Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You can offer me science's interpretation (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.

---

The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.

At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate.

---

Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.

Just one, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?

---

Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett.

In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.

---

I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power.

---

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur.

---

Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.

---

Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept.

---

Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not increasing order.

---

Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time.

---

Interesting argument - but the odds are still too high, and contrary to cuppajoe's assertion, I'd need to see a source to buy that the irreducable complexity of the eye has completely disappeared. The idea that an eye could even develop, along with the necessary brain alterations, that the two (brain and eye) have a common language of communication -- all that seems too precise to have simply developed. Why an eye at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant.

---

No - odds of the magnitude I posted above are pretty much zero. The idea that we are microcosms of the universe is again a humanist idea - it places humanity as the defining standard by which reality is measured and that is flat out wrong - your contention about "natural gods" is meaningless - human beings cannot be "gods" except to themselves - and people who do this generally become unholy terrors. Second, to say that nothing exists outside of the universe is to suggest that the universe generated itself. Impossible. Something outside of it had to begin it at some point in time. Matter comes from matter - matter does not generate ex nihilo. Your contention that you're existing fine without God is tremendously ironic to me - because all that lives comes from God - and God is the source of all life in the universe (including yours). There is no existence apart from God; you don't have to acknowledge Him for Him to sustain you: He does so out of love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.

---

I like the "unquestionable" adjective. Much evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation is subject to bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.

---

I do not hold the natural world in disdain - it too testifies to the existence of God. But I do not place it as the sole arbiter of what is "real." The existence of morality, the beauty and complexity of nature attest to the existence of God. The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and the textual integrity of the holy scriptures point to the existence of God. The fact that humans even aspire to create, to achieve, to love and to become more than what they seem - all of these attest to the fingerprints of a Divine Creator. These may not seem "hard" evidence to you, but to the believer, they are there and are very, very real. And, besides, as I have repeatedly said, "verifiable" evidence cannot be the definitive standard of reality: you exercise faith everytime you go out to eat - because you have no verifiable proof that the cook washed his hands, didn't spit in your soup, etc; as well, you do not have verifiable "proof" that when someone says sorry to you that they really are - you must rely upon faith. Please stop going on about the "observable" and how it decides whether God exists or not - the observable is only PART of the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watkinsguy

what on earth are you talking about? its very simple logic that I would like to be answered. Don't try and put it down, all you did was prove that the arguement I put forth is valid because no where in that post did you ever present a valid counter-arguement.

---

I pointed out that I don't need to have a counter argument. I'm not bothered by either infinite regress or first cause. If there's a god/entity/being which caused the big bang, then that's fine. Personally, I see the "what came before the big bang" as a futile chicken'egg scenario. Accordingly, since it happened many billions of years ago, I'm happy to ignore it.

As to simple logic, there's no logic in it at all - it's a circular argument, the very enemy of logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watkinsguy

ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject

---

Now I know this was aimed at billyjack and he's answered it, but your question contains such blatant and basic errors, that I'll add a little.

If evolution worked as your question suggests, there would be no mammals other than humans. That is the kind of hypothesis I'd expect from an intelligent design proponent.

Evolution takes along time.

I'm constantly amazed by creationists who ask, "Why don't we see evolution happening? No chimps give birth to humans!"

Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not.

---

1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.

2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely no vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1% of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.

But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.

---

Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.

---

Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.

Just one, thanks.

---

When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett.
In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.

---

OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage

---

I'm not convinced the irreducable complexity argument has necessarily been fully refuted, and I certainly wouldn't lable it a "fallacy."

billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

---

Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I assume) would never concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to assume that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.

---

Borel was a mathematician.

Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.

---

So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.

---

Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation. In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion. Don't act like you're any different; you've chosen a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine - the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations that try to finish the equation by plugging in astronomical numbers because it HAS to - there is no choice but to accept evolution's fantastic odds if one denies the existence of God. Don't you get that? As far as I'm concerned, you are as dogmatic and "clueless" to me as I must appear to you. But, since you've got "observable evidence" seemingly on your side, you think you've got the stronger position. To others who are standing on the same humanistic presupposition as you - you're winning; to those who are standing on the same presupposition as I (that God is real) your arguments hold no real force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.

---

The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.

---

Persuasive, but not definitive. That simplified forms of eyes exist does not necessarily mean that the human eye went through a comparable stage of evolution. And if you're telling me that I came from something like that then I have to tell you you're feeding me something no less fantastic than the idea of God doing all the creative work. I'm interested in your use of "the equivalent of your eyes" in your post; does "equivalent" mean that they are eyes, or that they are that particular creature's "equivalent" to my eye - like a claw is the "equivalent" to my hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely no vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1% of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.

---

Maybe so. But none of this escapes the odds - and those cannot be argued away so easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins.

---

I watched the video. Interesting. If Dawkins weren't so militant in his hostility towards religion, I might take him more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.

---

Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell?

---

*edit*Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.

---

Do you guys learn this by rote?

I've seen all these *edit* questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?

---

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.

Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.

*edit*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.

---

This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum. *edit*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I assume) would never concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to assume that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.

---

This is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.

As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942% likely to be correct.

I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Borel was a mathematician.

---

Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;352561]Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation.

---

Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.

Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion.

---

Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Don't act like you're any different; you've chosen a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine

---

Demonstrably incorrect.

I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

- the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations

---

No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.

If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in The Matrix, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.

---

Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.

Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!

That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID *edit*. If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.

---

If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require interpretation. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - in the absence of the existence of God - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things is nuts. Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.

---

Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an answer rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you guys learn this by rote?

---

Not that I'm aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I've seen all these meaningless questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.

---

Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a non sequiter and has nothing to do with my posted comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

---

Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.

---

Tit-for-tat: I've heard this tired charge a hundred times from other atheists. I'll quote you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you guys learn this by rote?

---

The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.

---

Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum.

---

I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of actual infinities (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.

As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942% likely to be correct.

---

I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details.

---

That's a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.

---

Maybe. Maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it.

---

OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more substantial than just your opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.

---

I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?

---

Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.

---

How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.

---

The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.

---

Congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Demonstrably incorrect.

I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.

---

"Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.

---

Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in The Matrix, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.

---

We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on hypothesis and probablility [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.
Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!

---

Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID. If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.

---

Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?

Warning

Please do not use inflammatory language in your arguments to belittle other members personally or their arguments/beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Here, let me help you a bit. "Magic" has nothing to do with God - in fact, if you do your research, you will find that "magic" is the human attempt to imitate the creative power of God. The existence of magic actually alludes to the existence of God via its attempt to mimic His power.
.

---

1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...

i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.

no comment lol... I think Red has this one :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...

---

No No No: the Bible does not "mimic" God - it reveals Him and His character, His divine plan for the redemption of mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.

---

I didn't post that comment as a definitive proof of the existence of God - and I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept it - but from inside the presuppositional framework of a believer, that's what magic is.

I've been reading the latest posts on the thread and would like to join in the discussion, if I may. Most of this stuff goes way over my head but the evolution/creation debate is something that interests me intensely. I've presented speeches and essays on the topic from the creationist standpoint; I am a creationist and a traditional Christian.

I won't try to debate on the philosophical level because I am in no way qualified to speak on that level.

Quote:

---

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

---

May I have names please? I'd like to research that.

Quote:

---

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

---

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

Quote:

---

Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.

---

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

Quote:

---

"Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be.

---

I've never heard it said so succinctly before; may I quote you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

---

??? What about them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

---

Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).