Can God love? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

The problem we have is that we can only think in our limited terms , we do not know of any process that covers the universe but if we did it would be just as simple as us explaining to a child how a toy was made etc

Depends on how much education you have, how bright you are and whether or not you are willing to learn things that are outside your comfort zone in the search for the truth. The universe and all that is in it is a complex place.

All the atoms that make up you were created in the stars. We are stardust, poly.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

Nurse............he has got out again.

polyglide wrote:There is no proof how large the universe is but we know there must be an answer as there must be to other similar matters.

There is an accepted manner in which we put forward certain matters and the fact that thousands of people believe in God and the odd ones do not, gives those that do the right to say prove that God does not exist, just as they are right to ask the evolutionists top prove their claims etc;

I know, I know, it is realy hard to understand, do not ask, Dr Sheldon to explain he is as far off the mark as you.

There's tangible evidence for evolution. Therein lies the key difference. That's not even getting into the debate about whether or not God exists or whatever, it's just to demonstrate that the two are not comparable in the way you infer. Incidentally, I note you keep making claims about having knowledge regarding the theory of evolution and you mention the gaps in it which, according to you, prove it is not viable, but you never back these statements up.

Call the police and ambulance Tosh,make sure they have a straight jacket with them.  

polyglide wrote:There is an accepted manner in which we put forward certain matters and the fact that thousands of people believe in God and the odd ones do not, gives those that do the right to say prove that God does not exist, just as they are right to ask the evolutionists top prove their claims etc;

That's called the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. The number of people who believe in something has no bearing on how true it is.

It's like the somewhat famous statistic that 80% of people believe they are above average in intelligence.

Or think of it this way: If millions of people in the Roman Empire believed in Zeus, would that not make him real?

Does that also mean that God didn't exist before Judaism was founded? Does it mean that Jesus was mortal until Christianity became popular?

Using this fallacy is to suggest that mere belief causes things to exist, that the sun really did revolve around the earth (since the vast majority believed in this) until someone proved that it didn't.

Which is quite absurd.

There is no proof whatsoever that one species has become a seperate species.

A species can evolve within it's class but not become something else.

I ask again if you are certain that evolution produced a butterfly then explain just how the life cycle evolved step by step.

I say I know how to build a house and can say how from the ground works through to topping out, you say evolution produced the butterfly do the same.

There is no proof whatsoever that one species has become a seperate species.

Yes dear, of course dear, you know best, all the highly educated people with minds trained to reason are wrong and you with your primary school diploma are right. Science is not allowed to conclude from all the evidence that common ancestry is true, how dare they contradict your unsupported opinion, who do they think they are?

You have a major malfunction my friend, it is commonly known as stupidity.

polyglide wrote:There is no proof whatsoever that one species has become a seperate species.

There's no proof that one god (Yehweh) became a separate god (Jesus) but hey, you believe in it anyway.

polyglide wrote:A species can evolve within it's class but not become something else.

So if a duck and a giraffe are both in the same algebra class, they can evolve into a giraduck. But if the giraffe is in algebra and the duck is in trigonometery, they cannot evolve.  

polyglide wrote:I ask again if you are certain that evolution produced a butterfly then explain just how the life cycle evolved step by step.

And I'll tell you again to go look it up. If you're serious about knowing these things and aren't just trying to bait us into wasting hours of our time typing out long explanations regarding evolution just so you can say, "Nuh uh, god did it," then you would want this information from an actual scientist* and not a random forum poster.

*This does not include creation scientists with mail-order degrees from Evangelicalville University.

polyglide wrote:I say I know how to build a house and can say how from the ground works through to topping out

I have no idea how to build a house. The difference between you and I, however, is that I wouldn't sit here telling you how you're building it incorrectly. I wouldn't try to tell you how MY beliefs on how a house should be built are better than yours - especially if I really don't understand home construction. I certainly wouldn't go to the best home builders in the world and tell them how wrong or inaccurate they are because a "magic" book from the Bronze Age knows better than they do. I wouldn't waste their time trying to use this book - which might give instructions on how to build a sod-brick house - to tell structural engineers and city planners how to build a 300-story skyscraper.

And that's what you do when you bring the Bible to a discussion about evolution. You have the temerity and the audacity to tell the best minds on the planet how wrong they are because of your magic Bronze Age book, a book that doesn't know squat about the modern era yet you strangely think it still applies - especially the bits that talk about talking snakes, virgin births, burning bushes, man-swallowing fish, an ark with 200 million animals in it, parting seas, resurrections, fishes and loaves, and the rest of those unsubstantiated claims witnessed by primitives who couldn't even tell you why it rains much less anything about evolution.

Oddly enough, you always brush aside the Old Testament when someone uses it against you. Yeah, nothing before Jesus really matters, right? Isn't that what you always say?

But if you really mean what you say, then why do you cling to the creation story in Genesis so strongly - strongly enough to doubt what everyone else in the civilized world has come to accept as fact?

You wouldn't happen to be cherry picking again ... would you?

Sometimes Shirina your posts are very very hard to follow, especially for a poor simple chap like myself. The one bit that I do agree with though and that is the fact that polyglide is doing the usual bit of cherry picking, and trying to look clever by using the thesaurus to put some big words out.  

I do occasionally throw in some American slang - might be one reason why you find my posts a bit hard to follow.

That maybe one reason Shirina, the other is that they are long and I have to read them a few times.  

Hi Heretic, well I apologised to spin, couldn't remember why I was apologising.  took him a while to accept it then accused me of insulting him again.  but some posters stuck up for me this time. I am pretty sure that he is an alcoholic,and has problems at his home because of it.

Many thanks Heretic, I'm taking all on board what you say.

The biologist Kirk J Fitzhugh :-

In the strictest sense evolution cannot be regarded as fact even in the context of hypotheses since the casual points of reference continue to be organisms and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts.

Natural selection is also a none event, anyone who has bred animals for 70 years or more will confirm any mutation will not susvive to breed it's like.

The survival of the fittest:-

Put a number of families of all the animal species on an island that has everything necessary for their survival and put the same number of nude humans on the island with nothing but themselves and see how long they last.

polyglide wrote:The biologist Kirk J Fitzhugh :-

In the strictest sense evolution cannot be regarded as fact even in the context of hypotheses since the casual points of reference continue to be organisms and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts.

Where's that quote taken from and what is the context?

Certainly not from Kirk.F.Fitzhugh Dan, as he would have posted an answer by now, and he has gone pretty quiet has he not.

polyglide wrote:
Put a number of families of all the animal species on an island that has everything necessary for their survival and put the same number of nude humans on the island with nothing but themselves and see how long they last.

'All the animal species' would include humans.
'All the animal species' would include fish (freshwater and seawater).

Forget humans. How long do you think something like the dodo would last? Everything necessary for their survival would include a lack of predators - how would that work?

stuart torr wrote:Certainly not from Kirk.F.Fitzhugh Dan, as he would have posted an answer by now, and he has gone pretty quiet has he not.

Well Stu, since no answer was forthcoming, I did a little research of my own. It turns that Kirk Fitzhugh is an evolutionary biologist. The quote is taken from this research paper (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/EvSy/PDF/Fitzhugh%202007%20-%20Zoologica%20Scripta.pdf) and it appears on Wikipedia. To give it some proper context, he actually wrote:

'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations...One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of 'evolution' as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses...In the strictest sense then, 'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty.

So, unsurprisingly, PG has completely missed the point of what was being argued, i.e. that it is unscientific to regard a theory or set of theories as immovable 'facts'. It is most categorically not an argument against evolution as a theory (or set of theories).

  

I stated all animals needs would be catered for and humans would be the first to become extinct.

It is generally accepted that humans are not animals, that is by the intelligent who realise the vast difference between the two.

Quote mining from scientists by taking what they say out of context is a very popular form of deception creationists and Christian apologists often use to muddy the waters.

One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists". It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published.

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored".

In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent.

The Quote Mine Project

I doubt polyglide realized he was quote mining and instead was quoting someone else who was quote mining.

Shirina wrote:

I doubt polyglide realized he was quote mining and instead was quoting someone else who was quote mining.

Yep.   

I was not quoting anyone, I leave that to those who are unable to think for themselves.

I pointed out that there is every possibility that there are numerous other relative facts between the coal and the surface, I know that is hard to understand but please get someone to expalin.

  

Keep to left hand side one Stu, better keep your mouth shut than attempt humour and fail so miserably.

      

polyglide wrote:It is generally accepted that humans are not animals, that is by the intelligent who realise the vast difference between the two.

This guy has to be a troll, surely? Even wilful ignorance can't maintain this level of stupidity.

It is generally accepted that humans are not animals,that is by the intelligent who realise the vast difference between the two.

Without quoting anyone, please explain the vast difference between the two?

polyglide wrote:I was not quoting anyone, I leave that to those who are unable to think for themselves.

I pointed out that there is every possibility that there are numerous other relative facts between the coal and the surface, I know that is hard to understand but please get someone to expalin.

But you quoted Kirk J Fitzhugh
Also, I have another question for you - since you seem to think that all living things were designed by an almighty deity - why do you think it is that the vast majority of species that have lived have subsequently gone on to become extinct?

Personally Dan I should think that evolution had one big part to play, plus also the rising temprature of earth itself. As a lot of these creatures were cold blooded creatures were they not.?

stuart torr wrote:Personally Dan I should think that evolution had one big part to play, plus also the rising temprature of earth itself. As a lot of these creatures were cold blooded creatures were they not.?

Well cold-blooded creatures need warmth, Stu
But you're on the right track since environmental changes could have often led to a previously successful species dying out. For example the warming of what is now Australia would have drastically changed the habitat as it changed from being covered in forests to the much more arid landscape we see today. Creatures adapted to the former would, therefore, have suffered as a result of this change.

Thanks Dan, nice to know that at least I was on the right track, the old half brain still works a bit.   

Every living thing was designed for a purpose, when that purpose was accomplished it had served it's purpose and was no longer needed.

polyglide wrote:Every living thing was designed for a purpose, when that purpose was accomplished it had served it's purpose and was no longer needed.

What about creatures that have died out as a result of humans? Does this mean god created humans with the purpose of making certain species extinct? What do think god's beef was with the Tasmanian Tiger?

Unfortunately, God gave man a free hand and we are now seeing the results of all his wrong choices in almost every aspect of life, including the abuse of all life on earth.

polyglide wrote:Every living thing was designed for a purpose, when that purpose was accomplished it had served it's purpose and was no longer needed.

God is no longer required then.

polyglide wrote:Unfortunately, God gave man a free hand and we are now seeing the results of all his wrong choices in almost every aspect of life, including the abuse of all life on earth.

So you're now suggesting that god didn't have a purpose in mind when he created humans?

polyglide wrote:Unfortunately, God gave man a free hand and we are now seeing the results of all his wrong choices in almost every aspect of life, including the abuse of all life on earth.

I agree. If God existed his wrong choices had catastrophic results for Earthly life.

polyglide wrote:Every living thing was designed for a purpose, when that purpose was accomplished it had served it's purpose and was no longer needed.

Heh, this reminds me of a story told by Carl Sagan (if I remember correctly):

He told of his very young daughter who found a flat but rough rock with sharp angles. She picked it up and insisted that the rock was meant to be that way so animals could scratch their backs by rubbing themselves against it.

The point of the story was how humans really have a hard time with randomness - our minds are prone to discerning "purpose" when none really exists. It's the same concept as pareidolia, the condition of seeing faces and patterns in random noise - such as faces in tree bark or the Virgin Mary on a piece of pizza. Our brains are wired to try and make sense of chaos and it does almost too well of a job since we think there is often meaning in meaningless things. That is the very basis of superstition. Thus we assign meaning to things that are simply random - especially when dealing with tragic circumstances like an accidental death. That's when a sudden need for God arises, because that A-student, captain of the football team, president of his class couldn't have been killed by a drunk driver for no reason! People loathe randomness in these kinds of situations, so all kinds of meaningless platitudes are said: "God needed another angel in heaven" or "This is all part of his divine plan." Saying something like, "He was killed for no reason, a meaningless and senseless death" is considered mean-spirited even though that's the real truth of it.

And so we think that all animals were designed for this specific purpose. While I will agree that animals generally have a specific niche in its ecosystem, there is no reason to believe they were "designed" for a specific, greater "purpose."

Fairy stories do belong to the evolutionists I agree.

Unfortunately, polyglide is a bona fide believer. He's old. And undereducated and thinks the bible gives him authority to speak on matters he knows nothing about. I don't mind opinionated people so long as they make a decent effort to support their arguments with FACTS. Polyglide doesn't even attempt facts. He just believes whatever creationist websites tell him because it supports his biblical beliefs. Hes not a thinker. He doesn't question God and he believes everything he reads. Trying to argue with him or educate is pointless. He doesn't want to learn, he wants to preach and unfortunately he does a bad job of that.

Sadly so very true snowy.