Printable View
Define "just not as well" - and then we could perhaps have some sort of Platonic dialogue on whether or not a thing that functions "not as well as it should" is actually "functioning" in any way that is germane to the thing's proper mode of operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.
On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.
OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of random positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?
1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."
My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Only if all of reality can only be comprehended via the "natural." I'm not sure how I'm not supposed to see the incredible leap of faith required to believe that blind force and random chance resulted in the complexity of human beings - that to me appears no more reasonable than the idea of a supernatural being. I suggest that you (and other evolutionists) like evolution because "we" came up with the explanation - and I will admit there's a certain comfort in feeling like you've explained everything all by yourself. Nonetheless, the explanation offered by humanity is just as incredible as creation - but because we can "see" a good chunk of it, we take comfort from that (despite the massive obstacles that must be overcome to accept it as true) rather than the (perhaps) larger leap of faith that the believer must make.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.
really.....mutations 95% of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Ah, Summa Theologica. The old faithful infinite regression, or in your words, the god of the first cause....Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
Everything must have a cause, so what caused the first cause?
It is a tricky ontological question, because we don't actually know the answer to the question. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we don't even really understand the question.
The way I look at it is that if at the dawn of creation of the entire universe, some entity lit the fuse and the universe has proceeded on its own ever since then, he's not much of a god for anyone to worry about, so I don't.
When you see a painting, you know there was a painter, but do you need to know that he had a father, who that father was, who his father was, who his grandfather was, back to homo erectus and beyond? do you need to know that the tempura paint was created from an egg, which was laid by a chicken and how that chicken came into being?
Infinite regress is infinitely dumb.
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 doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years.
1) you lobbed me in there with the evolutionist just becaus i questioned creation. i actually responed to this poll that i wasnt sure. see how religion is forced to deal in absolutes like siths. its neccessary in order to have some cause for your tribe to rally around. kind of like how in 1984 the oceanics need war to stay focused and together. my apologies for using a made up story to help make my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious.
3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.
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 subjectQuote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
His argument was that you can "remove" certain components of the eye and have it still "function" as a sort of refutation to irreducible complexity; I simply noted that 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. How is that Straw man?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that does exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
if we share common ancestors like you suggest, why havent we found hundreds if not thousands of missing links? i mean even if you do believe in Cro Magnon man and all that, that really doesnt seem to account for the "thousands of years" between apes and humans now does it? one would expect to find at least a whole race of missing links not just a couple.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
lol try a spell check sometime :) care to elaborate on this "unquestionable evidence"?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Just one, thanks.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
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 stageQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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
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
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
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
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 Redzeppelin
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
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
I like the "unquestionable" adjective. Much evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation is subject to bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
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.
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
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
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
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'm not convinced the irreducable complexity argument has necessarily been fully refuted, and I certainly wouldn't lable it a "fallacy."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
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
Borel was a mathematician.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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
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
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
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 The Atheist
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
Maybe so. But none of this escapes the odds - and those cannot be argued away so easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
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 cuppajoe_9
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
*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
Do you guys learn this by rote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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*
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
[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?
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.
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
Demonstrably incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
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
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
Not that I'm aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
That's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Maybe. Maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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 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
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
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
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
Congratulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"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
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
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Warning
Please do not use inflammatory language in your arguments to belittle other members personally or their arguments/beliefs.
1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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 :)
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
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.
May I have names please? I'd like to research that.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.
What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?Quote:
On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.
Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?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.
I've never heard it said so succinctly before; may I quote you?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.
??? What about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
This kind of "one step forward two steps" progression of mutations seems mighty questionable: if the majority of mutations are negative (as you seem to be saying here), then how is it logical that a minority of positive mutations could sustain life? Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form). I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.
Well, I see your problem entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You note in several places that you're unable to accept facts unless they fit into your god-centric view of the universe. Accordingly, why are we even discussing this? If I point you to facts which you refuse to acknowledge, why bother seeking them?
Evidence only comes in two varieties - that which has been tested and re-tested by peers and become accepted and that which hasn't.
I did answer it, but I will again, briefly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There is more to reality than observation. Any slight understanding of quantum physics would show this. Did you/are you doing science at school? These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.
Reality is a combination of science and philosophy. Obviously the philosophical points cannot be proven, but the science can. When the two complement each other, we find truth. When they contradict, we either lean to the scientific, or we deny facts.
Completely incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
My point was that love is fickle, and demonstrably so. People marry "till death us do part" then get divorced. Love is a chemical reaction in your brain + habit. Nothing more.
Using "love" as any basis for faith is unenforceable.
See, this is where you go wrong. The fact that science has been wrong and had to change is a strength, not a weakness. Science changes with evidence. It is reviewed and constantly updated as new discoveries are made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Does religion?
But you need to remember that science grew out of man's quest for answers. To deny science is to deny the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No. I have stated times without number that I am open to evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I can't. I have no idea, nor do I care. Asking me to explain something which happened 15+ billion years ago, for which an actual science has been around for a century or so isn't feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Given time, there will be answers, but to expect one now doesn't work. If lack of knowledge of what caused the big bang leads you to god, that's fine, but you have no need to ignore all of the facts we know about the universe and life since then.
OK. Because you asked, I had assumed you would be able to do advanced calculus. If you could, the algorithm can be gleaned fromt he results there. If you can't anything I post is going to be meaningless, and I can't post LaTex superscript here, so I can't give you the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
If you are able to work with calculus and are likely to believe the results, please PM me and I will send you more data, but please don't waste my time if you won't understand it.
Ditto, once you can work out the algorithm for yourself, you'll see that they are not only lying, but stating enormous lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No opinion involved, the facts are there, if you choose to accept them.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I guess that depends on your view of "intelligent". To me, an "intelligent" person will look at evidence and be able to separate fact from fantasy. I know no intelligent people - on that basis - who do not believe that evolution is real. Many of those who accept the fact of evolution are christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No, you simply do not understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Atheism is a lack of belief in god - a position that no, or insufficient evidence is available to support belief in god. Lack of god is a result of a search for evidence, not a starting point. You yourself admit that everything starts with a god. I, on the other hand start with an open page, which may include god. As the page is filled up and none of it points to "god", I become an atheist.
Atheism is not a reverse religion.
Atheism is reasonable on its own with nil suppositions and assumptions.
Mate, you need to realise that The Matrix was only a movie. Reality is real. How you perceive it does not affect how it actually is. Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The Babel Fish!
Instead of giving you a pat answer to your pat comment, I'll ask a question:
If everything is part of god's master plan, why do you see the need to try to tell other people about your disbelief of science? If it's all god's master plan, then he must have wanted us to accept scientific fact.
Or are all scientists agents of Satan?
Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
See, again, you're dismissing facts which don't gel with your god. I can't change that, but it saddens me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I will reiterate my comments about the odds, however.
Please, either learn calculus and work it out yourself, or don't quote false statements.
Given your own statements that facts which don't fit with your view of god can be ignored, I don't believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I don't believe you are seeking answers at all. I believe you've been taught a load of fallacies by a pastor and have come in here to parrot them. Not one comment of your so far has suggested that you are seeking to learn anything at all and I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.
In the case of why a computer program is cunningly designed and life isn't, you can only get trite answers, because it's not a real question. It is, as I said, like asking what blue squared is. The two have nothing to do with each other. In what way does a computer program resemble life? Both are complex, so couldn't exist without design? That's wrong and you know it.
Impossible. I point you to facts and you ignore them. I have tried to address the point and you fail to spend any time looking for answers yourself. You cannot be helped because, in reality, you don't want to be. Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.
Cheers.
Did you go to the link I showed Red?Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
As someone already noted, the fact that mutations are rarely beneficial is pretty obvious - those which aren't become extinct and those which are survive.
Given that you're a creationist, how do you explain all of the extinct species?
Edit - as to names of people to read to refute the wildly incorrect odds quoted, I suggest starting with Francis Crick himself and read as much of his work as you can
The boldfaced line is a stereotype and is in poor form coming from an educated person.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'll have to pass on your offer of "education," thanks. But, in view of your generosity, I will reciprocate: if you ever want to truly understand the God who rules the universe, feel free to send me a PM and I will be happy to lift you out of your elementary understanding of the Almighty. It's the least I could do.
Cheers. :)
Yes, some mutations do result in the death of the individual organism, thereby removing that mutation from the gene pool. However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism that it occurs in has (by definition) an evolutionary advantage, and therefore that mutation spreads throughout the gene pool. Mutations occur in individuals, not species. A harmful mutation in one individual has almost no chance of causing the extinction of the entire species (which is what I assume you mean by "the death of the lifeform").Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Because when a beneficial mutation does occur, that gene is rewarded with more copies of itself; and when a harmful mutation does occur, the gene in question is punished by extinction. The odds are indeed long, but one-in-a-million odds aren't so bad when you're allowed several billion trials and several billion years with which to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Fair enough; I kind of sensed that the point I was making would result in this answer.
I read the article you suggested, The Atheist, but before I began I was inclined to doubt its veracity because it's a Wikipedia article and anyone, trained and untrained, is free to get in there and edit it. The article itself was full of unecessary jargon and I would like to know who is the "we" of whom the author speaks.
Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.
For me, the extinction of the dinosaurs is explained by this verse from the Bible:
Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.Quote:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11
I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.
The Atheist said we have hundreds of years of scientifically proven fact. The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.Quote:
What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?
??? What about them?
That's creationist thinking and I think Redzeppelin already said that the Bible and science are not incompatible. Did you mean to say it that way or did I misunderstand you? Sorry.Quote:
To deny science is to deny the bible.
Precisely! Now how does that fit in with the whole forged embryo mess?Quote:
Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't
Well, the jury is still out on Java Man (or men, rather, there were two different specimens), but it certainly wasn't an intentional forgery. Cro-magnons and Neanderthals aren't individual finds, but rather entire species. Neaderthals aren't a missing link between anything, they're simply antoher species of ape, now extinct. No word on either of those species having been forgeries. You're postulating a rather large conspiracy if you claim that they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
The "missing link" betwen humans and other apes is not a scientifically valid concept, and is in any case unnecesary, as we can compare human and chimpanzee genomes to determine common ancestry.
1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
2) so people lived for 300 years on average pre-floud thanks to the climate? the world as it is today is full of all the climates on the spectrum. no one lives past 120. our medicine is head and shoulders above the medicine of old too. so why would people live longer back then?