,509,523,685,376.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Bullshit.

My only goal is to answer your question.

Translation: You lack even a high school physics class, but in your ignorance feel qualified to take on generations of real physicists.

0 Replies

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know