Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent


About Kevinb

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

594 profile views
  1. 6 days Creation

    Agreed totally. However.. we problem is now faith isn't pathway to truth. I'll say again as it gets ignored. What mechanism can we use to throw out all other supernatural claims and keep this one. Other faiths think their supernatural is true also and logical. The mechanism of a particular faith seems to be where someone might be born and so indoctrinated into... and when in history they happen to be born. Humanities supernatural claims prior to better understanding are all different and cultural. If faith based we're subject to believe them all unless you've a mechanism to falsify. They can't all be right. They could all be wrong.
  2. 6 days Creation

    Additionally...a God you can't prove or test for... what's the difference between a God you can't prove exists and a God that doesn't exist. On a claim... what should the default position be? Especially a claim of supernatural beings with breaking the laws of Nature and physics stuff.. wow big claim ... I'd need something pretty compelling. Can't prove it and real to me assertions isn't compelling.
  3. 6 days Creation

    There is no way too test or demonstrate God involvement or causation. This is why its not rational to assert supernatural claims in anything till you can. The default is not to believe until you've evidential warrant. The default isn't to start believing in supernatural stuff then go looking at evidence.
  4. 6 days Creation

    Rational and ID is science. Well it may be rational if you start by presupposing natural law defying supernatural stuff you can't prove... this is also why it's not science and won't ever be till you can demonstrate God involvement...in this...or anything. You don't get to start by asserting God.. you must demonstrate his causational links. Sorry you can't see this. Yes and to think that I must start by presupposing a God that can't be proven. Then I must pick a certain notion of a God... based upon where I happened to be born.. what religion I happened to be indoctrinated into and when in history I happened to be born. Mmm not too compelling for me.
  5. 6 days Creation

    Yes I saw that... he was subsequently cited on that... he said I should have said mock the belief not the person. This is what he did the whole paragraph but said them. I saw this in convo chat with krauss. It does. By what measure. Even the judge in the dover trial laughed at the intelligent design idea as science. All you have is analogy. This isn't science. This is why evolution is taught as science and creation isn't and never will be. Scientically demonstrate ID.. Seen bill maher interview ken ham..wow..boxed ham into he thinks scientists are sinners.
  6. 6 days Creation

    Highly respected evolutionary biologist... the field you'll see as the enemy as it contractions a presupposition bias you can't prove. Correction... he has said specifically to mock beliefs... not individual people. The same way people here I've seen mock Islam and Mormonism. He'll just do it to all religions. Also he's said many verses are beautifully written.. he reads them often. As well as Christian people aren't bad people and have done many good things.
  7. 6 days Creation

    I saw the Jesus part but you didn't explicitly say you thought it was a sin and still is one yourself... that's not dishonesty. Now you have more precisely clarrified your view... that's what I asked. Dawkins speaks more scientifically than biblical refuting. People like Matt dillahunty are likely more dangerous having exclusively studied it for 25 plus years. Just started watching the atheist experience last couple of weeks...interesting.
  8. Big Bang Debunked

    Half an eye thing is an old and tired statement. Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following: Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999). Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from. Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white. Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007). Humans themselves have far from perfect vision: Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.) Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees. Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish. Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees. Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies. Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996). The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range. The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision. Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not. The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above. The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003). Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes. Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other. If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of. Links: Bahar, Sonya, 2002. Evolution of the eye: Lessons from freshman physics and Richard Dawkins. The Biological Physicist 2(2): 2-5.http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf References: Fildes, Jonathan. 2007. Trials for 'bionic' eye implants.BBC News, 2/16/2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6368089.stm Gislén, A. et al., 2003. Superior underwater vision in a human population of sea gypsies. Current Biology 13: 833-836. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982203002902 See also Pilcher, Helen R., 2003. How to see shells on the sea floor,http://www.nature.com/nsu/030512/030512-14.html Kreimer, Georg, 1999. Reflective properties of different eyespot types in dinoflagellates. Protist 150: 311-323.http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/protist/content/issue3/Pro0021.pdf Wickelgren, Ingrid. 2006. A vision for the blind.Science 312: 1124-1126. Zimmer, Carl, 1996. The light at the bottom of the sea.Discover (Nov.): 62-66,71-73. Zorpette, Glenn, 2000. Looking for Madam Tetrachromat. Red Herring (4 Dec.),http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue86/mag-mutant-86.html (registration required) Unless you mean the eye is too complex to possibly evolve? This is the quintessential example of theargument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). photosensitive cell aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin pigment cells forming a small depression pigment cells forming a deeper depression the skin over the depression taking a lens shape muscles allowing the lens to adjust All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations. Links: Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html Ever seen the dover trial usa where the biologists debunk a bunk of irreducible complex arguements? Where Christians tried to stop evolution being taught? The bacterial flagellum most famously. In any case how do you demonstrate design and a designer demonstrably? Analogy...assertion... faith? You see that... can you demonstrate he did? In the universe big bang sense?
  9. 6 days Creation

    You kinda dodged? Do you think it a is sin? A leader of a main political party here in the uk said recently it was. Public backlash essentially forced him to resign. Not proving any point there..just out of interest. I see. It's still moral relativism though. However I agree with you he's certainly not loving. Have you heard dawkins description of God based upon his biblical texts? Cited in the God delusion. Many christains say he is loving of course.. God not dawkins☺ Absolutely agree but I wasn't talking about that. Studies of sheep for ex...some rams will not mate with females under any circumstances but readily do with males. Demostrated via a part of hypothalamus closer to female structure than male in males. Anyways probably sheep talk.
  10. 6 days Creation

    I see.. thanks for the view. Seems a bizarre thing for a God to impose on section of the humanity. A holy book sanctioning owning people as property but don't eat shellfish. Ah moral relativism hey. Not a great argument for a loving God. Is homosexuality a sin? If it is why but not subject to a stoning.. how do you know?As a non believer ... non of this is moral under and circumstances. Not homosexual myself but I've no issue. Homosexuality occurs outside of us in other species..its natural and nature..google homosexuality in sheep for example. God made gay sheep... why? Those who think homosexuality is a sin...sheep are sinners? They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses
  11. 6 days Creation

    No, it is rational believe with evidence. If I could prove God's existence, it would no longer be a case of belief. So it's a good thing and better to sit in a position to prefer a belief that you can't prove. Ever been in a jury? Yikes. Not all commandments given in the Bible are for all people, for all time. God gave Israel commandments, some of which were only for Israel and were not intended to be for all people. So later on its okay to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics? Has it been updated to say this...where? If not they still can't do this? But we're instructed to kill them right?
  12. Big Bang Debunked

    So rejecting the secular... what are the stars then? Any evidence to corroberate? Quick search kiwi in big bang evidence lead to this link. Not pasting pages here as volume is massive as you'll see. Hope it helps. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Incidentally if you think the big bang model is wrong. Doesnt ergo mean another is right. You still need to demonstrate evidence for some alternative or it's one big old arguement from incredulity and or ignorance fallacy.
  13. 6 days Creation

    I am not saying there defo is no God btw. Objectivity... not offended. It's only logical consistency that's needed? ..not enough..you must have evidence and God causation. This isn't demonstrated. You guys are Christian... every religious belief thinks they are right and have logical consistency. The brake discussion...i could just think it's wiring...cable..disks or pads or anything else but I'll not know the reason. It might seem logically consistent I think it's a brake cable but until I can demonstrate with evidence and cause it's not rational to assert the cause. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. This text sounds like day and night to me....prior to sun and stars text. If that's your view then your rational answer should be you have no explanation... you don't know...yet you assert a God did it. In your view gaps you perceive or issues with evolution.. big bang is just more work to be done.. more to learn.. that's a starting point.. adding another layer with God claims opens a whole load more issues on top that we can't even investigate. Evidence adds to theory...microwave background didn't have to be discovered it was a prediction that could have been falsified. If hubble had seen no red shift galaxies or opposite shift then that could have been a problem for big bang theory and could indicate a static universe. Adding religious claims onto explanation has never helped our progress or understanding for centuries of science... in fact it's hindered it...less so now as it's forced to receed or accept. Thankfully people aren't executed for heresy in 2017 as they were..maybe Islam most covered. I'm just not getting the rational on presupposing a God then looking at evidence. Then presupposing one in particular... based on what? Seems kinda obvious it's based on culture... where you were born and what religion you were born into... and where in humanities history till this point you happened to be born. You disregard all the others bar one...i just go one further.... until demonstration and causational links otherwise based upon where and when I happened to be born I could easily be accepting any of them. If you mean I'm arguing against Christianity...i see them all the same for reasons I've said.
  14. 6 days Creation

    That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims. To say you have evidence but not proof is contradictory.. the terms are essentially the same. Faith never happens in the absence of evidence. I have evidence for God's existence, but no proof. I don't ever claim to be able to "prove" anything. And again. What you have is observation and data then you assert God did it and does do things still but can't prove that as you've not demonstrated any mechanism or causation to God. I'll look again...ross the old earth creationist and supporter of the big bang as per creation site? Is his view supported in world astronomy and astrophysics? Beware of argument from authority fallacy. http://creation.mobi/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross Well the evidence for brake issue initially is the brake fail 1 time out of 10... then further evidence could be break pads... This is all demonstrable and causation can be shown. This is nothing like faith in a supernatural being that's not demonstrable and causation can't be shown.. kinda false analogy. Agreed. Doesn't mean they are true. Claims need to demonstrated to be true not asserted. Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes. If yes then you pick and choose what to take on board from the bible. What might the bible indicate what witches are? In terms of powers I mean? Do wiccans have powers too.. so this could be demonstrated as they are around in modern times? If no powers we're just killing a portion of the population coz the bible says? Is this moral? We're a bit off thread aren't we. Hope others don't mind a little latitude. I appreciate the discussion Shiloh. I've never really heard the case of God like this. Most others just try to pick holes in current scientific understanding and offer little else.
  15. 6 days Creation

    No, I have evidence. But I can tell that it would be a waste of time to present it, as you have already demonstrated that you will reject it out of hand any way. I simply have no evidence that you would accept. You've only said stuff like God seems more likely..universe is intelligent... there has been no demonstrable link to God.. faith yes. Faith needed in the absence of evidence. Do you mean you have something else? I'll gladly read if you post. I don't dismiss stuff out of hand before reading it. If I had evidence that my brakes were dodgy 9 times outta 10. That might be I hear noises when I applied the brake.. others in the car experienced this... seemingly the braking didn't slow me as before. This is demonstrable and we can look and find a causal link. Yes I'd take my car to the garage. I have confidence in people mending it..i can see the people working on it..i can see qualifications. If they mend my car and it stops failing in this way this increases my confidence in them. This is all demonstrated. It's not blind faith that I couldn't demonstrate. That's why I maintain its not the same faith as you indicate. I can experience my brakes failing...others can verify this...i can investigate a causal link like my brake pad wear for example being the cause of my brake issue. Also that this brake pad wear could be verified by others. Please demonstrate Enoch being 800 plus...please demonstrate virgin birth...please demonstrate God made the planets...please demonstrate any God involvement like i could demonstrate failing brake causation and confidence... not faith because it's demonstrable. Surely you see the difference. I'm sure what I've said on my car is the same thing you do and would agree on. I just conduct everything this way.. no doubt you do. You just have different criteria when it comes to our origins. No errors. Do you believe in witches? Thou say not suffer a witch to live. Don't eat shell fish. Don't wear 2 types of fabric. Anyways more on the thread... the bible creation story. Science supports Adam and eve..a talking snake? Please demonstrate this...Enochs age?