Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
brigadecommander 16-May-25, 16:35	God and Science Bob you sent me many passages from your books. So i know you will like this. Based on the book by Carl Sagan. Enjoy.;;<iframe width="560" height="315" src="www.youtube.com" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
victoriasas 16-May-25, 19:23	I haven’t seen the movie, but my only thought on the heading of this thread is that God and science really shouldn’t be viewed in opposition to each other (not saying you’re doing that, but many do.) Some of the greatest scientists in the world were believers. I think science came to be viewed in opposition to God based on the theory of molecules-to-man evolution. But Darwin’s theory isn’t wrong because of the Bible. Darwin’s theory is wrong because it’s junk science. And as soon as a credible naturalistic theory for the origin of species is put forward (and scientists are working on that right now) Darwin’s theory will be kicked to the curb faster than someone can blink their eyes. The only reason it’s survived this long and is so stridently and viciously defended is it gives atheists their own creation story (with the first few chapters missing) and allows atheists to feel intellectually fulfilled. When I think of how much damage Darwin has done to science (wild guesses are now seen as credible) and to humanity (at least two genocides were attributed to Darwin’s ideas) it amazes me that he’s revered by some people. He observed changes within a species and extrapolated that way too far – and he even admitted his theory was “grievously hypothetical” in a letter to Asa Gray. Not to mention Darwin’s “Descent of Man” is virulently racist. But he “got rid of God” for atheists and so he’s revered. I have little interest in the opening chapters of Genesis and could be persuaded that the creation account in Genesis was symbolic and the origin of “kinds” was due to naturalistic means if a credible theory for that existed. Neo-Darwinism isn’t it, imo – not by a long shot.
bobspringett 16-May-25, 22:55	Athena 16:35 and Vic 19:23 ATHENA Thanks for the thought, but I can't access your link. "Not available" in my country. VIC <God and science really shouldn’t be viewed in opposition to each other (not saying you’re doing that, but many do.)> I agree 100% with you, and I thank you for recognising that. <I think science came to be viewed in opposition to God based on the theory of molecules-to-man evolution.> I think the roots of this attitude go back further than Darwin. The problems that Galileo met in advocating Copernican ideas long pre-dated Darwin, and even pre-dated the Enlightenment 's Empiricism. Every step on the path has not really been between 'Faith' and 'Science'. These have been used as proxies for the real battle, which has been between Those Who Have Authority and Those Who Question Authority. Thos in power at any time do their best to discourage any new ideas. The existing world-view is one that serves their interests quite well, thank you; and who knows where these new ideas might lead? So whether the 'new idea' is religious in nature, or cultural, or artistic, or scientific, the Establishment is always going to push back against any innovations. Yes, I included 'scientific' as well! There is a Scientific Establishment as well, and it is also wary of new ideas. For example, as long ago as the 1800's, scientists were aware that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and releasing large amounts of it into the atmosphere could conceivably change the climate. But they thought at the time that the quantities required to do that were so huge that there was little chance of such a thing happening. But look how long and hard was the fight to have the evidence accepted when we started to push that CO2 concentration past 'negligible'! <And as soon as a credible naturalistic theory for the origin of species is put forward (and scientists are working on that right now) Darwin’s theory will be kicked to the curb faster than someone can blink their eyes.> The biggest single difference between the Scientific Establishment and others is that Science has its own objective process for deciding between competing claims. So I suggest you look at the evidence we have, not the evidence you hope we might have at some future date. <at least two genocides were attributed to Darwin’s ideas> I'm glad you said 'were attributed to' rather than 'arose from'. Because attribution is not proof, not even evidence. Are you not aware that genocides occurred long before Mrs. Darwin's little boy Charles even drew his first breath? Some even by committed Christians? <(I) could be persuaded that the creation account in Genesis was symbolic and the origin of “kinds” was due to naturalistic means if a credible theory for that existed.> Such a theory does exist. You should familiarise yourself with it and the many, many supporting lines of evidence from many independent disciplines, rather than focusing on the questions not yet answered to the finest detail; because NO scientific theory is ever complete and final. There are lots of questions in the theories that electronics depend on (e.g., why does the electron have exactly the charge that it has, instead of some other value?); but that doesn't seem to convince you that electronics is a plot by atheist physicists, to avoid the need for the Internet to work purely by God's fiat. Nor does the fact that our knowledge of nutrition is incomplete prevent you from eating. Science takes whatever theory best fits the evidence available, even if it doesn't answer every question. Then it replaces or adjusts the theory when an improved theory comes along. We don't just sit still adopting NO theory unless it is perfect.
brigadecommander 16-May-25, 23:18	Bob just use u-tube and put in ''Contact' .Its worth it. REMINDS of your writings It almost brings both ideas in a harmonious way.
bobspringett 16-May-25, 23:30	Athena Thaks for the follow-up. When I click on the site, "Contact" flashes up for less than a second, and then disappears to 'Video unavailable'. Probably some copyright technicality.
victoriasas 16-May-25, 23:49	@Bob The theory of molecules-to-man evolution is far from perfect, Bob. It’s not even in the same country as perfect. I posted two videos identifying problems with whale evolution that were ignored, and apart from an unknown number of alleged transitional fossils and similar genomes, molecules-to-man evolution appears to have no evidence supporting it. If I’m wrong about that, please identify the other evidence. Darwin himself said his theory was “grievously hypothetical” and the main claim in his theory was neither observed nor confirmed by an experiment when observation and experimentation are supposed to be how science is conducted. So please don’t imply I object to molecules-to-man evolution because it’s not “perfect.” I object to it because it’s junk science and has done a great deal of damage to science and humanity. And the people behind the two genocides cited Darwinian ideas so evidence certainly does exist that Darwin’s ideas were the impetus behind those genocides. And I’ve never said science and God or science and Christianity should be in opposition to each other. So no need to thank me for recognizing that they shouldn’t. I’ve never not recognized that. My objection to and disbelief in molecules-to-man evolution is completely separate from my faith and entirely based on science and common sense. The theory is simply not credible. But discussing molecules-to-man evolution with people who believe it seems impossible without their resorting to misrepresentations, insults, trolling and diverting the discussion to the Bible. But I’d be interested to hearing what’s wrong in the two videos I posted about problems with whale evolution. Do I think any evolutionist in this club has watched or will watch them? No, I don’t.
bobspringett 16-May-25, 23:57	Vic 23:49 You have told me repeatedly that you have nothing better to offer. I believe you! We both agree that you have NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER!! So the rest of what you say is pointless.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 00:28	You didn’t watch the two videos about problems with whale evolution? If not, why not? Because your mind is closed? I thought this club was about learning.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 00:36	But thanks for proving my point about why it’s impossible to have a discussion about molecules-to-man evolution with people who believe it. I posted those two short videos in good faith and hoped you and/or L_S would offer a reaction to them. Instead, the two of you offered nothing. I highly doubt either of you watched them. So much for the “I’m still learning” theme of this club.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 01:21	BTW, your statement that the opposition between science and God predates Darwin is imo incorrect because nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth. What predates Darwin was opposition between unBiblical man-made doctrines and science. And I’m aware of verses in the Bible that say the sun stood still to allow Israel to fight longer in daylight (Joshua 10:13) and that the sun rises at one end of the sky and goes to the other end (Psalm 19:5-6) but those are colloquial expressions from the vantage point of man that are no different than meteorologists today talking about when the sun rises and when the sun sets.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 02:01	Vic I quote my 23:57 post as a full, complete and sufficient answer:- <You have told me repeatedly that you have nothing better to offer. I believe you! We both agree that you have NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER!! So the rest of what you say is pointless.>
victoriasas 17-May-25, 02:43	You’re lying, Bob. I offered two videos that demonstrated problems with whale evolution. You and L_S ignored them and now you’re trolling, You’re the one who has nothing to offer. Nothing but trolling, insults and lies. Pretty sad.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 03:32	Vic I'm becoming impatient with you saying I'm lying. What did I say that was a deliberate falsehood? Please give reference to which of my posts contained the alleged lie, and show that I knew at the time that it was a falsehood.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 06:36	Your lie, which you repeated twice, is in your posts at 23:57 and 02:01. My explanation of why I said you’re lying is in my post at 02:43. I realize evolutionists would rather debate anything other than molecules-to-man evolution, but I’m not interested in debating petty nonsense. Watch the videos debunking whale evolution and offer a reply. Or do you have “nothing better to offer” than your past three posts?
apatzer 17-May-25, 08:52	Vic 17-May-25, 01:21 That post is spot on! 💯% There have been far too many man made doctrines that lean on their own understanding.
vanessashane 17-May-25, 09:28	Victoria, a question Victoria, I would like to take a look at those videos and possibly offer a critique if warranted. Can you repost the links, please? Thank you.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 09:46	@apatzer Thanks and totally agree. Unfortunately, the Catholic church, which is the entity that persecuted Galileo, seems to have the market on man-made doctrines.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 09:50	@vanessashane Sure… “Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson” youtu.be Video is 11:08 “Do Killer Whales Destroy Darwin's Theory Of Evolution? A Biologist Answers” youtu.be Video is 5:08 Thank you for your interest
vanessashane 17-May-25, 10:09	Victoria, Thank you. I'll be looking at those videos across the next week or so. I want to have time to analyze and research a response if needed, and with my medical issues and an upcoming procedure, it will take time. Thanks again.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 10:54	@vanessashane No problem and you’re welcome. I will pray for you to have a successful procedure and for the Good Lord’s comfort, peace and healing to be upon you. Take your time and God bless you.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 17:36	Vic 06:36 Thank you for citing the posts you believe to contain lies. I note that you don't actually state WHICH of the statements in those posts are lies, so your response still lacks specificity. However, I will work on the assumption that your final sentence means that you have in mind my statement "You have told me repeatedly that you have nothing better to offer." If you mean some other statement, please correct this assumption; but for the sake of moving the matter forward I will respond to that. RESPONSE Several years ago, in another Club, I asked you to put forward a theory that would explain more satisfactorily the evidence currently cited as support for the theory of Evolution. You said you didn't have such an alternative theory, but held that Evolution was plainly wrong. You also suggested that current science is not advanced enough to come up with an adequate theory. I pointed out at that time that Science does not work by rejecting any theory that does not provide answers to every question. It works by accepting the theory that best fits the data available. If there are two or more theories that are competing for acceptance, then BOTH are subject to testing and modification as new data demands, until one is found to have some fatal flaw. Not just 'unanswered questions' or 'currently inexplicable details', but a flaw that undermines the basic concept. This means that no scientific theory is ever perfect; only that we go with the best we have at the time, and continue work to improve or replace it. You repeated that Evolution has such fatal flaws, but provided no evidence to support that assertion. What you did produce was a number of currently unanswered problems, but nothing fatal to the whole concept. But most importantly for our current purposes, you provided NOTHING in terms of a theory to replace Evolution. This same pattern was followed on more than one occasion. I can't give you citations, it being so long ago; but I'm not making the allegations of lying here. The burden of proof is on you. The closest you came was the 'Third Way', which was itself an evolutionary paradigm, but with additional mechanisms for mutations that had recently been discovered and could be readily included into a more comprehensive Evolutionary model. In summary, you interpreted ADDITIONAL evidence for a more sophisticated model of Evolution as if it were evidence AGAINST Evolution. This is what I meant in detail when I said that "you had nothing better to offer". Perhaps you misunderstood that statement in its assumed context. But whether a misunderstanding or not, you have not shown my statement to be false. You still have produced NOTHING as a credible scientific theory to replace the broad outline of Evolution. Thus you have failed at the first step. To the best of my knowledge, you still have not cited a scientifically credible theory to replace Evolution as a framework for understanding the origin of species. Even if you could show that you had produced a credible theory, there is still the second step. You have to show that I knew of this, but deliberately made a false statement in order to mislead. Your response does not even attempt to clear this hurdle. SUMMARY Your defence fails to demonstrate that I said something which I knew at the time to be false, with the intention to mislead.  I would welcome your retraction.
victoriasas 17-May-25, 18:27	You’ll get no retraction, Bob, and this is starting to feel like harassment, which is against the GK Rules of Conduct. And I said months (years?) ago that science is not advanced enough to test the creation account in Genesis – not an alternative theory to molecules-to-man evolution. Science even in the 21st century is primitive – some 96 percent of the universe is made of matter (dark energy, dark matter) that science cannot explain. Where you lied (and lied twice) is in saying I have nothing better to offer. I posted two relatively short videos debunking whale evolution which you have not addressed (and i suspect haven’t watched.) I’m under no obligation to propose a naturalistic alternative to molecules-to-man evolution. The theory is garbage – it was garbage in 1859 and it’s garbage today, and I don’t need a naturalistic alternative theory to call it garbage. So like i said, watch the two videos that imo debunk whale evolution, but spare me this petty nonsense.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 18:46	Vic 09:50 Thanks for those links about whale evolution. These list various 'problems' (i.e., unanswered questions) about whale evolution. Science is full of unanswered questions! The aim of a scientific theory is to answer as many as possible with the data available, and use what is already known to guide further research. The best research is that which aims to 'test' theories, meaning to find data which is compatible with one theory but incompatible with another. Finding 'difficulties' or further 'unanswered questions' is to be expected, but such should not be confused with 'impossibilities'. The start of the second-listed video is interesting in that it admits to that putative land ancestor (Pakicetus?) having an ear structure that is otherwise found only in whales. Now, why would this be? HOW could it be? It certainly doesn't show an 'impossibility' of descent, but rather suggests such descent might be true. That is the core problem in the first video. It talks about how unlikely it is that all these adaptions could happen in so short a time. It even gives probabilities for two adaptations occurring simultaneously. That is where it breaks down. Just like the land animal having an ear structure suitable for whales, these adaptions DON'T need to be simultaneous. One can happen, and unless it is fatal will be retained by a portion of the population until other mutations occur and accumulate. For example, what are the odds of me rolling three dice and getting three sixes? Easy to calculate; it's one in 216. but if I roll one six on the first throw and retain that, then roll three more dice, retaining any sixes; and then three more dice... My rough-and-ready calculations (I will accept correction from someone with some expertise in this matter!) suggest that the chance of getting three sixes in less than ten casts is way above 50-50. Now, what if I had not just thirty dice to throw, but a couple of million 'Pakicetus' in the breeding population? These adaptions could each arise fairly quickly. All that is needed from that point on is for these individual mutations to be brought together, as that breeding population does the birds and the bees. This is where so many anti-evolutionists either don't understand probability theory, or don't want to. Their numbers invariably make the silent assumption that there is only one 'roll of the dice'. But in fact there are millions of dice rolls every generation, and these are repeated over millions of generations. There is also another consideration. Probability in hindsight is not probability. Take, for instance, a professional golfer hitting a tee shot. What is the probability that the ball will land on ONE PARTICULAR blade of grass on the fairway? Each blade of grass has a vanishingly small chance! But the ball lands on one, so that can't be by pure chance, can it? It must have been deliberate. That golfer must be incredibly skillful to hit that one blade! This is the absurdity you get when you pretend probability is meaningful when applied to an event that has already happened. But back to those whale videos. If present-day whales didn't evolve from some terrestrial mammals, then where DID they come from? Saying that they are improbable is one thing, but the brute fact is that they exist. What theory do you propose for their origin? How can you explain the existence of different species of all sorts? I have put that question to you before, some years ago. You said that you knew of no scientific theory that could adequately explain that. Which leads me back to my 23:57 post above.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 18:58	Vic 01:21 <What predates Darwin was opposition between unBiblical man-made doctrines and science.> Absolutely correct, Vic! We find yet another point where we can agree! 'Creationism' as proclaimed in Fundamentalist circles is one such man-made doctrine that is opposed to science. This is because it is important to understand what the Bible actually teaches, and what examples, language and metaphors it uses to illustrate or explain those teachings. Too many people don't make that distinction.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 19:12	Vic 18:27 <And I said months (years?) ago that science is not advanced enough to test the creation account in Genesis – not an alternative theory to molecules-to-man evolution. Science even in the 21st century is primitive – some 96 percent of the universe is made of matter (dark energy, dark matter) that science cannot explain.> In other words, you agree that you have no better theory to offer. <I posted two relatively short videos debunking whale evolution which you have not addressed (and i suspect haven’t watched.)> Even as you were typing your 18:27 post (less than 20 minutes before I posted) I was composing my 18:46 post, having watched your videos. <I’m under no obligation to propose a naturalistic alternative to molecules-to-man evolution.> Quite right. But that's not the issue. You ARE under obligation to justify your accusation that I lied, or to retract that allegation. A simple "I misunderstood what you meant" would suffice. My point here is that Club Rules are against making groundless accusations against other members. You have done that to me before and I have reminded you of those rules without taking any further action, but your repetition and persistence needs to be addressed. If you consider my insistence on upholding Club Rules to be "Nothing but trolling, insults and lies" (your post 02:43), then that reflects on you rather than me.
lord_shiva 17-May-25, 19:48	Conflict <<my only thought on the heading of this thread is that God and science really shouldn’t be viewed in opposition to each other (not saying you’re doing that, but many do.) Some of the greatest scientists in the world were believers. I think science came to be viewed in opposition to God based on the theory of molecules-to-man evolution.>>. Vic That is wrong. The biologists had no beef with God, it was certain theists—especially beginning with Henry Morris who created the conflict between science and religion. Scientists accept reality regardless of religious edicts regarding God. Morris could not abide that, and like subsequent believers like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham insist one cannot accept science and believe also. Notice the Catholic Church, which Vic rejects as Christian, has no beef with evolution.
bobspringett 17-May-25, 19:50	Athena Getting back to your initial post.... Is this based on the science-fiction book 'Contact' by Carl Sagan? I haven't read that book, nor seen anything except a 'back-page blurb' about it. But I'm also a complete dope when it comes to rummaging through the Net, so I have no idea how to find out more. If you can conveniently provide a link that would work for me, I would appreciate it. But don't take too much time and trouble.
lord_shiva 17-May-25, 19:51	Christian Church I just want to add that the Catholic Church is THE Christian church, and to the extent any substitutes deviate from its gold standard teachings they are thus that much less than Christian.
lord_shiva 17-May-25, 19:54	Contact The book was better than the Jodie Foster movie, but I liked the movie too. Demon Haunted World is another great Sagan book, as was Sagan’s Cosmos. Tyson’s Cosmos is ok, but Sagan just had the voice and way with words. Billions and billions…
lord_shiva 17-May-25, 20:12	Feeling Fulfilled << And as soon as a credible naturalistic theory for the origin of species is put forward (and scientists are working on that right now) Darwin’s theory will be kicked to the curb faster than someone can blink their eyes. The only reason it’s survived this long and is so stridently and viciously defended is it gives atheists their own creation story (with the first few chapters missing) and allows atheists to feel intellectually fulfilled.>> Getting kicked to the curb is the fate of every theory replaced by a better theory, though given the pace of acceptance of relativity an eyeblink may be overstating things. While Einstein won lots of converts very quickly, holdouts continued decades after his publications, for which he never won a Nobel. People are working on replacing EVERY theory in science. Except heliocentrism. That is really settled science. If we use two sigma as our criteria for settled, so are relativity (both special and general), climate science, plate tectonics, and evolution. When the proponents within any discipline exceed even one sigma of standard deviation (what percent is that?) the science is pretty much settled. Any science becomes credibly unsettled when a competing theory better explains observed phenomenon. Evolution is settled because decades f research confirm it from every conceivable angle. I hate to be dogmatic about that, but when you’re right you can afford it. What institutes have biology departments where evolution lacks any credible alternative? That may sound like an appeal to authority, but in science theory is king. Where are the competing theories guiding research? Not Harvard. Not Cornell. Not Renfleur Polytechnic. Not Stanford. Not Oxford. Not Cambridge. Not Princeton. Not MIT. Not Brown. Not Dartmouth. Not Sorbonne (I’ve been there and viewed their exhibits, and toured the Museum of Man in Paris). Not Novosibirsk. Not the University of Warsaw. Anyway, we could list all the rest of the accredited universities in Earth and fail to find one even remotely opposed to evolution until we got down to Bob Jones and maybe BYU.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.