Questions for creationists

[Jon Miller]

note in the arguments about creationism there is two main areas

creation of the universe, and creation of the earth and things on the earth

one seems to battle evolution (but there are ways it does not have to)

the other can coexist with physics and evolution easily, and actually might be required by physics (which I don't think it will be but the physics theories which explain the beggining without any creation aspect are highly hypothetical)

Jon Miller

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

You cannot prove absolute skepticism wrong, first, because it denies you the use of logic (in the case of Descartes), but also the use of a set of axioms. You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong).

Here is something I feel is only remotely relevent to this topic and Descartes. But relevant nonetheless.



What if there was cosmic significance in the fact that god is dog spelled backwards? Massacre and mascara are intriguingly similar Mr. DesCartes so what do you mean when you claim 'I drink therefor I am'?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

now would an observer would had all the knowledge and understanding of our most brilliant physicists at the moment of their birth beleive in a creator?

I think that answer to that is different, which would be some percentage either way

Jon Miller

Considering how many of our most brilliant physicists are agnostic or atheist I suspect the percentage of believers in a creator would be quite low.

Same for biologists.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Considering how many of our most brilliant physicists are agnostic or atheist I suspect the percentage of believers in a creator would be quite low.

Same for biologists.

overall sceintist who are atheists or agnostics are at the same level as it was in 1900, when it was stupid and highly illogical to be an atheist or an agnostic

currently, when it is somewhat reasonable (there is at least a reasonable alternative although it is highly hypothetical currently) to not beleive in a creator, a similar number of scientists are atheist/agnostic

in 1900 that field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics was biology where a little over 40% were agnostics/atheists

currently (or at least in 2000), physics was the field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics, once more at a little over 40%

this is not even a majority

overall percentage of scientists who were atheist/agnostic has be fairly quite a bit lower than that of the field with the largest percentage

and of those that beleive in god, almost all beleive in a creator

for example, among those that have come up with the theories that do not require a creator for the start of the universe there are many who beleive in God the creator, they jstu beleive that he chose to have the universe come into being in that fashion

Jon Miller

[Adalbertus]

What if there was cosmic significance in the fact that god is dog spelled backwards? Massacre and mascara are intriguingly similar

Sorry, I probably don't see your point here. Moreover, I'm German and Gott isn't Hund spelled backwards and Massaker is only remotely similar to Maske.
Do you want to replace logic by those things? I think this doesn't work because you are simply stating facts and are posing questions. There is no logic or its possible replacement involved.

Mr. DesCartes so what do you mean when you claim 'I drink therefor I am'?

Maybe he first would deny you to have any knowledge that you are really drinking. But as you think you're drinking, you are again in the same argument.

About the two different reports on creation: As we've heard in catholic religious education there were two different reports of creation, which simply have been merged into what is now Genesis. On another occasion (I think it was the crossing of the Red Sea), there seems to be evidence that the two versions were merged sentence by sentence.

What you have to keep in mind with the Bible even if you believe in the Bible as the direct Word of God, is that He spake to men in their time. There was no way to tell Moses about a big bang or evolution or genetics. Moses wouldn't have understood or worse, he would have misunderstood. And I personally understand the bible (Old Testament) for a great part as the collection of experiences of highly religious people with God. For a soldier, God is the highest General. For a lawyer or judge the source of all laws (at least the good ones ). For Einstein the one who created all the riddles for physicists. For the philosopher the source of all wisdom. For a football player the one who grants the spectacular goals. To continue ...
That's why the Bible offers such a wealth of different views that are more than once contradictory.

[Ethelred]

Sorry, I probably don't see your point here. Moreover, I'm German and Gott isn't Hund spelled backwards and Massaker is only remotely similar to Maske.

I see. German. A nation not noted for humor. At least by Americans and Brits.

I am half german. But I am also Irish and Irish-Americans make up a larger percentage of American comedians.

Jokes based on quirks of language travel poorly anyway. The point was the similarity of the words. For some reason people ocassionaly find deep significance in the fact that GOD is the mirror of DOG.

I think this doesn't work because you are simply stating facts and are posing questions.

Neither. I am making a funny. If I explain it anymore even the people that understood the jokes will get bored.

But as you think you're drinking, you are again in the same argument.

Even if I was drinking I actually wrote that a long time ago for a different discussion on creationism.

I think it was in this one.

http://forums.prospero.com/maxcommport/messages?msg=21562.1

There are six thousands posts in it so don't bother trying to read it. Over there I am either ETHLRED or Ethelred(hardrede).

For some reason I don't like drinking anything alcholic. Nothing moral I just find that evey time I try I want a Coka Cola. So I gave up trying.

What you have to keep in mind with the Bible even if you believe in the Bible as the direct Word of God, is that He spake to men in their time.

What I keep in mind is that it is men that say god had anything to do with the Bible.

There was no way to tell Moses about a big bang or evolution or genetics. Moses wouldn't have understood or worse, he would have misunderstood.

Well he got it wrong however he got it.

For a lawyer or judge the source of all laws (at least the good ones ).

Not in the US. Here those are the ones to watch out for.

For Einstein the one who created all the riddles for physicists.

Einstein used the word god but he wasn't religous. He used god like I would use nature.

[Jack_www]

Just wanted to post this quote form British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. He has done a lot of work of theories dealing with life coming to earth form space. This was a lecture he gave at the California Institute Of Technology.

"The big problem in bology isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protien consists of a certain chain of amino acids linked togather in a certain way, but that the explixit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkble properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links ans that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible it the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? . . . Rather than accept the fantastically small probablity of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the orgin of life was a deliberate Intellectual act."

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
overall sceintist who are atheists or agnostics are at the same level as it was in 1900, when it was stupid and highly illogical to be an atheist or an agnostic

Was that from the article in the 1999 Scientific American? US edition? The first study in that was in 1914.

currently, when it is somewhat reasonable (there is at least a reasonable alternative although it is highly hypothetical currently) to not beleive in a creator, a similar number of scientists are atheist/agnostic

Yes quite similar. However ....

in 1900 that field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics was biology where a little over 40% were agnostics/atheists

However NOT 40% agnostic/atheist. Only 40% believed in god.

Not exactly the same thing.

currently (or at least in 2000), physics was the field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics, once more at a little over 40%

this is not even a majority

Yeah the number is right again but you have backwards again. 40 percent believe in god. Not even a majority. I have the issue in my lap.

overall percentage of scientists who were atheist/agnostic has be fairly quite a bit lower than that of the field with the largest percentage

and of those that beleive in god, almost all beleive in a creator

for example, among those that have come up with the theories that do not require a creator for the start of the universe there are many who beleive in God the creator, they jstu beleive that he chose to have the universe come into being in that fashion

Jon Miller

I am curious where you got those numbers from? What country? It sure isn't the US.

Now for scientists you were talking about the elite scientists. In the US the National Academy of Sciences would make a good sample of them. Overall they are 90% unbelievers. The biologists are 95% atheists/agnostics.

So then, I stick with what I said. Most American Scientists are unbelievers and the amongst the top scientists believers are rather rare.

[Adalbertus]

I see. German. A nation not noted for humor. At least by Americans and Brits.

Strange sort of humour you have...

But I am also Irish and Irish-Americans make up a larger percentage of American comedians.

Should that be the reason why American humour always appears so dim-witted?

[Jack_www]

When I look around my house everything it is made and designed by someone. It did not come about be chance. Even the earliest of computers had a human behind it, and every advancement that has come along that make the computers we use today.
I am not saying that humans will not be able to one day make AI a realty, but it will take a human to create it. It would not have come about on its own. But we are far, far, far away form making anything that resembles that. Yet our brain is just a result of blind series of accendents. I cannot get past this one point, car needs a maker, computers need a maker, a jet aircraft needs a maker. These things will never arise on there own. Life, which is the greatest mistory of all, does not need a maker? To me it seems very logical to assume that life also needs a maker. With out it would not exist.

Oh yes I did not make up any stats. Also there many scientist who do believe that life had a intelligent maker behind it, and they are not creationist etheir.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Just wanted to post this quote form British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. He has done a lot of work of theories dealing with life coming to earth form space. This was a lecture he gave at the California Institute Of Technology.

Sir Freddy died last year I am sorry to say.

Did you know that Hoyle believed that life came to Earth from other planets?

He created the term Big Bang to ridicule the theory.

He was however a good astronomer and he did very important work on the evolution of matter in stars. I think he deservered a Nobel for his work on that.

Very few people agree with Hoyles thoughts on the beginning of life on Earth. You wouln't like it either. I have some of his science fiction books from the 1950's. One has an inteligent intersteller cloud. The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle.

Link on Hoyle.

http://members.tripod.com/~gwillick/hoyle.html

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Was that from the article in the 1999 Scientific American? US edition? The first study in that was in 1914.



Yes quite similar. However ....



However NOT 40% agnostic/atheist. Only 40% believed in god.

Not exactly the same thing.




Yeah the number is right again but you have backwards again. 40 percent believe in god. Not even a majority. I have the issue in my lap.



I am curious where you got those numbers from? What country? It sure isn't the US.

Now for scientists you were talking about the elite scientists. In the US the National Academy of Sciences would make a good sample of them. Overall they are 90% unbelievers. The biologists are 95% atheists/agnostics.

So then, I stick with what I said. Most American Scientists are unbelievers and the amongst the top scientists believers are rather rare.

I will try to find were it was from

and yah, the atheists/agnostics made similiar percents and were not the majority (the majority was religious)

and the best scentists I have not seen to be atheists/agnostics

Jon Miller

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Strange sort of humour you have...

Should that be the reason why American humour always appears so dim-witted?

More like the reason for the brilliant wit of the ones with real talent. I have no idea what produces the sludge on sit-coms. Some sort of invertebrate perhaps.

Me, I like Brittish humour. Joh Miller's signature is a quote from one of my favorites Monty Python.

His name is similar to another great Brittish comedian, Dr. Jonathon Miller who was a member of Beyond the Fringe.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
When I look around my house everything it is made and designed by someone. It did not come about be chance.

Neither did you occur by mere chance. You evolved.

snip. I will get to that last.

Oh yes I did not make up any stats. Also there many scientist who do believe that life had a intelligent maker behind it, and they are not creationist etheir.

There are very few. They are ALL creationists. SOME are not fundamentalists. Anyone that believes in inteligent design is a creationist of some sort. Nearly everything you have posted came straight from Fundamentalist christians and not from other types of creationists.

I know perfectly well you didn't make up the numbers. I knew where they came from initially. Fundamentlists. Profesional obfuscators who carefully fail to say where THEY got the numbers they use. I was only curious about the specific site you were raiding. I most likely have it in my favorites allready.

Yet our brain is just a result of blind series of accendents. I cannot get past this one point, car needs a maker, computers need a maker, a jet aircraft needs a maker. These things will never arise on there own. Life, which is the greatest mistory of all, does not need a maker?

Again with the blind accidents. Selection is NOT blind. That which does work is selected out. That which helps is retained and then reinforced by later successful changes the are retained. None of it arose on its own. It all came from adaptation to the environment.

Cars and computers are BUILT not grown for purpose that fits a human need. We did not evolve to be what we are. We evolved to survive. It is not a accident because we are what survived. Failures are extinct. That we are inteligent is an accident only in that there was no purpose to our gaining inteligence EXCEPT that it enhanced our ability to survive. Brains are expensive thats why most animals didn't go that way. Now that we have brains there is no room on earth for another inteligent animal unless it is underwater.

I recommend that you try reading something about how evolution works instead just reading attempts to refute it as you seem to have been doing. I strongly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I also reccomend The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagans book is a bit old now but it is still an excellent book. Dawkins book has been updated at least once since I read it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I will try to find were it was from

and yah, the atheists/agnostics made similiar percents and were not the majority (the majority was religious)

and the best scentists I have not seen to be atheists/agnostics

Jon Miller

Well in that one the agnostic/atheists were majority. The best scientists I have seen are aetheists or agnostics. They just don't talk about it much.

Here is a link to the summary on the SA site. Unfortunatly its only a teaser with no information.

http://www.sciam.com/1999/0999issue/0999quicksummary.html

OK I found a site with some of the stuff in the article including the results in a table something that was missing in the SA:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm