Thread for JohnHeintz to prove Creationism

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Because I don't think that universal common ancestry is possible and or probable. I don't believe that one living organism became all the others in small increments over vast amounts of time. I don't think that random errors would change an ape like ancestor into a human being. We are too advanced too different.
Sure we are made of the same biological materials. However , chimps and humans allegedly came from this ancestor. One can speak , read, write, drive cars, build cities, perform surgery and explore space. The other is running around the jungle throwing and eating its own feces.

This is an argument from ignorance as to why you don't accept evolution - or, why evolution is not "in the lead".

It's not a definition of "God", or a argument as to why you think a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation for biodiversity.

As such, your answer is off-topic.

Again - as with the other thread - it seems you can't answer a direct question posed to you.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

DG is right, this is a straight up argument from incredulity. Nothing more than "Nuh uuh" - not trying to be sassy or whatever but that's literally what you're doing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again - as with the other thread - it seems you can't answer a direct question posed to you.

So unwilling was he to answer *any* question, that when he could no longer credibly avoid doing so, he flounced rather than consider his own beliefs.

I've talked in the past of the problem of cherished beliefs, and this is a perfect example of why beliefs should be held very lightly indeed.

 

[Deleted member 619]

My favourite quotation form all of literature:

Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind - David Zindell.

 

[ldmitruk]

The Christian God is a murderous, conceited asshole, but also LOVE!

Well they do say love hurts.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,


This is an argument from ignorance as to why you don't accept evolution - or, why evolution is not "in the lead".

It's not a definition of "God", or a argument as to why you think a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation for biodiversity.

As such, your answer is off-topic.

Again - as with the other thread - it seems you can't answer a direct question posed to you.

Kindest regards,

James

I never said I could answer these theological questions. You guys created a post asking me them. Those are two very different things

 

[Sparhafoc]

At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.

How's the creator hypothesis in the lead John?

If you have ZERO support for said Creator, but yet you want to pick over specific details in the massive array of evidence for evolution and common descent, then HOW is the creator in the lead? Because you want it to be in the lead regardless of what's empirically apparent?

Your not answering questions is a) the problem you're having here with people and b) a well established psychological defense mechanism for protecting cherished but poorly justified beliefs.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh wait....

Let me just channel my inner 5 year old....

Can someone copy and paste my message so that JohnHeintz will read it?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I never said I could answer these theological questions. You guys created a post asking me them. Those are two very different things

So. This will be the last reply.
Take care guys.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Shaaaaaaaaaaaaker's!

I win 17 internet points!

 

[Dragan Glas]

'Greetings,

I never said I could answer these theological questions. You guys created a post asking me them. Those are two very different things

In the other thread, as Spar has noted above, you said:

At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.

Given the vast - and ever-growing - evidence for evolution, why would you believe:

1) a deity exists?;
2) that it's "in the lead" as a explanation for biodiversity?

It's like me saying that it's "plausible that you're a real person or a sock-puppet - with the latter in the lead".

At that point you'd be wondering - and asking me - what could possibly lead me to believe that you're more likely to be a sock-puppet?

In the other thread, you posted:

As far as a supernatural creator /God scenario to explain wolves, foxes ,dingoes and such it would be like this......I can't say it didn't happen. This world seems to symbiotic to have just "worked itself out. Abiogenesis doesn't seem likely. The steps from these first cells to true multicellular sexually reproductive animals seems impossible with not much solid explanation available. Human beings, though made of the same biological materials as animals , seem so different and /or more advanced. So it's not that I could explain "how a God did it" it's that if an entity had such power it could be plausible. If that makes sense.
I will do the felines later on. And finally the cervids. I'm on graveyard shift. Let me know if you want any more information on the canines.

1) You can't say it did happen;
2) You'd have to explain the existence of the entity in the first place.

You say your disbelief in evolution as a explanation for biodiversity are not religious but - from where did you get the idea of a deity in the first place? Religion. Why do you believe a deity is a better explanation? Religion.

Do you see the problems with your thinking yet, John?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

A number of years ago, as I was losing my belief in God, I bought both Dawkin's The God Delusion, and Hitchen's Religion Poisons Everything. They sat on my bookcase for some time - because I couldn't bring myself to read them. They were almost like a weight on my mind, as well my bookshelf.

It was around this time that I came here - almost as a last chance to prove to myself that a God existed.

During one of my early exchanges, a member - I forget whom - challenged me as to why I didn't give up my belief in God, after making a telling point. I wasn't able to because I wasn't ready to do so - as I said at the time, "It's where I am at the moment".

Over time, however, my position shifted - if I remember correctly, whilst I was on a hiatus from the forum - and I eventually reached the point where I realised that I had no evidence for God's existence, other than what I'd been told by my parents. priests, the bible, etc.

For about three days I felt emotionally flat before "rescuing" myself - and my belief, to some extent - in thinking to myself that I didn't know one way or the other whether God existed or not - thus I could, at least, claim to be agnostic, with the possibility that a deity existed.

It took some more time to realise that being agnostic atheist was my actual position on this.

My philosophy of life simply shifted from theistic (code of ethics/morality based on deities) to atheistic (code of ethics/morality based on something other than deities) - in my case secular humanism.

At the time when I first came here, it was difficult having my "cherished beliefs", as Spar defined them, challenged - but I got through it.

You will too John.

Avoiding questions isn't a way to grow.

In your response in the other thread you mentioned a whole lot of possible explanations for life, the universe, and everything, and declared that you don't know which might be the explanation.

However, you must realise that they are not all simultaneously possible.

They basically fall into two categories - supernatural or natural. Either "God did it" or Nature has always existed in some shape or form.

This is why I asked you the above questions - to understand why you believe that a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation for biodiversity.

If you believe in a creator, you should be able to answer the questions I posed at the start of this thread to justify your belief in the existence of a deity.

It's alright if you don't change your mind - as long as you can justify it to yourself.

However, If you're not even willing to look at your beliefs in the mirror, as it were, then how can any conversation/discussion ensue?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,

A number of years ago, as I was losing my belief in God, I bought both Dawkin's The God Delusion, and Hitchen's Religion Poisons Everything. They sat on my bookcase for some time - because I couldn't bring myself to read them. They were almost like a weight on my mind, as well my bookshelf.

It was around this time that I came here - almost as a last chance to prove to myself that a God existed.

During one of my early exchanges, a member - I forget whom - challenged me as to why I didn't give up my belief in God, after making a telling point. I wasn't able to because I wasn't ready to do so - as I said at the time, "It's where I am at the moment".

Over time, however, my position shifted - if I remember correctly, whilst I was on a hiatus from the forum - and I eventually reached the point where I realised that I had no evidence for God's existence, other than what I'd been told by my parents. priests, the bible, etc.

For about three days I felt emotionally flat before "rescuing" myself - and my belief, to some extent - in thinking to myself that I didn't know one way or the other whether God existed or not - thus I could, at least, claim to be agnostic, with the possibility that a deity existed.

It took some more time to realise that being agnostic atheist was my actual position on this.

My philosophy of life simply shifted from theistic (code of ethics/morality based on deities) to atheistic (code of ethics/morality based on something other than deities) - in my case secular humanism.

At the time when I first came here, it was difficult having my "cherished beliefs", as Spar defined them, challenged - but I got through it.

You will too John.

Avoiding questions isn't a way to grow.

In your response in the other thread you mentioned a whole lot of possible explanations for life, the universe, and everything, and declared that you don't know which might be the explanation.

However, you must realise that they are not all simultaneously possible.

They basically fall into two categories - supernatural or natural. Either "God did it" or Nature has always existed in some shape or form.

This is why I asked you the above questions - to understand why you believe that a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation for biodiversity.

If you believe in a creator, you should be able to answer the questions I posed at the start of this thread to justify your belief in the existence of a deity.

It's alright if you don't change your mind - as long as you can justify it to yourself.

However, If you're not even willing to look at your beliefs in the mirror, as it were, then how can any conversation/discussion ensue?

Kindest regards,

James

Ok. Let's give you some background information

Growing up in the 70's my school did not teach evolution. We had the famous picture of the chimp leading up to human with all the alleged transitions along the way. That was my whole exposure to Evolution as a child.
When I went to college I studied criminology. No real exposure there either. Do to family commitments I did not finish that degree.
My family was not over religious growing up. Church was on Christmas and Easter, then not at all. Only in the last couple of years have I given any consideration to Evolution/naturalism vs creator/God/religion.
I know living organisms adapt and change to their environment. However, do not believe that single cell organisms became every other living thing. I think it's mathematically impossible for a scenario like a small land mammal became a whale. I don't think there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists lying to us. I think they believe it happened and are trying to prove it. I believe most of it is speculative.
As far as creator God. I don't know how to prove one exists scientifically, of course nobody else does either. If God is real he/she would be beyond space time and matter. Therefore man's science is not advanced enough to detect him.
Which God? Not sure. Maybe they are all built on a little bit of truth. I believe that the correct religious text, if correct, is yet to be written.
At the moment. I am not taking a stand either way. Maybe it a combination of both. Maybe thiestic evolution is correct. Or possibly God created living things with the ability to adapt to their environment built right in

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think it's mathematically impossible for a scenario like a small land mammal became a whale.

I'm not great at math, but can you present the numbers here which leads you to consider this 'mathematically impossible'?

I think they believe it happened and are trying to prove it. I believe most of it is speculative.

The value of science is that anything speculative is retained as speculation - to graduate to higher levels of confidence, evidence is not optional.

Don't you think it's far more likely that you just aren't familiar with the evidence rather than the hundreds of thousands of experts from nations all over the world, with different religions and creeds, all just happen to find the evidence for evolution overwhelming?

As far as creator God. I don't know how to prove one exists scientifically, of course nobody else does either. If God is real he/she would be beyond space time and matter. Therefore man's science is not advanced enough to detect him.

Then you have zero justification for postulating such an entity.

In just one sentence, you've gone from proposition A is supported by evidence but you reject it because some of it is speculative, to proposition B which you essentially say can only be speculative and can have no evidence, but yet you consider it at least as believable despite there being zero justification at all for the concept. This isn't rational, John.

At the moment. I am not taking a stand either way. Maybe it a combination of both.

Tacking on a god is a 5th wheel - evolutionary theory doesn't need to posit magical interference to account for the available evidence.

Or possibly God created living things with the ability to adapt to their environment built right in

So God set up a system that is predicated on suffering and death? Was this done absent concern or empathy for the creatures it so released?

What about cancer, viruses, flesh-eating bacteria, parasites etc.? Did God create them too with adaptation built in?

 

[JohnHeintz]

math

This one will have to be tommorrow. I'm not ignoring you. I just don't have time to do it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This one will have to be tommorrow. I'm not ignoring you. I just don't have time to do it.

Take your time - it's far from an easy claim to support.

The only instances I've ever seen of this claim were in Jehovah's Witness Watch Tower Society tracts, and they never amounted to more than just shoving one number next to another and declaring it 'impossible', and Creationist propaganda outlets which also seem enamoured of the 'throwing enough zeroes at it will impress everyone' school of thought.

 

[Deleted member 619]

David Berlinski is the ultimate mind behind most iterations of that particular incredulity.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'd like to keep this as the "super-naturalistic explanation thread", so I'll only deal with the relevant parts of your reply here, and deal with the rest in the other thread.

Ok. Let's give you some background information

Growing up in the 70's my school did not teach evolution. We had the famous picture of the chimp leading up to human with all the alleged transitions along the way. That was my whole exposure to Evolution as a child.
When I went to college I studied criminology. No real exposure there either. Do to family commitments I did not finish that degree.
My family was not over religious growing up. Church was on Christmas and Easter, then not at all. Only in the last couple of years have I given any consideration to Evolution/naturalism vs creator/God/religion.
I know living organisms adapt and change to their environment. However, do not believe that single cell organisms became every other living thing. I think it's mathematically impossible for a scenario like a small land mammal became a whale. I don't think there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists lying to us. I think they believe it happened and are trying to prove it. I believe most of it is speculative.

I'll deal with this in the other thread.

As far as creator God. I don't know how to prove one exists scientifically, of course nobody else does either. If God is real he/she would be beyond space time and matter. Therefore man's science is not advanced enough to detect him.
Which God? Not sure. Maybe they are all built on a little bit of truth. I believe that the correct religious text, if correct, is yet to be written.
At the moment. I am not taking a stand either way. Maybe it a combination of both. Maybe thiestic evolution is correct. Or possibly God created living things with the ability to adapt to their environment built right in

Mythic - religious -gods don't exist. Of this we can certain.

People create cultures. Religions are part of the tapestry of cultures. Deities are central to religions.

Rather than mythic god(s) creating Man, Man creates mythic god(s).

This leaves philosophical arguments for and against the existence of gods. The fact is those "for" are negated by those "against".

The various attempts to define "God's properties" - omni- this, that, and the other - fall apart because they are contradictory and render a incoherent definition.

Arguments are just words - they prove nothing in the absence of evidence.

At the end of the day, there is no evidence for any deity - whatever this or that believer may claim.

We can't disprove a deistic deity - because such a entity doesn't interact with Nature.

Though we can show that a theistic deity does not exist. The latter would be a interventionist deity - at least, in the sense of interacting with Nature. That should show up as energy effects that can't be explained by physics, and/or chemical reactions that can't be explained by chemistry.

We have yet to detect such.

If we eventually search through the whole universe without finding such evidence, then we can categorically say that a theistic deity does not exist

Does Nature allow for naturalistic deities? It's possible that such deities exist passing from one 'verse to the next in a multiverse - but they would be wholly bound by the laws of Nature. And we should find evidence of such, if they're here.

Kindest regards,

James.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,

I'd like to keep this as the "super-naturalistic explanation thread", so I'll only deal with the relevant parts of your reply here, and deal with the rest in the other thread.


I'll deal with this in the other thread.


Mythic - religious -gods don't exist. Of this we can certain.

People create cultures. Religions are part of the tapestry of cultures. Deities are central to religions.

Rather than mythic god(s) creating Man, Man creates mythic god(s).

This leaves philosophical arguments for and against the existence of gods. The fact is those "for" are negated by those "against".

The various attempts to define "God's properties" - omni- this, that, and the other - fall apart because they are contradictory and render a incoherent definition.

Arguments are just words - they prove nothing in the absence of evidence.

At the end of the day, there is no evidence for any deity - whatever this or that believer may claim.

We can't disprove a deistic deity - because such a entity doesn't interact with Nature.

Though we can show that a theistic deity does not exist. The latter would be a interventionist deity - at least, in the sense of interacting with Nature. That should show up as energy effects that can't be explained by physics, and/or chemical reactions that can't be explained by chemistry.

We have yet to detect such.

If we eventually search through the whole universe without finding such evidence, then we can categorically say that a theistic deity does not exist

Does Nature allow for naturalistic deities? It's possible that such deities exist passing from one 'verse to the next in a multiverse - but they would be wholly bound by the laws of Nature. And we should find evidence of such, if they're here.

Kindest regards,

James.

This is your opinion based on your worldview. Let me explain.
You say that "God power" , with lack of a better term, should be detectable as an energy signature. Why ? Because you say so ?
Do we say "don't need God to keep us on the planet. Gravity does that". Or do we say "God created gravity to keep us on the planet"
Remember. It's only natural if we think we understand it. If not. Then it's supernatural.

 

[JohnHeintz]

Take your time - it's far from an easy claim to support.

The only instances I've ever seen of this claim were in Jehovah's Witness Watch Tower Society tracts, and they never amounted to more than just shoving one number next to another and declaring it 'impossible', and Creationist propaganda outlets which also seem enamoured of the 'throwing enough zeroes at it will impress everyone' school of thought.

You need to make up your mind. One moment you are talking with me like normal. Next minute you're calling me a troll or telling me to "see my way out , twat". Though that's on the other thread
Having said that. The mathematical impossibility of universal common ancestry.
First off. It's not like some formula that you just out in the numbers and it goes "disproven... impossible".
It's more like taking the likelihood of the variables involved. Calculating the odds. Then determine the end result. It's the way I see it. And of course. I'm not claiming that I'm correct.
The way I see it. You start with any animal. Let's use Pakicetus and whale evolution ,as most people are familiar with it. Now. A mother Pakicetus has to give birth to offspring. We must determine how often a mutation that will be beneficial in the environment will happen in the offspring. I'm not sure if you could even give this part an exact number, but I think we agree it's rare. Then we must consider how many will survive to reproductive age. This again is where the odds are against. Let's say some make it.
Now , will the mutation be passed. The offspring of the survivors have a more likely chance of getting the other parent or either grandparents genes.
Let's say the one mutation makes it through some generations. Let's say it's the one that moves the nostrils back on the snout to start to become a blowhole. It would be barely noticeable from the parents. So why would this get selected? Why would it spread throughout an entire population ? Let's grant that it does.
Now we have to get more mutations to move the nostrils backwards more and more. The affected offspring must beat the odds of survival. They must beat the odds of passing it along. This has to happen over and over.
Now we have to consider the rest of the transition. Front legs to fins. Now this is a problem. I'm told that a reptile became a mammal bit a mammal can't return to a reptile.
So why can a fin become a limb. Then a limb CAN go back to a fin ?
But let's ignore that and say it can. We must consider front leg to fin, hind legs gone, hair gone, add blubber, become waterproof, increase 100's of percentage in body size and so many others.
So we now must consider how many mutations, how many survivals, how many genes passed .
Then we add in why did this lineage get so many mutations? Why was each step never suitable for its environment? Why in 50 million years do snakes change very little, but this one kept changing drastically all the time? Why did other land mammals living in the same environment not change ?
This is to give you a rough idea of how I started this. I still have to get home to show you the actual numbers so far. My memory isn't that great these days.