666...the Devils Moving Average

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
There you go again.

I have shown how Genesis "coincidentally" provides the exact sequence of the astronomical and archaeological record and provided good answers to all of axeman's objections (on p. 32) and yet you still flame Genesis as "nonsense". Is it too much to ask that you don't insult every Jew and Christian on the planet w/o at least providing some evidence for your accusations? Where is Genesis 1 incorrect if it is "nonsense" as you say?

No you have not shown that shoeshine, not at all....

How planets form is very well scientifically documented and Genesis does not fit with it.

The solar system is understood to have formed from the compression of gases causing super cosmic heating.

The Sun and the planets are said to have evolved from the remains of (an) exploded star(s)

Early solid celestial debris, small asteroids and meteorites impacted Earth, keeping it in an already molten state.

Heat caused by impact managed to keep the Earth in a molten state. The estimate is the Earth was 1000 degrees Celsius. If God was to create as in Genesis says he did he had to do it here.

BUT... the rate of cooling was slower than the rate of heating and Earth then got hotter stillover a period of around 1 billion years.

Hot enough to melt iron at 500 miles above the surface. The centre of the earth is estimated to be 5500°C today.Volcanos back this up at even the most superficial level. Iron melts at 1535°C.

There was NO atmosphere (no "Firmament"). There was NO water.

Sunrise to sunset was somewhere around 2 hours, Earth was rotating approx every 5 hours. There were no days as we know them now, NOR as the novelists who wrote Genesis knew them.

Iron is heavy, it sinks , displacing lighter elements known in 'astronomical and archaeological record' (scientific terms) as "planetary differentiation".

Gases then escaped to form an outer atmosphere and then the oceans. This all took a very, very, very, long time in human context.

There is no place for God to do a Genesis job to the Earth. This is not an insult to Jews or "Christians" as you assert. It is the best science available.

Science which explains why things are as they are. Some more info is missing yet on the biggest question, but my contention is that only scientific endeavor will find out what it is.

 

[axeman]

Shoeshine,

Another analogy for you to ponder.
I will attempt to point out something stu has
already said in simpler terms.


Imagine an earth far in the future
where the world population is 1 trillion people.

There is a GLOBAL lottery now, played once per year.

1 trillion joe smoes play the lottery and there is only ONE winner. All tickets are unique. No multiple winners.
Everyone is free to choose where and when they pick up their ticket.

The winner, knowing the immense odds against winning, comes up with the following logical proof.

The winner says: There are at least 50+ variables involved in my choosing this winning ticket. I had a huge number of liquor stores I COULD have gone to.
There were 365 days of the year I could have chosen to purchase this ticket (This lotto occurs once a year).
I could have been the 5th person in line at the lotto machine instead of the 3rd that day.
I could have gotten stuck in traffic which delayed me getting to the liquor store to be given the winning ticket.
And so on and so on...
If ANY of these variables are changed in the SLIGHTEST bit, I would have lost.

If we compute all the combinations of these immense number of variables, the probability that I followed the PRECISE combination that led to my winning is over 1 in 1,000,000,000 to the 50th power.

The calculated odds are so unimaginable, the only explaination is DIVINE intervention. And if there is DIVINE intervention, then there must be a god.

As stu already pointed out, the math
here in no way implies there is a god.


peace

axeman

 

[axeman]

And who is to judge what is a perfectly valid interpretation?

I think MINE is perfectly valid.
Yet it contradicts YOURS.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

... and that it is unfair to call it "nonsense" as long as there is a perfectly valid interpretation. "

 

[axeman]

" If some evolved 'function' can be 'selected' because it is 'better' (at ensuring survival) then I have trouble understanding how this can be called "natural", as both "selection" and "better" imply an intelligence and an end goal."

Better, and "selection" do NOT imply intelligence at all.

In this context, "better" simply means: A higher probability of existing in said environment.

In this context: "selection" simply means, the interaction between the entity and its environment, which causes the entity to either perish or continue existing.



"What sense does it make to say a particular function is 'selected' unless there is some intelligence there to make the selection? And how can something be "better" unless there is an ultimate purpose to be achieved?"


Already explained.

In my previous example, where we assumed I am a god, and snapped
my fingers and created a helium breathing alien
which IMMEDIATELY perished on earths surface by suffocating.....

What occurred? Selection!
He perished because he did not have
the attributes required to survive in
the given environment.

If a different alien is created, and WAS able to survive, then
we would say he was "better" suited to his environment and therefore survived.

In BOTH cases, NO intelligence was required at all.


peace

axeman

Quote from alfonso:

Have you considered the teleological implications of evolution?

I'm not sure how the naturalist assumption in "natural selection" gets squeezed in so easily. If some evolved 'function' can be 'selected' because it is 'better' (at ensuring survival) then I have trouble understanding how this can be called "natural", as both "selection" and "better" imply an intelligence and an end goal. What sense does it make to say a particular function is 'selected' unless there is some intelligence there to make the selection? And how can something be "better" unless there is an ultimate purpose to be achieved?

Left at that, I consider evolution to support intelligent design.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from stu:

No you have not shown that shoeshine, not at all....

How planets form is very well scientifically documented and Genesis does not fit with it.

The solar system is understood to have formed from the compression of gases causing super cosmic heating.

The Sun and the planets are said to have evolved from the remains of (an) exploded star(s)

Early solid celestial debris, small asteroids and meteorites impacted Earth, keeping it in an already molten state.

Heat caused by impact managed to keep the Earth in a molten state. The estimate is the Earth was 1000 degrees Celsius. If God was to create as in Genesis says he did he had to do it here.

BUT... the rate of cooling was slower than the rate of heating and Earth then got hotter stillover a period of around 1 billion years.

Hot enough to melt iron at 500 miles above the surface. The centre of the earth is estimated to be 5500°C today.Volcanos back this up at even the most superficial level. Iron melts at 1535°C.

There was NO atmosphere (no "Firmament"). There was NO water.

Sunrise to sunset was somewhere around 2 hours, Earth was rotating approx every 5 hours. There were no days as we know them now, NOR as the novelists who wrote Genesis knew them.

Iron is heavy, it sinks , displacing lighter elements known in 'astronomical and archaeological record' (scientific terms) as "planetary differentiation".

I don't disagree with you. What I wrote previously was that the Genesis clearly states that it is taking place after the water is there thus putting it in the correct sequence. Verse 2 clearly states the Spirit was already there with oceans formed, so I do not see the point of contention.

 

[Doubter]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990


I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
_______________________________________________

How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
________________________________________________

Hey, how can you atheist (evolutionists) who are so sure of themselves miss. According to you this money should be just laying on the table. Might even be easier than trading. However, if you can't collect the money how can you claim complete victory.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:

And who is to judge what is a perfectly valid interpretation?

I think MINE is perfectly valid.
Yet it contradicts YOURS.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

... and that it is unfair to call it "nonsense" as long as there is a perfectly valid interpretation. "

That's my point exactly.

 

[alfonso]

wow, I'm sweating now, you really "ripped" into it there!

Come on man, that was a pretty lame response and I think you know it. I've got to rush right now, but why don't you go and do some reading on it? This is one of the hottest disputes in evolution, and, seriously, it does get a lot more complex than the simplistic "explanation" you tried to give. Back later.



ps - Doubter, get a grip man. Not even diehard atheist evolutionists claim that evolution was the "only possible" way, just the most reasonable, based on the evidence.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:

Shoeshine,

Another analogy for you to ponder.
I will attempt to point out something stu has
already said in simpler terms.


Imagine an earth far in the future
where the world population is 1 trillion people.

There is a GLOBAL lottery now, played once per year.

1 trillion joe smoes play the lottery and there is only ONE winner. All tickets are unique. No multiple winners.
Everyone is free to choose where and when they pick up their ticket.

The winner, knowing the immense odds against winning, comes up with the following logical proof.

The winner says: There are at least 50+ variables involved in my choosing this winning ticket. I had a huge number of liquor stores I COULD have gone to.
There were 365 days of the year I could have chosen to purchase this ticket (This lotto occurs once a year).
I could have been the 5th person in line at the lotto machine instead of the 3rd that day.
I could have gotten stuck in traffic which delayed me getting to the liquor store to be given the winning ticket.
And so on and so on...
If ANY of these variables are changed in the SLIGHTEST bit, I would have lost.

If we compute all the combinations of these immense number of variables, the probability that I followed the PRECISE combination that led to my winning is over 1 in 1,000,000,000 to the 50th power.

The calculated odds are so unimaginable, the only explaination is DIVINE intervention. And if there is DIVINE intervention, then there must be a god.

As stu already pointed out, the math
here in no way implies there is a god.


peace

axeman

I conceded that point on p. 32. I admit that it's not a proof.

Again, we're at the point of my previous post:

"Here's my assessment of our seeming stalemate. We have all walked into a room and found a watch (yes, I'm going to the watchmaker example). I observe that it has many intricate moving parts none of which can be modified in even the slightest degree if the watch is going to continue running. I was astonished and want to meet the watchmaker. You on the other hand wonder if the watch could not have arrived there by some other more random, "inanimate" process.

I cannot of course prove to you that the watch was designed and fashioned by a watchmaker because I did not video tape the event. And so we are at a stalemate. But that is not too surprising to me because, after all, there is always an element of faith to religious belief."

We're stalemated. The universe looks designed but I cannot absolutely prove it.

My point is simply that not all theistic arguments can be dismissed as "silly" as many posters on et assume.

 

[axeman]

Lame response?

Is that the best you can do?

My response was perfectly valid, clear,
and invalidated your implications perfectly.


"Come on man, that was a pretty lame response and I think you know it. "

The above does not qualify as a rebuttal.

"..This is one of the hottest disputes in evolution..."

Just more evidence that you wish to derail this
into a debate on evolution.

I already clearly stated this is about intelligent design. STICK TO THE SUBJECT and
drop the diversions.


peace

axeman

Quote from alfonso:

wow, I'm sweating now, you really "ripped" into it there!

Come on man, that was a pretty lame response and I think you know it. I've got to rush right now, but why don't you go and do some reading on it? This is one of the hottest disputes in evolution, and, seriously, it does get a lot more complex than the simplistic "explanation" you tried to give. Back later.