“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
–Charles Darwin, Origin of SpeciesWith this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It’s a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.
Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.” In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.
As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.
It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.
(From Idea Center)
And the rebuttal:
Tags: Evolution, Intelligent Design
A “complex organ” and a “complex system” are hardly the same thing.
Honestly who knows how life was created. I listen to all theories. None has yet to convince me. That’s why more debate is needed. The more debate, the more information.
I’ve had all the biological and evolutionary classes and received an “A” in everyone of them. And I still think the theory is a joke. Want an example? How about something as common as protein synthesis?
Let’s consider the main steps and I have greatly simplified this very complex process:
(1) Via cell signaling (explain this randomly), the determination is made that a particular protein must be synthesized
(2) protein transcription factors bind to promoter sites, at the site to be transcribed.
(3) An enzyme, an RNA polymerase, binds to the complex of transcription factors.
(4) The RNA polymerase proceeds to “read” one strand moving in its 3′ → 5′ direction.
(5) In eukaryotes, this requires that the nucleosomes in front of the advancing RNA polymerase be removed.
(6) The same complex replaces the nucleosomes after the DNA has been transcribed and RNAP II has moved on.
(7) As the RNA polymerase travels along the DNA strand, it assembles ribonucleotides into a strand of RNA.
(8) Each ribonucleotide is inserted into the growing RNA strand following the rules of base pairing.
(9) Then, there is quality control. Occasionally RNA polymerase will select and insert an incorrect, mismatched, ribonucleotide. When this occurs, the enzyme backs up, removes the incorrect nucleotide (explain this randomly thru evolution).
(10) Synthesis of the RNA proceeds in the 5′ → 3′ direction.
(11) As each nucleoside triphosphate is brought in to add to the 3′ end of the growing strand, the two terminal phosphates are removed.
(12) When transcription is complete, the transcript is released from the polymerase and, shortly thereafter, the polymerase is released from the DNA.
I have conveniently skipped several steps concerning transcription, but you still don’t have a protein. All you’ve got is a template to be moved from the nucleus to the cytoplasm or endoplasmic reticulum (more cell signaling), for translation.
Addition modification is done, depending on whether the protein is intended for intracell or to be released.
Sorry, random mutation + selection doesn’t lead to a complex process and anybody with an ounce of sense ought to recognize that fact. In fact, to believe in evolution, I really think one has to shelve all forms of wisdom if they really believe some “intelligence” didn’t design this. It’s as if you could say your hard drive simply takes non-contiguous files and can join them randomly to form a perfect file to be read and used. Baloney…
And this is a simple process compared to mitosis. And mitosis is a large jump to tissue, which is an even larger to jump to an organ, etc….
And you want me to believe this all happened in some random trial and error fashion? Exactly what chemical analogy would lead me to believe this? Certainly isn’t the 2nd law of thermodynamics which tends to support exactly the opposite should be happening. The math doesn’t work either as the vast number of mutations are deleterious.
The real implication for all evolutionists and the real reason they continue to deny the obvious of a design, is because they can not bring themselves to admit there is someone or something driving the machinery.
Yeah, evolution is much more difficult to believe than some man in the sky creating everything from dust…
Can we not start posting on this subject? Nobody is going to convince the other side of anything, and it so it’s pointless.
Lol, sorry, Purple Prose.
I decided to post this, knowing it might stir a hornet’s nest, to demonstrate the difference between LGF2 and LGF. I expect some disagreements, but no one will be silenced for voicing their opinion as long as its kept civil.
Say what you will, everyone.
I wasn’t aware that I used the word man. Most men are so dumb they ignore the most basic precept of where there is a creation, there is a creator.
But hey, deny as you must. You can join your brother Killgore one day for eternity as you continue to ignore the obvious and I make fun of the religious bigots and your “theory”.
Tex Taylor,
Your explanation of cellular processes and conception of evolution display that you lack any understanding of the theory of evolution. Your first problem is, of course, expressed by your comment “explain this randomly.” Evolution is not a random process by any means; certain events have to happen in order for evolutionary processes to take place. Randomness implies chaos and the lack of a system. You should, however, keep in mind that though there is a “system,” the idea should not be anthropomorphized. You see, the explanation of cellular processes you have provided is a “dumb down” version, explicated with words that provide a visual for average readers (i.e., that cells ‘determine,’ as though based on observation, that a protein must be synthesized, enzymes ‘back up and remove’ mismatched ribonucleotides, as though they ‘realize’ that there is a problem). They do not “read” or literally “communicate;” rather, certain chemical events facilitate chemical reactions that. Humans naturally categorize the events in order to establish a manipulative understanding of them. We explicate it so that it makes sense to “us,” as opposed to understanding what is going on objectively.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems–evolutionary process are NOT closed systems, so the law doesn’t apply. Though mutation is random, genetic mutations can never be removed from a gene pool; Although they may become expressed less and less over time when it is not selected for, the exact opposite happens when they are selected for. In most cases speciation takes place over a long period of time, but the event has been observed in bacteria as well as multicellular organisms in recent history.
The possibility of life, and intelligence, developing on earth by means of natural selection, according to William Dembski, is so small that he believes it might as well be considered impossible. But, since we can only, scientifically, explain the development of human intelligence through evolution, we can conclude that the possibility exists. What do you think the possibility of intelligence arising (especially the kind of intelligence required to CREATE life on earth) by nonevolutionary means are? You can imagine: it actually IS impossible.
pricegutshall,
Baloney…you sound like you cut and paste from Darwinian 101. I could refute every statement you made, but why?
So I’ll refute only the most obvious:
I’ve heard this ignorance before and it shows an absolutely stupidity with respect to basic chemistry. The universe is the universe. It is neither defined as open or closed. But by all means, if it is “open” as you suggest, please explain how so and exactly what is affecting it from an outside source (in the physical sense, of course)?
So how was it in all my ignorance and misunderstanding, somehow I made it into medical school? Exactly what are your scientific qualifications?
Tex – I’m already going to hell for reading Harry Potter!
I must also inject, some men are so dumb they believe in a mythical, nondescript, gender free “creator” controlling every life form on earth and every aspect of its existence.
I have a question on that – which “creator” is the real one? God? Yahwah? Allah? Buddha? Shiva? We can go on and on. Of thousands of different beliefs and religions (maybe even tens of thousands if you count the various sects within each religion) can you honestly tell me which one is definitively right? If so, what makes him/her/it the right one?
OK, so the next question is for the evolutionist…since according to Darwin all things continue to evolve through natural selection, for hypothetics sake what would be the next evolutionary step for the mouse trap?
and EVVVVERY body knows you don’t use a mousetrap for a tie-clip…it’s too heavy and eventually would fall down from the weight of gravity because it is not “designed” to withstand the weight of hanging vertically. That would be the job of the very well designed tie-clip. That argument to me is preposterous. Natural “selection” would have precluded the use of the “pre-mouse trap” from working as a tie clip WAY before it left the ground.
and in the spirit of this playful debate…why is it SOOOOOOO confounding to think that a hyper-intelligent Being assembled the Earth to it’s functioning perfection, just like that mouse trap was built by a human hand to serve IT’S functioning perfection? Why must there BE some alternative answer?? AH, because SCIENCE is “used” by the non believers in a desperate attempt to explain away the existence of an intelligent Designer…not for respect of science, but for prideful “disbelief” in something bigger and more in control than ourselves. Yet that science has yet to yield “all” of the rebuttals, and ANSWERS. But for me…the answers are all around me in the perfection of functioning Design….it’s called Natural Revelation. the question than becomes…why do some people see this so clearly, and others are blind to it?
Btw..I have no desire to insult non-Christians….but you won’t silence me either by beating me over the head with the “intolerance” stick.
tuffasnails, since a mouse is not a living being, it will not adapt/evolve.
However, it could be improved through trial and error. You look at the traditional mouse trap as diagrammed in this post and then google mousetraps, you’ll see it is not necessarily a perfect design. There is room for improvement depending on how it must be adapted.
As for a hyper-intelligent being, evolution does not necessarily disprove a deity. It only shows an improvement on a deity’s design (doh! does that mean life was not created perfectly and, therefore, that hyper-intelligent being created a less than perfect design?!)
Why does a giraffe have such a long neck? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Oops, last should read “since a mouse TRAP is not a living being….”
Nice attempt at deflection. But that wasn’t your previous statement because according to you, none of them exist.
I’ll leave it to you to decide who the right one is, God and Yahweh being one and the same, of course. But first, you really should decide is there a creator, don’t you think?
I find your comments every bit as bigoted as the Killgore Trout, so I am trying to decide exactly what is it that separates you from Killgore? Or is Killgore someone you secretly admire?
AH, but evolution “demotes” a diety, as if His Design was not perfect in it’s entirety and conception, but needed “natural selection” to perfect it. But really the precepts of evolution are purely animalistic in that only the “strong survive, and the weak are extinguished, and that is the antithesis of the Creator’s Purpose for man in that we are Created in his Image……not as evolving Ape. To say that God and evolution are linked is for lack of a better word…blasphemous…yet, people like Chuck and his friends try to blend the 2 together all the time. They two concepts are like 2 magnets..they don’t meet.
As for Giraffes…animals and their often comical designs were created to the delight of the Creator. Does He not have the right to mold them any way he wishes, or must it ALL be for the for the will to “survive and evolve”? Will you please show me the skeleton of the animal that preceeded the giraffe, since the purpose of his existence is merely to reach for the highest leaves on a tree to survive. Btw..they can eat from the ground too so why the need to “evolve” (the long neck) for fear of extinction?
Lol, that wasn’t a deflection. That is a serious question. What makes your “creator” any more likely than anyone else’s “creator”? Why don’t you just answer the question?
I do not believe in a god. I am an atheist.
I find your comments every bit as defensive as a failing troll. If the best you can do when cornered is try to insult, go right ahead.
Is this your comment DJM? If so, please explain it in detail for the masses here because it is the comment that set our “evolution” of debate in motion. By the way, not only do I think atheists deluded, I don’t believe them terribly bright either.
If that makes me a troll for stating as such, so be it.
DJM…
Who’s to say that all of these names point to the same Creator? That my be true…at least in terms of “recognizing” there is an actual “Higher Being/Omnipresent/Omnipotent Creator”. I think the point you’re trying to argue is not one of an atheist’s point of view or argument because as you’ve stated….you are an atheist, so you should have no dog in this fight. What I detect is you have an abhorrence towards Christianity in particular…not “all religions/beliefs” in general because you wouldn’t be arguing on behalf of “tolerance” for all religions. You are focusing on Christianity with laser-like precision. So, let’s (you) be honest about THAT and then we can go from there. Until then, you are just all over the map in your debate. Pick the TRUE focus of your beef, and we can talk about that…ALL with mutual respect. I (the Christian) am not your enemy. I care what you have to say.
Tex – that was sarcasm, mate.
tuffasnails – I have no problems with Christians, or any religion (except islam). What I have a problem with is people like Tex presenting a narrow, illogical view of world creation and then resorting to petty insults when challenged.
I think people should believe what they feel in their heart or mind is correct. But their belief system does not automatically equate to fact, nor does it somehow deflate everyone else’s as wrong. Since Tex is unable to definitively state why his god is better than your god or anyone else’s god only points out that religion & spirituality is subjective, which means it is not flawless and is in no way a certainty beyond individual beliefs.
Well, now if that is your argument, I will be more than happy to oblige. But that doesn’t appear to be your argument as I indicated from above. You told me by definition there is no God. Wouldn’t by definition that make your question and my answer meaningless to you?
“You told me by definition there is no God.
Really? Where?
You answer will not be meaningless to me. I like to hear what people think. Maybe you’ll hit on something I’d never considered and convert me. That should give you some positive karma when you meet the fate you believe you will.
DJM, with all due-respect, you “did” say you are an atheist, so by way of definition, in essence you are saying (you believe) there is no God. So by stating you are an atheist, I don’t know why you are concerned with why this person or that person believes in this God or that God. If you truly are interested in specific questions “about” Christianity, than please ask.
That is true, tuffasnails, I said I do not believe in god. I never said as Tex claimed “There is no god”.
Also, I never asked the question why someone believes in god. I only asked how an individual rated their god against another’s, since each person who believes in god must believe theirs better than all others (or perhaps, that only theirs exists, while all other gods are false).
That, I think is an important point because it shows the subjectivity of religion (or the lack of, in my case). To instead attempt degrade someone for having a different belief system, As Tex did here and in other posts, suggests a deluded sense of superiority in one’s own beliefs. Yet, if one cannot answer the simple question as to why their belief is superior to all others only proves that it simply isn’t.
It only demonstrates the fallacy of religion.
“My god is better than your god. I don’t know why, he/she/it just is.” Um, yeah.
DJM…I don’t think a true Christian’s demeanor should ever be one of *I am superior* etc….pridefulness leads to haughtiness and we (followers of Jesus-oh *gasp*, I said His Name), are taught to have humility and compassion and not beat someone over the head with the “superiority club”, but rather to speak the Truth quietly and clearly to give a reason for the faith that is within us. I am ashamed at how some “religious” people demonstrate their “faith” in some Churches and otherwise. We are to remain calm and respectful and instead of “preaching” to someone, we should “share our faith” in a respectful manner. I will tell you that I have yet to find a church I feel comfortable enough to worship in. I worship at home and in fellowship with my husband. I have found to often that because of our sinful nature, over time churches become corrupt through the collections of money and power, and I’d just as soon avoid it. BUT, I WILL say there are good Churches out there doing good deeds and teaching what I consider to be true Biblical Doctrine…one comes to mind in particular called the Coral ridge Presbyterian Church whose pastor is a man named Dr. D. James Kennedy…a scholarly sage who amazingly has yet to be corrupted….a good man. Too bad his church is in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, or I would attend. However, I do watch his broadcasts.
If you are “clearly” seeking answers as to why Christianity has more “credibility” or “factual basis” than any other religion, I would suggest ordering the “Westminster Confession of Faith Study Guide”, and get into the “meat” of Christianity, not based on emotion, but based on logic. G-d gave us an inquisitive mind (in His likeness), so it is no wonder people find themselves wondering and seeking answers….
That is true, tuffasnails, I said I do not believe in god. I never said as Tex claimed “There is no god”.
Okay, well that is clear as a bell. About as clear as how a pool of amino acids landed on the moon in a rocketship.
So DJM,
What do I accomplish if I point out the whose god is better (as in my God is real?)? I won’t be too awfully hard to show what the Judeo-Christian heritage has brought us, but what exactly should I expect to gain for my troubles?
tuffasnails – I would agree with much of what you said here. I grew up a Christian (Southern Baptist). Much of the behavior you describe is one reason I became disillusioned with religion. So, we are on the same page there, we just chose different paths in response.
Tex – Well, it doesn’t appear as though you will, Tex. If you have to personally benefit in order to exalt your god, then there’s nothing I can offer. But lets be clear – the question isn’t about what the belief in god has inspired, or whether you believe god is real or not. The question is why is your choice in a specific god the right choice, making everyone else’s choice wrong? Lets have facts, not opinions.
Facts about God, hey? Well, He did found the Judeo-Christian movement. Is that enough?
That foundation did in turn lead to the foundations of the Western Civilization, for all of its shortcomings, still better than all the rest. Is that enough?
Come on DJM. You’re still deflecting from the real argument before we get to specifics. Even America’s most sacred historical documents continually profess “Endowed by our CREATOR…”
Shouldn’t you be explaining to me your proof of no God since your consider yourself the true authority of all that is true?
Interestingly, my God doesn’t believe in atheists either as His Word so eloquently explains in Romans…so you share something in common ironically.
Its pretty amazing that there are different opinions here yet all without name calling and ad hominem attacks.
That flies in the face of what those at LGF claim we are, the rightfully banned because we were not house broken.
All of our different opinions arise from our own logic, so there should be an underlying respect for the others opinion even when you disagree.
Something LGF lacks and never will have.
Lol, okay, Tex. It’s clear you’re not going to answer the question I posed.
And it’s clear you haven’t read my posts, since no where have I, like you have, suggested my beliefs are absolute and true, nor have I suggested my beliefs were superior, as you have.
In another post you wrote: “…I will be more than happy to compare my faith and the respective results vs. any other you wish to choose, including atheists… Exactly what credentials can you hold for us to measure in balance besides opinion?”
Another amusing characteristic of the arrogant religious bigot – abject hypocrisy.
Job 13:5
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems–evolutionary process are NOT closed systems, so the law doesn’t apply.
The earth is a closed system and evolution takes place on earth, so I would think the law applies.
I have heard it claimed before that the earth is an open system because sunlight can be used by certain things to produce energy, I am pretty sure I have seen it claimed at American Science and of course Killgore Trout explained it to me also. Now what I find strange and I think its just a side step that evolution can not answer, the earth as far as H2O is concerned is a closed system, water is not created nor destroyed its just recycled.
The amount of water we have today is the same amount of water the earth started with. The current theory of how water evolved, “it came from outer space”. And I think it is the biggest reason we are searching for water on Mars and soon our own Moon.
bar – I don’t think evolution (or darwin for that matter) has ever claimed all possibilities and factors are known. The fact certain things cannot be answered doesn’t mean there is not – or will not – ultimately be an explanation. It was once believed life could not exist without oxygen. We have since discovered it can. It was once thought life could not exist without light. We now know it can.
There are so many variables involved with the existence of life – some known and many unknown – it is illogical and even absurd to automatically exclude one theory in favor of another.
Actually the Earth is NOT a closed system as far as the Second law of Thermodynamics is concerned Bar.
As far as DMJ is concerned his revelation that he was brought up in the Southern Baptist tradition explains quite a lot. Now no matter how much it pisses you off DMJ and no hard to shout about not believing in God. He still believes in you. Frustrating isn’t it mate?
Care to debate the Second Law of Thermodynamics from a physicist’s point of view? If you want to see the face of God just open your eyes mate and take a look around. Engage your brain and do the math. Look at the stats for and against. NOT believing in the Creator is just so illogical from a physicist’s point of view that it not worth the time to even waste time considering.
You’re farting at thunder DMJ. Illogical but no doubt it’s just the outward manifestation of what is really going on in your psyche as you try to make sense the contradictions that you feel at your nuclear personality level.
In the end it doesn’t matter a toss mate. He still believes in you and when you are ready He’ll be ready for you.
By the bye mate being an atheist is a REALLY dumb option and shows a certain lack of reason or masks some underlying prejudice. It’s also such a boring dead end sort of condition that pinches one off from robust debate. Try calling yourself an agnostic. It’s a lot healthier for your underlying psychology.
# 32 DJM
I agree.
I think science is better off when its questioned not just blindly accepted, once science stops to question, its not really science.
Hear … Hear… Bar.
I roll on the floor laughing whenever some commentator says that the …’Science is fixed and the debate is over”…. that statement is the ‘big daddy’ of oxymorons!
There are even some scientists who should know better than using words such as these. To Joe Public the words often go over his head but to fellow scientists they are like ‘chalk screeeching on a blackboard!’
Humans are a funny lot . It’s amazing what folks will say and do to get tenure or research grants. Many have absolutely no shame!
Such is the human condition!
….’ There are so many variables involved with the existence of life – some known and many unknown – it is illogical and even absurd to automatically exclude one theory in favor of another.”….
Now your talking DMJ!
Life is the REASON behind creation. It’s so simple really. So obvious, hiding in plain sight. The CREATION brings forth all types of life in even the most ‘impossible’ places. All it takes is energy (low entropy energy) and water. But maybe not even water but the jury is still out on that one so i’m still going with water for now!
DJM,
So since we are on the same page there, would it also be fair to say that we will agree to hold the “people” involved accountable for their corruption and mis-use of Christianity, and not hold it against G-d? After all, not every one who *says* they’re a Christian, is necessarily a Christian. The important thing to strive for is discernment, but to have discernment, one must “know” what to discern for or against, and that requires a search and a thirst for the “knowledge” of Him to understand what is biblicaly sound, and/or humanly derived “religion”. Trust me…I’ve been beat over the head with the so-called Christianity club by someone who professed to be a Christian and it doesn’t feel good. It does kind of turn you off, but I had to hold the person/s or congregation “guilty” of the sinfulness….not G-d.
DJM,
Now, would that be the man in the sky creating everything from dust that you previously referenced? In my opinion, the height of hypocrisy would be to claim there is no god, only to quote from later. On second thought, perhaps it is best classified as certifiably insane.
The same man in the sky, upon being challenged by Job answered this way in Chapter 38? Can you hear the same questions being asked of you?
2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
Not bad for a little man in the sky, huh?
From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
The most shocking surprise that emerged from the full sequence of the human genome earlier this year is that we are the proud owners of a paltry 30,000 genes — barely twice the number of a fruit fly.
Now that doesn’t fit ID or evolution in my opinion, it only takes 30,000 genes to make a human but it takes 60,000 to make a fruit fly that lives only days.
I think God has a sense of humor.
#10/16/19 DJM-
Why is “my” God better than other gods?
To start with, there are no other Gods.
There is only one, who expresses Himself as three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
If I were you, I’d start by investigating Jesus of Nazareth, since he claimed to be The Truth and the only way to God (see the book of John, Chapter 14, verse 6, in the Bible).
DJM said (in #19 and #23),
Judaism and Christianity are rooted in history. Actual events, actual people.
Jesus is a historical figure who made claims about Himself, did things… you can check out and research if He was Who He said He was and all that. So no, not all religions are purely subjective.
DJM #27,
It sounds to me as though you had an experience with a denomination, but not with Jesus Himself.
Just because your parents dragged you to church every Sunday does not make you a Christian.
You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus to be ’saved,’ to be a Christian, and this has to be your own decision, nobody can make it for you or on your behalf.
Too many people have the idea that because they prayed once in a while, read the Bible a few times, did a few good deeds, and/or attended church when they were a kid that this makes them a “Christian.”
~Those outward trappings do not make a person a Christian.
Jesus foretold that on the day of judgment that many supposed “Christians” would tell Him (I’m paraphrasing from the Bible here),
‘Lord, did we not drive out many demons in your name, and do many other good works in your name?,’ and Jesus said His reply to them will be, “Get away from me, I never knew you.”
There is no fossil record for macro-evolution, but there is a fossil record where life suddenly explodes on the scene. This is a sore spot for the god-deniers and they have no explanation for it, with the exception that the transitional forms decayed because of this and that, and because of this and that, the record is incomplete.
It must really suck to have a hint of truth, like a small piece of a puzzle, only to find the piece they want to fit doesn’t have the right shape.
I think the reason I am still alive is because of G-d. I do not care what people believe in as long as they see jihadis as the biggest threat to our freedom.
Aussie Infidel: “NOT believing in the Creator is just so illogical from a physicist’s point of view that it not worth the time to even waste time considering”
Huh? I am a physicist (an astro-one, to be precise), and I know quite a few others. Very few believe in God. The majority are agnotic atheists. Some are world-class leaders in their fields (not me!)
) So that refutes your statement precisely.
#43 “agnotic atheists”
Either one is an agnostic or one is an atheist. The phrase “agnostic atheist” seems non-sensical.
I probably spelled non-sensical wrong. I’m too lazy to look it up.
No; agnosticism is an epistemic stance, while atheism is a metaphysical one. One can be agnostic with respect to God (we can never know for sure whether one exists) while being an atheist (since there is no evidence for the existence of one, nor any logical necessity, I am justified in not believing in one). In fact, science is an agnostic enterprise at its roots; one can never hold an absolute truth of any kind, only reasonable suppositions, but that does not preclude one from holding some beliefs (or disbeliefs, or lacking beliefs), or from having a specific opinion about something. I am a fan of loop quantum gravity; it may turn out wrong or right–I don’t know which for sure, but taht does not preclude me from holding a provisional belief in its correctness, until more evidence for or against comes in. Same with God, except for the fact that we’ve been waiting for evidence for a long long time, and not only no new evidence turned up, most of the phenomena that were considered to be examples of his reality in the past are now explained in purely naturalistic terms, without any recourse to the supernatural or divine.
Agnostic means to not have a feeling on it one way or the other, OR it can me the person still hasn’t come down on one side of the fence or not. Atheists have DEFINITELY made a decision that they do not believe in G-d.
ag·nos·tic
n.
1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” William H. Calvin.
[a-1 + Gnostic.]
ag·nosti·cal·ly adv.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals”ists,” as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I posted the definition because I think it is important to distinguish between the two meanings (agnostic and atheistic) when talking about belief or lack thereof. There’s obviously a BIG difference between the two meanings.
#45.
Agnosticism = “I am not sure if there is a god or not”
Atheism = “There is no god / I don’t believe in god”
#45 Jorg wrote,
Speaking of which…
See the post I did in this thread, post #33.
#45 Jorg wrote,
“Same with God, except for the fact that we’ve been waiting for evidence for a long long time, and not only no new evidence turned up, most of the phenomena that were considered to be examples of his reality in the past are now explained in purely naturalistic terms, without any recourse to the supernatural or divine.”
huh?
Waiting for “evidence”?
Could you clarify what you mean please?
Agnostic as a metaphysical stance may be different from atheism, but it is an incoherent position. Rather than quoting from a dictionary (which are often prone to errors), I would simply refer you to an introductory text on the philosophy of religion and basic epistemology. “Nuff said.
By lack of evidence, I mean that the processes attributed to god(s) historically have turned out to have naturalistic exlanations. Do you have any reason to believe that the few that haven’t yet (e.g., origin of the universe, origin of consciousness) will be any different? (Hint: there are several naturalistic hypotheses for both of the above; whether correc tor not is irrelevant since they establish that it is *possible* to explain the last few mysteries of the universe without referring to the divine).
rainydayweather; I would be extremely cautious in using Philip Johnson as some kind of an authority. His inability to differentiate between methodological and philosophical naturalism is well-known; his thorough ignorance of scientific method in general and of specific facts of biology in particular, and his other misunderstandings and inconsequentionalities are dealt with thoroughly by people better than me (Ruse, Kitcher, Pinnock, Gross, to name a few). For the place of evolutionary theory in the framework of biology see any text on the philosophy of science and/or biology, e.g., Sterelny’s Sex and Death. What’s more, there seems to be a misapprehension of the position of evolutionary theory within science. It is not only a descriptive supposition, it is also an explanatory and predictive framework, a tool used daily by thousands of scientists in all branches of biology with unambiguous success. Those denying its validity have to account for the degree of success it has had.
By the way, the proposition that “Rather than being educated to think for themselves, students are indoctrinated with the dogmatic claims of evolutionists” is ridiculous on the face of it, as anyone trained in science can ascertain, and at least mildly insulting. I am sure that “not thinking for themselves” is precisely the reason that the overwhelming majority of philosophers of science accept evolution as a valid account and a thoroughly tested and robust scientific theory.
All in all, creationist arguments against evolutionary theory (and I include ID in that category) reduce to an appeal to personal incredulity, which, in case you were not aware, is an informal logical fallacy. “I cannot understand how it works, therefore it is impossible.”
It reminds me of an old joke: an Englishman is taken to the zoo to see a platypus. After examining the animal for a few minutes, he pronounces: “This creature is impossible; therefore it does not exist.”
Jorg:-
) So that refutes your statement precisely.” ……
……..’ Huh? I am a physicist (an astro-one, to be precise), and I know quite a few others. Very few believe in God. The majority are agnotic atheists. Some are world-class leaders in their fields (not me!)
One would hope that you scholarship in astrophysics is a little more cogniscent than either your epistemological grasp of theology, or the English language. Please try to look up the definitions of Agnostic and Atheist next time. You just look silly!
I studied at the University of New South Wales and took a BSc (Hon) majoring in Astrophysics. We must discuss the relationship FLRW spatially homogeneous and isotropic cosmological models some time.
Why did that pig just fly past my window?
If you must fib Jung please ensure that you can actually back it up and at least ’sound’ convincing. You embarrass yourself mate!
Further your rather hollow boast that you ‘know
Jung old tart:-
…’ Very few believe in God. The majority are agnotic atheists. Some are world-class leaders in their fields (not me!)
) So that refutes your statement precisely.” ……
I must assume that you were ‘away’ from lectures when they ‘did’ logic!
ROTFL
What a phony! If you must lie to advance your stance then always ensure that you lie convincingly mate!
Y’all should read CS Lewis some time. He has a very good explanation of why this whole debate is, frankly, silly and it boils down to this: we’re telling ourselves stories to explain things that we can’t intuit.
And he’s right.
Seriously, why cannot a person believe in both systems (though I’m not as familiar with the ID side of the debate)? I have just never had a problem with evolutionary biology as I see G-d in all the details, controlling everything in His own way. I’m a devout Christian, BTW. Why must this be a polarizing debate? It’s absurd whether it be some of the scientists who make anti-religion comments or the ID side driving it all. None of us knows the mind and actions of G-d and it’s ultimate hubris to pretend to, IMHO.
Lex, I think it IS important to draw the differences between the two “systems” or theories for these reasons which I illuminated in a previous comment….
“AH, but evolution “demotes” a diety, as if His Design was not perfect in it’s entirety and conception, but needed “natural selection” to perfect it. But really the precepts of evolution are purely animalistic in that only the “strong survive, and the weak are extinguished, and that is the antithesis of the Creator’s Purpose for man in that we are Created in his Image……not as an evolving Ape. To say that God and evolution are linked is for lack of a better word…blasphemous…yet, people like Chuck and his friends try to blend the 2 together all the time. They two concepts are like 2 magnets..they don’t meet”.
Evolutionists would LOVE to try to blend Christianity and evolution because it “weakens” Christianity’s true foundation (G-d created all things and had no need for evolution to perfect it further), and STRENGTHENS their argument and puts them one step closer to “demoting” G-d altogether which they are all too happy to do in defense of their position. Bottom line: If a Christian believes in evolution AND Christianity, then they must concede they evolved from an ape which goes against every precept that true Christianity holds which is we are created in G-d’s image, and G-d is in no way an animal…he created animals wholly and separately from man…and he let Adam have dominion over those animals. It is paramount that Christians not be swayed by this “can’t we all agree” argument….with all-due respect.
Aussie Infidel; apparently your grasp of theology (or philosophy) isn’t quite up to par, and I stand by my statement. meanwhile, why are you so concerned about Robertson-walker/ not to mention that the subject, strictly speaking, belongs in cosmology and not astorphysics (not that I am entirely unaware of the former).
Oh, and Aussie: the belief that everyone is lying to you is usually a projection of one’s own predilections. So STFU, your opinion obviously has little relevance. I’ll continue the debate with those that have something useful to say.
tuffasnails; “Bottom line: If a Christian believes in evolution AND Christianity, then they must concede they evolved from an ape which goes against every precept that true Christianity holds which is we are created in G-d’s image”
And Christianity is a myth. Your point?
Well Jorg, it looks like you’ve shut down any possibility for respectful debate when you say things like STFU. I certainly won’t respond to that kind of blatant disrespect for someone’s opinions, and further, there isn’t much more to discuss since you have already determined that Christianity is a myth. To be quite frank, I see alot of vitriol coming from you and I’m not much interested in any kind of boxing match with you. You’ve made your point and your decision seems final. I do wish you well though…
Hah! That was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheekedly, actually. However, you raise an interesting point: why should someone’s opinions be automatically respected? Tolerated, of course. Their right to have those opinions should be protected and affirmed, naturally. But respected? There are plenty of loonies out there, after all. Me and you will probably agree that the opinions of flat-earthers and astrologers should not get the benefits of respect. On a more relevant subject, we both probably agree that the Eddas, or Hesiod’s Cosmogony are myths. So I only take it a step further: all religions are myths. Keep in mind that a myth is not a derogatory term: they can have great utility for human minds, and even, possibly, societies. What they do not have is anything to do with empirical, intersubjective reality.
And forgive me, but your comment about vitriol is way too cliche to have any value. I am a happy guy who loves to have a good laugh; very little vitriol bout me. Just because I happen to find religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of people hilarious and often worthy of ridicule does not in any way make me vitriolic.
Also, do you mean that it is OK for Aussie Infidel to make insinuating statements and/or direct insults about people’s intelligence, education and veracity but it is not OK to respond by telling him/her to shut up? A double standard seems to be in evidence here.
Meanwhile, none of the evolution deniers have bothered to take up what I believe is a very important issue: “What’s more, there seems to be a misapprehension of the position of evolutionary theory within science. It is not only a descriptive supposition, it is also an explanatory and predictive framework, a tool used daily by thousands of scientists in all branches of biology with unambiguous success. Those denying its validity have to account for the degree of success it has had.”
All I want to say here is that I appreciate the rebuttal video clip.
BTW, Darwin is not necessarily the final word on “Darwinian evolution.” He wasn’t even entirely consistent in various editions of his works. Indeed, even inheritance of acquired characteristics is possible, in the sense of any intervention that changes the germ line’s DNA.
sk: Of course, Darwin was somewhat inconsistent since the theory developed with time. Later editions of the Origin are, in some ways, much more in line with his later works. And just as of course, Darwin is not the final word. He didn’t know about the existence of DNA; he had no rigorous concept of a fitness landscape; in general, he lacked those mathematical underpinnings that had contributed so much to the sucess of the modern synthesis! However, his insights were remarkably correct, considering all that.
Jorg my old tart,
You obviously have way too much time on your hands mate.
Now you know that you are not an Astro-physicist’s bootstrap. I know and you know that I know it. so enough of the pretense and BS. Obviously English is not your mother tongue but you continue to let yourself down with your long diatribes that say very little, except to troll over all of the same old red herrings that ‘your lot’ seem driven to do. . Telling me to Shut the Fuck Up is just so puerile and really labels you for what you obviously are. A fraud who is pushing a poorly thought through philosophy based on some personal grievance or spite.
Now let’s be good little ‘wombles’ and debate based on well reasoned arguments, but please no more BS stories that you are an astro-physicist and because you ‘know’ some really really really important physicists then your word must be taken as Gospel. (pardon the pun!
So if you wish we can debate why I see the face of God in the math of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or for that matter just looking at a glorious nebular through a good instrument.
Well said Lex!
Obviously our ‘friend’ Jung has a theological thistle under his saddle and feels driven to ram his rather weak theories down other folks’ throats.
More fool him. Actually he should be pitied rather than mocked as it’s he who has a problem that is worrying him. Adding to his woes is rather un-Christian so i’ll desist until he doesn’t come out with some more outrageous clangers. ‘Old Jungie’ obviously has way more time on his hands that we honest folks. I must get back to my real life!
Aussie Infidel: Bwahahaha! You still have not said anything of substance except for some sad ad hominems and ridiculous strawmen, me friendly baby troll. Your mention of “spatially homogeneous and isotropic cosmologies” is a dead giveaway of your bridge-inhabiting tendencies. And, of course a “glorious nebular” is a gem. Did you mean, a “nebula”? Or, perhaps, a “nebulous globular”?
Meanwhile, the simple fact that many physicists are atheists is not in doubt (we can start with Weinberg, Susskind, Randall, Turok, Smolin, ‘t Hooft, of the living ones. Oh, do the names of Einstein or Feynman ring any bells?). It is up to you to defend your ridiculous claim that it is “illogical for a physicist to think so” (I am paraphrasing, of course). Not that I’m going to hold my breath. So far you have only demonstrated your doubtless fluency in trolling in flaming. Substance?
Another funny one is your claim to “see God in the math of the Second Law”, since many others reached an exactly opposite conclusion.
Jorg, just for the record, I have read Darwin’s Origin and think it a magnificent work of science. Whatever shortcomings it had are minuscule in comparison with the usual shortcomings that any work of science shows over time.
Incidentally, guys, I realize that some of you are “retaliating” against CJ’s crusade against ID. That’s your business, and more power to you. But not everyone here disagrees with CJ’s general opinion on this issue (though I expect everyone here condemns CJ for his totalitarian tactics).
pricegutshall,
Baloney…you sound like you cut and paste from Darwinian 101. I could refute every statement you made, but why?
So I’ll refute only the most obvious:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems–evolutionary process are NOT closed systems, so the law doesn’t apply.
I’ve heard this ignorance before and it shows an absolutely stupidity with respect to basic chemistry. The universe is the universe. It is neither defined as open or closed. But by all means, if it is “open” as you suggest, please explain how so and exactly what is affecting it from an outside source (in the physical sense, of course)?
Okay; evolution as a system is defined by changes in organism populations overtime. If it were a closed system, then geography, climate, food sources, etc., would be irrelevant to natural selection. It would simply function as a product of itself, like the Sun. Rather, organisms are constantly influenced by outside factors, which makes it an open system.
“Your explanation of cellular processes and conception of evolution display that you lack any understanding of the theory of evolution.
So how was it in all my ignorance and misunderstanding, somehow I made it into medical school? Exactly what are your scientific qualifications?”
Well, you start with the assumption that because things look like it was created, then it must be. You can accept modern science even if you believe it was ‘created.’ But just because it looks like it was created, or that it seems unlikely that it could have not be created, does not mean that it was. How likely is it that a creator exists/existed? Try that probability out. It is amazing how someone could make it to medical school, believe in medical science, and not believe in the fundamental theory of biology. It’s really disconcerting, actually.
pricegutshall: “It is amazing how someone could make it to medical school, believe in medical science, and not believe in the fundamental theory of biology. It’s really disconcerting, actually.”
Amazing, and very disconcerting, especially considering the fact that many medical professionals are creationists. I, for one, turn around and leave the doctor’s office if I see any indication that s/he may believe in that mumbo-jumbo, and I recommend others do the same. But one cannot expect too much of medical schools: they are primarily technical colleges, churning out competent engineers, and we all know hat it is not necessary to be able to think, or actually know any science and its methods (at least outside one’s narrow field of expertise) to be an engineer.
I find most doctors are bad doctors. It makes me question what they are learning exactly in medical school.
Glkad you picked up on my obvious typo Jungie old tart. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! ROTFL.
As I said I’m calling you out as a fraud mate. You claim to be an astro-physicist but given your propensity to tell massive ‘porkies’ I tend not to believe anything you claim.
As far as seeing the face of God in the math of the Second law of Thermodynamics… What planet are you living on mate? Certainly not Earth!
Given the chances against a ‘random’ idealized universe just happening to be as perfect as our universe is the development of intelligent life at the odds of 10 power 10 power 123. I think I’ll go with the better side of those odds! You really are a theologically limited ‘moroon’ Jungie old son! There is undoubtedly some flaw in your character formation that would make an individual like you so fervently opposed to the concept of a caring Creator.
I’m sorry for whatever has caused your problem but I’ll pray that you step back and rationally reassess your rather illogical theological position. If the Good Lord welcomed Leon Gramsci’s death bed reconciliation, given his opposition and indeed deadly persecution of the Faithful, then your condition will just be a doddle!
Hmmmm…still content-free. But what is to be expected? Strong anthropic invocation…usage of numbers only trotted out by the most benighted creationists and Discovery Institute morons…sly insinuations to Gramsci’s conversion (a lie: “Italian State documents on his death show that no religious official was sent for or received by Gramsci. Other witness accounts of his death also do not mention any conversion to Catholicism or renouncement by Gramsci of his socialist ideals.”).
Next you’ll be spouting garbage about Darwin’s deathbed renunciation of evolutionary theory!
Begone, little troll. You are not that amusing…:P
avideditor: They learn by rote and repetition. Good doctors usually happen to the ones with a real degree under their belt, in addition to their MD.
Little troll ehhhh Jorgie old tart.
So let’s argue the old chestnut of ‘ ( anthropic – ‘back to school for you Jorgie old tart’. I think you mean anthropogenic) excuses trotted out from time to time by the ‘clutching at straws’ of the science world.
Hell mate i’ll even give you the first punch. Be aware however that once we begin I will give you no quarter, will demolish you totally and expose you for the fraud you truly are.
Maybe you should climb into bed with your Islamist mates and put a fatwa on me to make me STFU as you seem to want. Typically a secular leftist reaction to debate.
Suck it up old Gorgie tart. I’m really looking forward to this! hehehe
Oh yes Gorgie old tart. just for your information:-
The Vatican has revealed that Antonio Gramsci, the founder of Italian Communism and an icon of the Left, reverted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.
Archbishop Luigi De Magistris, former head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, which deals with confessions, indulgences and the forgiveness of sins, said Gramsci had “died taking the Sacraments”. He had asked the nuns attending him in hospital to let him kiss an image of the infant Jesus, Monsignor De Magistris said.
So who pray tell are we to believe? Archbishop de Magistris of the Holy See Apostolic Penitentiary or some foaming at the mouth liberal leftist who is on the ’side’ of the Italian communist Party?
… and you have the gall to call ME a TROLL Gorgie old tart.
If it smell TROLLISH
Spouts TROLLISH mantra
Tries to defend TROOLISH positions
Is opposed to those taking anti-TROLLISH lines
One MUST assume that one is addressing a TROLL!
OK. I’m outing you Gorg.
You’re a TROLL.
Now let’s have a feast of roast TROLL shall we?
I love the smell of roasting TROLL in the morning! hehehe
LOL. Don’t even know what anthropic means? Thanks for the laugh.
OK I know it was a cheap shot. Now if you had said that you were arguing the Anthropic Principle I would have given you a pass but stripped of it’s associated noun it stood forth like a naked singularity, just ‘gagging’ to be cosmologically censored!
Now Jorgie old tart, do you want to debate .. I’ll use the whole phrase just for you . The Anthropic Principle. Let the battle begin.
Oh and your response to whether you take the word of the nuns at the hospital where Gransci died and Arch-bishop De Magistris or that of the Italian Communist party who were not even at the hospital because they thought that Gramsci was no longer ‘useful’ to their cause as he was dying.
Waiting …. waiting …. waiting…
Crickets!
By their associates and their words , so shall you know them!
It’s not a matter whose word I take above whose; it is simply a matter of public record. And, besides that, why should I take the word of a bishop above that of anyone else? Prelates of the church, historically, were no less prone to dissembling than anyone else, and perhaps even more, since they were convinced they were doing the work of God.
And if you have never heard the term “anthropic reasoning”, it is your problem.