Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

Brian, this is the "creation must have a creator argument". You just used different terms. It's all been hashed out ad nauseum. You're not adding any new information. However strongly you insist that it MUST be so, you're not providing any evidence

So are you saying we cannot discuss who built Stonehenge or the universe? Can we assume Stonehenge and the universe are natural events? I am not asking you to believe, I am asking you to let me teach and research how a majority of rational intelligent people interpret the evidence without forcing only your beliefs into the public school system and universities.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

By asking who built Stonehenge and the Universe, you have already assumed the answer. Am I stupid? Don't you think I know that Stonehenge is an artifact built by ancient Britons? Why do we need a scientific breakdown? You're trying to lure me into a very poorly constructed logical trap. If you want to discuss this question, OK, let's. Don't play games with me.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

By asking who built Stonehenge and the Universe, you have already assumed the answer. Am I stupid? Don't you think I know that Stonehenge is an artifact built by ancient Britons? Why do we need a scientific breakdown?

What scientific proof do you have of that besides its location and the the rocks appear to be there a long time?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Well if you've ever been to Stonehenge you know that stamped on the bottom of each and every Sarsen Stone is the inscription: "These stones erected in 3,402 B.C."

...but if you're serious then I don't have any evidence whatsoever. I've never been to Stonehenge, and for all I know there is no such structure. You're getting into a pretty murky area here in that we can't really know anything about anything we don't have personal experience of. If you want to follow that course then every source is unreliable and in order to know anything we have to find out for ourselves.
Earlier you asked if Stonehenge and the universe were natural occurances. In a way, yes. We are a part of the natural world, so any of our works are as well. And why not? Isn't a spiderweb or a bird's nest a natural occurance? Then why not the Leaning Tower of Pisa and "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

...but if you're serious then I don't have any evidence whatsoever. I've never been to Stonehenge, and for all I know there is no such structure. You're getting into a pretty murky area here in that we can't really know anything about anything we don't have personal experience of. If you want to follow that course then every source is unreliable and in order to know anything we have to find out for ourselves.
Earlier you asked if Stonehenge and the universe were natural occurances. In a way, yes. We are a part of the natural world, so any of our works are as well. And why not? Isn't a spiderweb or a bird's nest a natural occurance? Then why not the Leaning Tower of Pisa and "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

The main evidence we have for stonehenge is that it follows the pattern of human construction. We as humans recognize patterns. Once you recognize a pattern don't assume the pattern doesn't hold unless you have proof showing the pattern has been broken.

All I am saying is believe what you are seeing when you see the order and patterns in the universe.

Don't assume a tried and true pattern you have been observing your whole life when you observe the construction of complexity by intelligence, did not hold true in the ancient past, unless you can replicate order coming out of nothing, without intelligence today. I have not seen it replicated. Have you?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

What do you think of Göbekli Tepe?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

What do you think of Göbekli Tepe

Looks like an ancient sight built as a place to offer sacrifices. The pattern always holds true, no matter how ancient the sight it appears it was created by humans as smart as us or smarter, and man has always been sacrificing to God or gods.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
What do you think of Göbekli Tepe
Looks like an ancient sight built as a place to offer sacrifices. The pattern always holds true, no matter how ancient the sight it appears it was created by humans as smart as us or smarter, and man has always been sacrificing to God or gods.

11th millennium, pre agrarian, thousands of hunter gatherers assemble to construct then sacrifice as the finali a woman. It seems they wanted to leave something fixed in that time and place. Edit.. I should note this was pre paternal worship

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

11th millennium, pre agrarian, thousands of hunter gatherers assemble to construct then sacrifice as the finali a woman. It seems they wanted to leave something fixed in that time and place.

Like I said the pattern holds true no matter how far back we go. The bible even starts even with Abel and Cain sacrificing.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Still.. something to ponder.. or not.

0 Replies

Britons did not build Stonehenge. The excavations, barrows (burial mounds) and erections in wood and stone began just over 5000 years ago, and were completed over a thousand years before the first artifacts of Hallstatt and La Tène culture (the evidence of Iron Age Keltic culture) appeared. None of this is rocket science, it is all easily researched, and it is typical of the god-botherers that they project their own ignorance onto others. In the end, of course, they fall back on disputing scientific dating methods, because they cling so desperately to their Bronze Age fairy tales.

None of which, of course, is germane to the discussion of evolution through natural selection.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The boy poses arguments and "examples" from which he loosens his grip when they are challenged.

I really have little argument with use of the term algorithms for the many types of chemical responses, except that he is trying to convince others that his "belief" of an Intelligence behind it all.
For that he fails to admit that hes without any evidence or data even close to his beliefs

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Discovery Institute, back in 2003 promised us all sorts of evidentiary papers and other scientific research. Its 2018 tonight and DI has been very quiet for 15 years about this pledge to us.

I'm never sure what to think when you attempt to rewrite reality. You may disagree with every word they put out but the papers, books, videos, web articles, etc. put out by DI makes a pretty tall stack.

Attack the message if you want to be credible, you are wasting your time on messenger bashing.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The boy poses arguments and "examples" from which he loosens his grip when they are challenged.

The point is you can't prove humans built Stonehenge. You have to believe it on faith in a pattern you observed happening today holding true into the ancient past. Is that a correct statement?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Im not a part of your silly Stonehenge pose jak.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

tack of what?? same old **** that makes an argument out of a negative assertion. Wheres there any evidence at all??

I think youve not been looking very hard . The crap that Discovery prints and posts is evidence-free tripe. Youve already forgotten about Irreducible complexity or specified information?
WEDGIE DOCUMENT

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im not a part of your silly Stonehenge pose jak.

I am interested in your response.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

therewss a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Ill mention but one. Along the outer and inner barrows(those among the sarsens) , there are graves containing human skeletons of individuals who, by their muscle attachments and other anatomical features , were engaged in several skills like masonry or carpentry.They were also interred with copper and bronze stone working tools. (Bronze being a great indicator of human interactions and trade since the tin was mostly a British Island ore). The source rocks of the sarsens were some miles off (in the Salisbury Plains) and were along side Neolithic dwellings that contained sarcen rock shards in their rubble also included werepressure flaked points of blue quartz (Which were made of the same rocks as the smaller BLue STones which came from as far away as Wales).
The surrounds of Stonehenge contained villages and palisades similar to others of late neolithic and bronze nd iron ages. Technology cpmparisons make an argument that whoever lived an worked at Stonehenge were similar to other humans in the various "Doggerland" and more likely , pre-keltic cultures(I believe the term has been the Windmill Hill people). I beleieve they also have DNA amd mDNA from the residents of the burial spots and these are similar to nativist haplogroups seen in the population of todays areas in UK and Wales.

1 Reply

Absent any evidence of the intervention of aliens from space, the only conclusions about Stonehenge are that it was built by humans, or by other animals. Leaning only very lightly on Occam's Razor, scientists choose to believe that it was built by humans. Anyone claiming otherwise is making an extraordinary claim, and therefore will have to provide extraordinary evidence. Of course, as is always the case with the god-botherers, their claims are wonderfully evidence-free.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Youve already forgotten about Irreducible complexity or specified information?

You obviously missed my post.

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know