Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

Both of you are wrong.

One Brow:

Thank you for your correction. It's nice to have an expert weigh in from time to time.

 

[One Brow]

And, from what I've seen of OB hereabouts, he would be just that persistent in his stand.

I think PearlWatson believes in the sort of hell put forward by Baptists, where there is no redemption after death. In a hell that allows for redemption, I would accept redemption if I thought it were handled morally.

 

[PearlWatson]

Again, by any testable definition of information, it also leads to gains.
I've seen actual books with accidentally repeated pages or paragraphs.

I've said all along that it leads to more information not new.

yeah, it ain't a random new page or paragraph. It is an accidentally repeated already existing page or paragraph.

 

[PearlWatson]

PearlWatson: duplication does not always lend itself to information loss. Also, your definition of recombination is narrow-scoped, and inaccurate.

Duplication does not always lend itself to information loss, but it never lends itself to gain of new information

I took my information from a genetics professor. My simplification was for debate purposes.

I read about translocation before you mentioned it. It seems like that would be comparable to an out of order page in the copy of the book.

Edit: clarified gain of new information

 

[MVP]

. I'd say that is the glorious way to live, no matter what. The atheist has simply chosen to die before dreaming. . . . .

So living in delusional dream world is better than in reality? Maybe, maybe.... I think it is matter of choice at the end and whatever makes you happy I guess. People in Scandinavian countries are least religious in the World yet always win in " happiest country " ratings. Just proves that you do not need God's delusion for happiness.

 

[PearlWatson]

It's nice to have an expert weigh in from time to time.

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[PearlWatson]

Since nobody knows for sure why would I be concerned? And how can it be worse than fertilizing the Earth?

Which is worse, pain or no pain?

 

[MVP]

The interpretation, of these things as "atavistic" to fit the Darwin ideology, is often quite silly.

A dolphin with extra flippers is supposed to prove they once had legs? Why not the obvious logic that ancestral Dolphins had more flippers?

A child with extra flesh on their backs, not at the midline and with no tail structure, is supposed to prove we once had a monkey tail? Most of these abnormalities look like an extra penis. There are some of these "tails" near the top of the spine, at the base of the neck, as well. These are nothing more than developmental abnormalities.

A lump with a five inch bone on the side of a 62 foot whale is supposed to be a "leg?" Silliness.

The strips of bone within whales are supposed to have been the pelvic structure for walking on land but they ain't even attached to the vertebral column. They serve a sexual function, and are different in males and females.

You ain't following logic or reason. You are faithfully following a godless myth.

Research more about atavistic tails in humans, some of them have extra vertebrae and are indeed true tails.
Not sure what 5 inch lump you talking about the whale but I am questioning your memory now as I posted large well developed hind limb bones which were removed from whale before in evolution discussion. "In July 1919, a female Humpback Whale with two remarkable protrusions on the ventral side of the body, posteriorly, was captured by a ship operating from the whaling station at Kyuquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia [Canada]. One of the protrusions was cut off by the crew of the vessel but the other was photographed in situ by the superintendent of the Station. Mr. Sidney Ruck and Mr. Lawson, officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company, appreciated the importance of the discovery and presented the skeletal remains of the attachment to the Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. At the request of Roy Chapman Andrews, the skeletal remains, which consisted of two bones and two heavy cartilages, were sent from Canada to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The specimen as found had elementary legs protruding from the body about four feet, two inches, covered with blubber about one-half inch thick. Andrews identified the bones as tibia and metatarsal, the cartilages as femur and tarsus, and published his findings:
After studying the material and discussing it with various scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the protrusions actually do represent vestigial hind limbs and show a remarkable reversion to the primitive quadrupedal condition".

"Please post "creationist explanation" about sexual function of hind limb remnants in whales, I would like to read it".

 

[PearlWatson]

So living in delusional dream world is better than in reality? Maybe, maybe.... I think it is matter of choice at the end and whatever makes you happy I guess. People in Scandinavian countries are least religious in the World yet always win in " happiest country " ratings. Just proves that you do not need God's delusion for happiness.

It is about having a connection to something bigger than yourself. It brings peace and comfort during hardship. It ain't about constant "happiness" but the redemptive qualities of faith.

 

[MVP]

Which is worse, pain or no pain?

Why would I worry about mythical pain or suffering in mythical hell?

 

[PearlWatson]

Not sure what 5 inch lump you talking about the whale but I am questioning your memory now as I posted large well developed hind limb bones which were removed from whale before in evolution discussion. "In July 1919, a female Humpback Whale with two remarkable protrusions on the ventral side of the body, posteriorly, was captured by a ship operating from the whaling station at Kyuquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia [Canada]. One of the protrusions was cut off by the crew of the vessel but the other was photographed in situ by the superintendent of the Station. Mr. Sidney Ruck and Mr. Lawson, officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company, appreciated the importance of the discovery and presented the skeletal remains of the attachment to the Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. At the request of Roy Chapman Andrews, the skeletal remains, which consisted of two bones and two heavy cartilages, were sent from Canada to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The specimen as found had elementary legs protruding from the body about four feet, two inches, covered with blubber about one-half inch thick. Andrews identified the bones as tibia and metatarsal, the cartilages as femur and tarsus, and published his findings:
After studying the material and discussing it with various scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the protrusions actually do represent vestigial hind limbs and show a remarkable reversion to the primitive quadrupedal condition".

"Please post "creationist explanation" about sexual function of hind limb remnants in whales, I would like to read it".

Darwinian myth. Hasn't been substantiated.

Where is the picture?

 

[MVP]

It brings peace and comfort during hardship.

Yeah I get it. For some piece and comfort is brought by drugs, for some by having millions in bank account, for some by creating music or sculpture, for some seeing their team win championship. Lots of lots of ways of getting it.
Religion is opium for masses at the end of the day. I am very happy without it though.

 

[MVP]

Darwinian myth. Hasn't been substantiated.

Where is the picture?

Oh give me a break it was posted inn Evolution thread, do I need to go back and repost it just for you?

 

[PearlWatson]

Why would I worry about mythical pain or suffering in mythical hell?

Of course you ain't worried about something you don't believe in, but you asked how "hell" could be worse than simply "not existing" and I answered that question.

 

[PearlWatson]

Oh give me a break it was posted inn Evolution thread, do I need to go back and repost it just for you?

The picture of the whale legs was posted?

 

[MVP]

[/IMG]

 

[PearlWatson]

Yeah I get it. For some piece and comfort is brought by drugs, for some by having millions in bank account, for some by creating music or sculpture, for some seeing their team win championship. Lots of lots of ways of getting it.
Religion is opium for masses at the end of the day. I am very happy without it though.

lol. Jazz fanzz ain't ever going to experience such "peace and comfort."

Religion provides social order; a way to pass on shared morals.
God is the one who provides peace and comfort.

 

[PearlWatson]

Which part of the blury image is the legs?

What are a, b, and c supposed to be?

 

[babe]

It is about having a connection to something bigger than yourself. It brings peace and comfort during hardship. It ain't about constant "happiness" but the redemptive qualities of faith.

"none so blind as they who will not see" comes to mind. I guess unbelievers and believers can both throw out the charge of "delusion" with no effect.

A lot of the unbelievers in God don't believe in true love. . . either. . . . and wouldn't know how to go about it. Otoh, a lot of professing "believers" are more in love with "belonging to the flock" than in the shepherd. Just like most sheep. I conclude it's not a worthy debate when it's about who thinks what, or why. That's just another meaningless posturing status chase, a 'Tis so/'Tain't so. It's only interesting to me if it's a discussion of reasons/beliefs.

God is as real to me as any other fact of existing things. I say that with a definite idea of who and what I think God is, and I could make the case of how I "know" it. But I am not God, and nobody can show another person what God is. A few people strike me as pretty good examples of some of the characteristics I "see" as "God", and encourage me in my belief. Scientists have chosen a particular format for proof, and that format requires certain characteristic evidences, including physical/spatial demonstrability and coherence with various lines of examination. That God does not conform to our rules is not disproof of existence.

The way I see it, God goes to considerable effort to just not be so overbearing that reasonable or even principled people cannot be free to choose their path in relation to Him. It looks to me sorta like the cowboy who tries to win the love of a fine free-ranging stallion (or mare), and just doesn't believe in putting it in a corral, intellectually-speaking. You can follow God if you choose to, better still if you love Him, but it's your choice.

Strikes me as AKMVP got a dose of the, well, let's say, poorer kind of religious persuasion. Maybe somebody tried to beat religion into him or something, maybe some less articulate advocates of some organized religion used some of the wrong kinds of persuasions. In that context, maybe he's right to establish his thinking on a rational basis of his own choosing. Nobody can really "find God" until they at least have their own autonomy as a human being. God is repulsed by methods of coercion. Whatever the case, God will wait until he's ready to address the Real Issue, in his own way.

 

[PearlWatson]

"none so blind as they who will not see" comes to mind. I guess unbelievers and believers can both throw out the charge of "delusion" with no effect.

A lot of the unbelievers in God don't believe in true love. . . either. . . . and wouldn't know how to go about it. Otoh, a lost of professing "believers" are more in love with "belonging to the flock" than in the shepherd. Just like most sheep. I conclude it's not a worthy debate when it's about who thinks what, or why. That's just another meaningless posturing status chase, a 'Tis so/'Tain't so. It's only interesting to me if it's a discussion of reasons/beliefs.

God is as real to me as any other fact of existing things. I say that with a definite idea of who and what I think God is, and I could make the case of how I "know" it. But I am not God, and nobody can show another person what God is. A few people strike me as pretty good examples of some of the characteristics I "see" as "God", and encourage me in my belief. Scientists have chosen a particular format for proof, and that format requires certain characteristic evidences, including physical/spatial demonstrability and coherence with various lines of examination. That God does not conform to our rules is not disproof of existence.

The way I see it, God goes to considerable effort to just not be so overbearing that reasonable or even principled people cannot be free to choose their path in relation to Him. It looks to me sorta like the cowboy who tries to win the love of a fine free-ranging stallion (or mare), and just doesn't believe in putting it in a corral, intellectually-speaking. You can follow God if you choose to, better still if you love Him, but it's your choice.

Strikes me as AKMVP got a dose of the, well, let's say, poorer kind of religious persuasion. Maybe somebody tried to beat religion into him or something, maybe some less articulate advocates of some organized religion used some of the wrong kinds of persuasions. In that context, maybe he's right to establish his thinking on a rational basis of his own choosing. Nobody can really "find God" until they at least have their own autonomy as a human being. God is repulsed by methods of coercion. Whatever the case, God will wait until he's ready to address the Real Issue, in his own way.

Well he said he would rather fish than attend church, so religion was just an inconvenience to him.
It's the same for most people who reject it. They never discover the redemptive qualities of it.