For those of you with HBO, they just released a brand new documentary by Alexandra Pelosi called Friends of God. Pelosi takes the audience on an unbelievable journey throughout the magical red-states of America where reality ceases to exist and unicorns roam free.
In this jaw-dropping clip, you bare witness to the insanity that is Buddy Davis and his Answers in Genesis Children’s Workshop. It is here that children are taught the facts of life. Children are taught that Jesus roamed the earth with dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon was created in a flash flood.
Now most of us have heard this all before. But what I find interesting here is the clear indoctrination of these children into a world where you don’t trust what you can see, hear, and touch. They are taught to trust the supposed word of God because the Bible is the history book of the universe.
Watch how clever Buddy Davis is in making evolution sound ridiculous. He uses goofy pictures and catchy songs to get these kids on board. Not once does he use reason, logic, or evidence to make his point. He is what all successful evangelists are. They are simply suave individuals with the gift of gab. They remind me in many ways of car salesmen.
I’ll be honest when I say that this video angered me. These parents are raising a generation of idiots and that troubles me. Look at the mother about two minutes into the video. Oh my God! I love her reasoning of why she believes in creationism. What a damn fool.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
- Happy “Tree Friends” Easter Everyone!
- Creation Science Cartoon
- Westboro Baptist Church: The Musical!
- Happy Gai Jatra My Fine Hindu Friends!
- Evolution Schmevolution!
February 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
My personal favorite part is when the women tries to explain why she it teaching her children creation over evolution, she says “it’s easier to explain to your children”. Yeah, THAT should be the criteria for truth. She basically said “I don’t understand it, so it must not be true!”.
Good luck to that kid who’s going to become a Biochemist/Creationist. I guarantee that if he completes his PhD in Biochemistry, he will have at least converted away from a ‘young world’ creationist.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Delusional and religious. I don’t see any contradiction or oxymoron there. Just morons, con artists, and victims of mind worms… It is the greatest con of all that these people have special tax breaks and privileges. Sometimes I think religions should be treated like lotteries and nationalized, so that the money of the reality-impaired could fund the state. Then the idea of a theocracy scares me.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I’m glad I watched “Inherit the Wind” last night, I feel like I was vaccinated from becoming infected by Ignorance and Bigotry.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I think the first guy was just bitter because he looks like the missing link.
I guess was pisses me off it that the mother says that Christians are persecuted my the “mainstream.” I’m sure that the same day someone else spouted off (perhaps on CNN) something about how this is a “Christian” nation.
Perhaps I am missing something. If I ask the question, “Why should us atheists shut up?” to me the answers “Because it’s bad that the mainstream persecutes Christians” and “Because this is a Christian nation” seem mutually exlusive.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I like the part where the kids were parroting answers about what they believed. Just keep saying the same thing over and over again, and you’ll get kids to believe it. Do kids actually know why? Not really. But once that idea is with them for fifteen years it won’t matter so much (for most, anyway).
Also, I always like to point out that the most biased groups are almost universally the ones to shout “Bias!” first. Just a thought.
And regarding the woman who said that Creation was “easier”: I think that sums up the entire reason religion comes into existence. It provides an answer when we have none. It’s simple, it’s easy, and it makes us feel good. Evolution isn’t perfect, and I’m sure some of the points in that “Refuting Evolution” book (one I’d certainly like to get my hands on) are valid. So if evolution doesn’t seem airtight, what do I do? Why, it’s God!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hallelujah! I am converted! It is all make sense now after I saw the picture of Chesses and Dinosaur. Creationism makes all the sense.
…runs outside… takes his pants off… falls into snow and makes but naked snow angels…
February 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
@Andrew
Still very early in the morning so I can’t remember if this is a dupe for here, but just in case not…
http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/index.php?id=19
@I Are
Hmmm… Believe in Cheeses - I am sure there is a pastafarian joke in there somewhere :-)
RAmen!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Hey Gasmonso! Long time reader, 1st time commenter here.
First, a little background. I, like you, was raised Catholic. They kept me convinced until I was confirmed, which means that my current belief system of agnostic (leaning towards atheism) will most definitely end me up in hell. :)
Anyway, the reason I’m posting is because of your observation here:
“He is what all successful evangelists are. They are simply suave individuals with the gift of gab. They remind me in many ways of car salesmen.”
Have you ever seen the documentary called, IIRC, “American Pimp”? It’s about pimps telling their stories, their past, about their lifestyle, etc. One thing I noticed in the documentary was the number of pimps who, after they became too old to convince women to work for them, became pastors! I’m not kidding. And if you think about it, it’s the same style of sweet talk, just with a different goal. Pimping the pews, haha.
Anyway, glad I could finally contribute. Keep up the good work, I really enjoy your site.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
That’s great, Gauge. I’m going to start referring to evangelists as spiritual pimps!
That makes Haggard both a pimp and a john…
February 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“I like the part where the kids were parroting answers about what they believed.”
Kids parrot answers in school just the same way. Most people, even those uninfluenced by religion, who have an average US education probably don’t understand evolution and how it works. I have a solid idea that much of what we currently believe about evolution will be scoffed at in fifty years, much like what we believed about dinosaurs/early man fifty years ago is today.
I don’t believe that we have a good understanding of how we got here, not because of my religious leanings (I’m an Old Earth Creationist), but because the science is still so incredibly young. Believe what you want I think you’re probably about as far off as these folks (okay maybe you aren’t quite that far off).
February 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
True. I once read an essay about re-defining education as problem-solving exercises that would challenge kids with problems instead of giving them answers. That might be better. Unfortunately it should also be remembered that much of our early learning is done by simple repetition and memorization. It just really bothers me that it’s done in this way. I think teaching something like this is bad because it doesn’t evolve (so to speak). Science does, or at least good science does. To teach a value system such as a religion as the absolute truth, when different views are often in open conflict and have such major consequences, worries me. Science isn’t meant to be a value system, and the claims aren’t held as absolutes, so I think it’s more appropriate to teach. I’m not meaning to go against you here, but my own answer from before did need some refinement, which you pointed out.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“I’m going to start referring to evangelists as spiritual pimps!”
I can see the Religious freaks slang allready
Yo, this spiritual pimp is passing out the mind worms to the kids here.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
forgot to add an actual comment……
I loved the sign “Darwin is dead, jezus is alive” the first thing i thought was “Yeah, he’s playing poker with Elvis, JFK and bigfoot.”
I learned that there are about 250million Americans who aren’t retarded.
The lady’s comments “It all makes sense” she probably means it makes sense in the same way the little babies are brought by storks.
Loved the girls remark “You probably didn’t study all the facts” oh please, there so much wrong with this statement, I don’t know where to start.
oh, where the hell does it say in Genesis men lived with dinosaurs? I wonder how he explain the simple fact that dinosaur bones are so much deeper down…
February 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Why not - from what you see in the news headlines, it sure seems like the clients and the congregation are usually one and the same people.
Same vendor, same customer, just a different product - but you’re just as screwed and come away with ‘worms either way :)
February 8th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Man, there just isn’t much to say about this video. It pretty much speaks for itself. I have to wonder how those people manage to survive from day to day with natural selection… Oh yea, we are no longer susceptible to that mechanic. Too bad I guess.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I love how that young woman toward the end criticized public schools for only showing “one side of the story”.
This clip should probably terrify me, but I’m actually kinda looking forward to the collapse of civilization that Christians are probably unwittingly catalyzing. Let’s see the meek inherit the Earth then.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
This kind of crap makes me physically ill. I am simply at a loss for words on how people swallow this shit with a big smile on their faces and then ask for seconds. I truly fear for humanity.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think there is a lot of hysteria here. SO they have their beliefs and we have ours. No need to be so damn rude about it. I think if you are secure in your beliefs…whatever they are…you feel confident in allowing others to practice what they feel.
All I see on here is self-righteous bigotry. That will definitely not win the argument for us. Wise up some of you. You talk about intelligence and half of you can’t even spell! No wonder they have a following.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:29 am
yes greg, they have all came to this site and witnessed our foolish misspelling ways… The reason why we have a problem with it is because it teaches LIES. I really dont care if someone thinks when it come to religion, but when you start making statements like “dinosaurs and humans lived together” something has to be done.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:15 am
I am a “spiritual pimp.” I prefer to think of it differently, of course, but I do, for a living, help people find ways to live their lives with purpose and meaning - and it so happens that LIBERAL PROTESTANT Christianity is the path on which I am journeying and inviting people to walk.
Which means that I, too, find this video highly disturbing, perhaps more so than many of you who discount the Bible entirely. Fundamentalists who take the Bible to the absurd literal extreme and try to make it into the authoritative science, history, and English (because we all know that it came inerrant from God in the original King James Version…)textbook do violence to the contents that isn’t much different from the violence done to Jesus during his trial and crucifixion.
Jesus didn’t take Scripture literally. He saw it as metaphor, like generations of his ancestors before him. That’s why he used parables to teach important concepts - because metaphor begets metaphor. He also made no bones about setting aside portions of the Scripture that made no sense in his time, such as the Sabbath regulations. But he had reasons for doing so, unlike many of the worst literalists, who seem to think that “it is an abomination before the Lord and they shall be killed” means one thing with regard to a bacon double cheeseburger or adultery and another thing with regard to two men who love each other.
Anyone who is interested in a reasoned, faith-based approach to the Bible should read “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time” by Marcus Borg.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:11 am
What strikes me as odd, is the fact that no one here really defends evolution at all. Not only that, but you are so selective and vicious with your attacks. So time for some education:
1. Macro evolution, which is what you are all referring to is not really a science since it requires “faith” due to the fact that no one has ever seen one species change into another (does not science work on the premise of metaphysical properties that can be demonstrated and repeated). Neither can any scientist demonstrate one, just one, intermediate being, therefore to believe in evolution must take “faith.”
2. Natural Selection, the very evolutionary mechanism for change falls down at a molecular level. Since Natural Selection requires self replicating organisms for the mechanism to work. The problem is, one of the properties of a basic cell is DNA, which is information and not a self replicating organism (in other words evolutionists require DNA for Natural Selection to work–but DNA the blue print for life points to a intelligent designer). All order in our universe is evidence of a designer. For example, take a tall sky scraper or the statue of Liberty. You would never say that they just appeared out of refuse metals deep inside the earth would you? Or that they formed over long periods of time? They are evidence that an intelligent being(s) have been at work. This is what you see in the basic cell, with all it’s intricate parts and systems. Darwin himself said in Origin of Species that if his theories fell down at a molecular level than you should disregard all of his theories regarding evolution (read it yourself in Origin of Species - I have, so maybe you should research the other side too?)
By the way I am a proponent for micro evolution because it can be scientifically backed up with metaphysical evidence. Macro evolution is simply false, and requires a blind leap of faith into a “THEORY” that was never meant to be taken as fact. That is why it is called the “THEORY OF EVOLUTION”
Maybe you should all spend a little more time researching the “facts” in an unbiased way instead of bashing evangelical conservatives who have the right to worship the God whom they believe created the universe. By the way, what makes your source any more credible than a 2,000 year ancient text recording the beginning of time? This is probably what disgusts me the most, conservative evangelicals also have the right to bring up their kids how they want to in America. Do I tell you how to bring up your kids? That is what makes America so great, you can have different views and still live at peace with one another. So maybe conservative evangelicals aren’t as ignorant and uninformed as you might think.
Why don’t you all read a book debating both sides of the issue such as “The Battle of Beginnings,” by Del Ratzsch?
Then watch the DVD: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”
Could the real reason be for your disdain with the 2,000 year old Bible’s view of creation be the fact God says you are a sinner (Rom. 3:23)? That maybe you would have to live by His rules instead of your own if He is truly God? What about the fact you have to repent from your sin in order to come back into a right relationship with God (John 3:16)? The Bible says, “There is a way that seems right unto man but it leads to destruction…”
I suggest seeking wisdom from multiple sources, instead of your narrow minded bigoted responses I see above.
Food for thought huh…
February 9th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Fucking subhuman cultists.
“Nice job dude.”
February 9th, 2007 at 2:43 am
The biochemist would be useless.
Hopefully he fails his exams at any real accredited scientific institutions.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Steady on dude, what next, “fucking subhuman down-syndromes?”
A lot of these people are not well. Some are plain stupid, some are schizotypal and hear the voice of god fifty times a day, and some (the Ted Haggard types) have Personality Disorders they probably acquired from childhood PTSD on encountering jesus camp.
Sure, a lot of them are con artists or are just being pig headed and obtuse. But post #21 above? It has the faintest tang of BPD about it. Probably not, but if it was, your comment would be way harsh and not fair at all.
Love the sinner and hate the sin, and all that…
February 9th, 2007 at 3:29 am
I am not concerned about the comments made, I kind of expected that sort of narrow minded reply without addressing the issues at hand. I am more concerned over the lack of consideration for the other view. That maybe, just maybe intellectuals out there like myself can believe in Creation with an ounce of intelligence. I would like to know who has an answer to the Natural Selection argument I made above? Rather than show your ignorance, I am merely asking for someone to tell me why I should believe what you stand for today? What scientific “fact” can you provide that proves the existence of macro evolution occurring and reoccurring in real time? Secondly, can solve the problem of simple complexity that requires every part of a cell to work and exist, including DNA, for it to work? Lastly, explain the existence of DNA using evolution and Natural Selection?
That is all I ask, from one intellectual to another…
February 9th, 2007 at 3:41 am
G’day there.
I think you missed the point genesis man. I don’t believe you understand evolution correctly. I will try to explain using your example of a skyscraper.
The skyscraper didn’t just appear, or grow and change over time. If you take a look at the history of construction, you will see that the techniques meterials and designs of buildings like these HAVE evolved over time. 1000’s, or even 100’s of years ago, people were not capable of designing or building skyscrapers. Materials like steel were not available so ancient bulidings were made from natural materials like mud-brick and wood. Over time the plans evolved, we learned how to make glass and metals like bronze and steel. We used these new materials in our designs and generation after generation of new buildings used newer designs as new materials and techniques evolved. After using new materials and designs, evaluatying what worked and didn’t work, we could evolve buildings through our own selection. As you can see, no single building has evolved, but over time, and over many different buildings, we have developed new techniques and materials that allow us to design skyscrapers. This is evolution.
We KNOW evolution is true because we CAN demonstrate that evolution takes place. Take, for example, the case of the hospital superbugs. Basicly, antibacterials antibiotics and other chemicals used in hospitals kill bacteria, virus’s and other bad stuff. Over time, some organisms mutate and can no longer be killed so new drugs must be developed to kill it. In the meantime it continues to grow rapidly and may infect many people. This is a simple form of natural selection that is demonstratable (even on the molecular level).
February 9th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Correction, that is an example of micro-evolution, you only use the resources God has given us to make similar things. I do not see any building materials turning into living matter like flesh do you?
Remember, I accept micro-evolution but you have not proven marcro-evolution on any level.
By the way, if you understand mutations properly, then you would be aware that there is no new information, it is in fact a lack of information that leads to the mutations.
Lastly, the bacteria flagellum for example has never turned into another type of bacteria. So where is your point my friend? By the way growing has nothing to do with MACRO evolution, make your point please.
Good try but insufficient
February 9th, 2007 at 4:04 am
I must say good night at this point… But the discussion has at least evolved somewhat ;o). night to all
February 9th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Genesis Man, please do not confuse the issues. Your question about “building materials turning into living matter like flesh” does not relate to evolution, but to the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not claim to answer that question, at least not in the form it was presented by Darwin. (Hence the name “The Origin of Species”, not “The Origin of Life”.)
Macro-evolution may not be “proven” in having been directly observed (it takes too long to happen), but I would love to hear an explanation of why species “appear out of nowhere” throughout the eons, if macro-evolution does not happen. Are you saying that whatever god you believe in occasionally decides to create a new species and add to the mix, just to see how it works out? One that just happens to share most of its genes and physical characteristics with a similar creature already in existence?
Your claim that macro-evolution is not a science also happens to be incorrect.
1. It deals with observable facts (fossilized remains of organisms).
2. It is testable, to an extent. (Example: Claim that species A evolved into species B through some intermediate species C that has not been found when the theory is formulated. Later, species C is found and is verified through carbon dating to be of the expected age, putting it after the earliest known fossil of A and before the earliest known fossil of B.)
3. In terms of falsifiability, it does present some problems, but since all alternative theories that I’ve seen presented require species to somehow appear “out of nowhere”, and fossil evidence suggests that new species appear fairly frequently, we simply have to wait and observe until this happens. If it does, evolution is proven wrong.
BTW, you should probably look up “metaphysical” in a dictionary some time. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. :-)
February 9th, 2007 at 6:33 am
sigh, and yet another argument of wether evolution is true or not.
well, there’s nothing I can say that will chance your (false) view of the world, if you refuse to actaully read up on evolution itself, instead of adhering to what you _think_ evolution is about.
well as stated before your ‘evidence’ is just plain wrong, unfounded and not really thought about.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Ken Ham (the man with the ghastly mutton-chops) is one of the most ignorant and deluded people on the face of the planet, cherry-picking and misinterpreting an extreme minority of data to support the literal biblical account of creation while overlooking the extreme (99.99 (keep going for many more ‘9’s)) amount of evidence that contradicts him.
He’s also the one building that multi-million dollar (I think 20?) creationist ‘museum’.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Really, it’s not our jobs to defend evolution. That’s the job of the experts on the topic. I think all of us who trust people to adhere to the scientific method instead of a carelessly tossed together compendium of ancient stories should stop trying.
We need to remember that criticism of evolution is NOT the same thing as a defense or support of ID or creationism. Let the creationist criticize all they’d like. If any of their arguments were credible, the evolutionary biologists would definitely work to fix or replace the theory. In fact, they ARE fixing it constantly already based on criticisms of other evolutionary biologists. That is the scientific method’s strength.
Genesis Man offers no rational defense of, nor evidence for creationism (I may have missed it as I did skim some parts of his posts). Until he does, let him criticize evolution. If any of his critiques are credible, I am certain that they are being investigated by the professionals.
To thefunrev:
Hello and welcome to the site! It is always great to hear from someone who is trying to claim Christianity back for the liberals. The focus of the religion in this country used to be about helping the poor, caring for family and neighbor, and creating a sense of community at the local level. I’d like to see the religion return to those roots and abandon the ‘holier than thou’ interpretation championed by the conservative evangelicals.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I think sidfaiwu said everything I was going to. And besides, we’ve done this debate before, at long wind. That debate can be seen elsewhere on the site. But to sum up my entire argument for why disproving evolution has nothing to do with proving creation,
“positive evidence”
I say no more on the topic.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Lets see if I can’t take up your challenge GenisisMan. I’m a computer scientist and logician by trade but I do have some biology knowledge from my collegiate days.
Macro- and Micro-evolution are not terms I have ever heard presented by biologists in their works as explanitory mechanisms. The only time I hear them brought up is when they have to address them.
Macro-evolution as you call it, you define as the change from one species to another. Micro-evolution however is given as the change in genetic materials, as presented by you. The whole of evolution however makes no bones about species and our human taxonomic devices. Evolution is simply the change in gene-frequencies over time by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in the removal of organisms not capable of coping with their environment and the proliferation of those creatures that are.
Now you say that Evolution would break down on the Micro-level as it requires a Self-replicating organism. This is however a misunderstanding of the genetic theory, and I don’t fault you for not knowing, since Evolution and gene theory are pretty complex subjects (heck, I’m referencing things to address this). The genetic level of evolution is not a break down since while it requires a replicating organism, the organism requires that there be a method of inheritence.
This is where the DNA and RNA comes in. And it doesn’t even need a desinger to achieve its complexity. Why is that? Not all order is achieved by design, just look at any crystal (diamond, ruby, calcite, ice), the simple ordering of molecules around a standard molecular pattern. DNA and RNA are themselves crystals, though they never really form into large structures. They don’t so much replicate as they play off of each other’s templates to reproduce themselves. Laboratory experiments have been performed showing that crystal formations, especially RNA (the one that does the copying), will tend towards the formations that will increase the efficiency of their replication. The arival of the Nucleic Acids may simply be the end result of crystaline structures undergoing this same process. This however is not a matter of evolution as the inheritor device is one of the requirements before evolution can begin. The arrival at RNA and DNA is actually part of the field of Abiogenisis, a field that main stream creationists have tried to link into the field of evolution.
You also speak of the “information” within DNA. DNA doesn’t really contain information as we would know it. It is a template by which protien structures can be formed. We are still researching exactly how the D-RNA pair facilitates the formation of the massive structures surrounding them. You then tie this to Mutation claiming that no mutations result in new informations. I suggest you look at Klinefelter’s syndrome, XYY syndrome, Triple X syndrome, and Polyploidy all mutations occurant that include the addition of chromosomes to the gene pool of the child.
Finally you bring up the bacterial flagellum, though I think you may be confused because your wording seems to take it as a kind of bacterial that could become a new kind of bacteria. The flagellum is a microcelular structure that consists of a rotary motor system turning the screw-like flagellum burrowing the bacteria through the water (I feel like I quoting Dawkins chapter and verse for this one). Similar structures have been found on other bacteria that are used to push out large protien structures from the bacteria’s walls, its not a large leap from twisting a convoluted protien crystal out of a body to simply twisting a protien around in a spiral using it for propulsion.
Well, I think I managed to address all your points Genisis Man. I welcome commentary.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oh, and to thefunrev: thank you.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
heaven forbid someone teach there children something different from what you beleive *Gasps!
February 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Sure. It’s okay to teach your children that robbery is an acceptable way of life! What’s that fanu? You don’t believe that robbery is an acceptable way of life? hmmm.
Ok, lets teach our kids that quarters are more valuable than dollars! What? You don’t believe that either? hmmm.
How about this. People can teach their kids that Allah wants them to wage Jihad against all infidels. Not believing that one either?
Well Heaven forbid someone teach their children something different from what you believe.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Wow this opened my eyes! ^.~
I think I will go toke’n’smoke and go watch the Flintstones…so I can see how Jeebus lived.
I have nothing to say to this. These people are not even worth fighting with.
Darwin is my hero!
February 9th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What a great debate. I was very entertained.
I am disturbed and mildly amused by the film.
Thankfully in England the Creationist movement is restricted to church and the occasional faith school.
In regards the origin of the species, life, etc,etc, I am still not clear why any religion is invited to the table to discuss their views.
The ’science’ of creationim appears to be very well written if someone wants to believe it.
Obviously its all rubbish, but these folks have had a lot of practice in convincing the masses.
Personally I can’t really be bothered to point out the floors in biblical beliefs, its so bloody obvious its beyond discussion.
What concerns me is that such ideas are inflicted upon young children in such a forceful way.
I wonder if their parents tell them the truth about Santa….
February 9th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
fanu:
Teaching children that evolution is wrong…or less harmfully, that creationism is on equal footing with evolution in terms of science…handicaps the child when they grow up. At a very young age you are already closing doors of opportunity that would otherwise be available to them such as biology, anthropology, etc.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Well…..what a bunch of ancient wisdom here from the skeptics. You willingly unbelieving scholars will have all of eternity to debate the existence of a real and literal hellfire also. Then you will not only finally prove its existence - you will realize it as your permanent residence. Who is the fool who will weep and wail forever at the foolishness of bathing in his bitterness against God?
February 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Thanks brad, but your not the first person to tell most of us we were going to hell. So what exactly is it thats sending us to hell? is it not believing in your god? cause every other religion could say the same thing about you. By the way, you cant be bitter at someone/something that doesn’t exist.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hi Irish,
I believe that my cars engine is made of popcorn - but the lab test just came back and PROVED me WRONG. Should I dig in my heels?
I know the terms right and wrong tend to threaten those who are hiding in the gray - so forgive me for using such “black and white” terminology here.
Your statement of God’s non existence makes it no more a fact than the this statement ” All squares are circles that came from triangles”……The test of Truth and Error isn’t your belief or non belief it is based on what IS a proven FACT.
The Lab tests are in and you are infected with an virus called unbelief. Its cause in your case has been PROVEN to be from your continual mistake of ignoring the magnificence of God’s Creation set before your eyes.
Cheer up and stop being so religious about your evolutionary dogma. Put away your false prophet called Darwin and his bible that has been scientifically disproven.
We have a fossil record that shows no transitional forms - your done, roasted, and cooked.
Look up at the endless universe you do not understand and ask for some real wisdom.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I have a hard time believing that any god could make creatures with the potential for such intelligence and then punish them for using it. Although I am personally agnostic, I should imagine the Brads of this world are more deserving of hellfire in His eyes than the atheists of this world.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
So tell me brad, do you actually believe the bible has been proven right? and your statement about transitional fossils is laughable, you’ll listen to anything your christian buddies tell you, wont you? we are understanding more and more about the universe we live in each day, it doesnt matter if YOU are paying attention to the research being done.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Brad, I normally don’t criticize people for their comments, but what on God’s green Earth are you talking about? Seriously, you are talking nonsense.
Please consider volunteering for the Just Ask! section so you can take your time to answer questions from everyone in an intelligible manner.
Please contact me if you’re interested because you are not doing your faith justice here. I look forward to hearing from you!
gasmonso
February 9th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I thought the billboards from the town were quite humorous. It reminded me of the Paula Poundstone joke about a billboard she had seen that said “the wages of sin are death” in which she added “but after taxes it’s really just a tired feeling.”
February 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
HALT !!!
Pilomotor is such a well spoken and polished intellectual that I just changed my beliefs in the supreme creator of the universe and have chosen to follow him.
I am sorry God - this man is just too inspiring and gifted for me to ignore any longer.
The conviction he has birthed in my soul to renounce you and follow him is too strong to not be real.
I just wish Pilomotor showed himself to me before all of this Creationism took over my soul,,,, HAHAHHAA !!!!!!!!
Ok I have to go now because I have this gorgeous wife calling me and 3 awesome kids who I love and I love to see walk and talk with God.
Life is great here at my place and God’s blessing is evident.
Thank God I am no longer walking in darkness and stumbling around attempting to disprove the truth as I once did.
Enjoy it guys - I sure as hell didnt !!!
February 9th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
brad, wev been trying to engage you in thoughtful discussion and you acting like a 5 year old.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Then lighten up and relax - man your religion makes you miserable !! I thought the truth was supposed to set us free !!
February 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
brad, im pretty relaxed, but your wasting time when you start posting comments like that. to be honest your making your religion look even worse.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Hi,
How am I making a religion you mock and despise look worse? Could it be any worse in your perspective? Be honest.
I am calling you on your BS? C’mon. You aren’t out to see the pretty Christians play by being involved on a religious HATE site.
I thought the Christain’s were the ones you guys said were hypocritical.
This is the very thing you label us for doing.
You are no better.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Alright I see I spelled Christian wrong : )
February 10th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hey Brad, please don’t label my site as a “religious HATE site”. I was a former Catholic myself and have respect for most religions. I started this site to challenge religious beliefs and approach the topic with meaningful discussion.
While we do joke about religion often, we do have some fantastic discussions about it. Many of the readers here are former Christians who became Atheist/Agnostic. There are even some Atheists/Agnostics here who became religious.
Either way, this is a relatively peaceful site where the focus is on learning and not badgering people.
I hope you can respect that and stick around because we’d love to have you!
gasmonso
February 10th, 2007 at 12:41 am
im fine with religious people, in fact i do volunteer work with a methodist church close to my home. Most christians are great people, the ones i have a problem with are the ones that use their religion to lie to children about facts. and this isn’t a “religious HATE site” its for both groups to gain a better understanding of each other.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hey All,
I am a Christian and I am not “ok” with religious people at all. I guess that is a different topic, lol.
I feel the same way as you do about people who lie to children or anyone else for that matter about the facts as well.
I also happen to dislike Christians for the most part, but I do believe in Christ and Creationism based on the facts of history, science, and archeology.
If I was waiting for a Church group to “whooo” me with their powerful intellectualism or supernatural abilities to love me - I would still be waiting.
I just looked at the facts and made a decision based on those facts.
So back to the issue what is the truth and what is a lie? How is that established? What criteria is used? Are we talking about Creationism and Evolution here in an open minded format? or are we talking about a group of people who have a website titled religiousfreaks.com to mock Christianity and misuse the extremism in Christendom to springboard their dislike towards the Biblical account of Creationism and God etc?
If I posted a website called “Atheism is a Mental Illness” what would be your first thought on that?
Is not this websites’ name a bit of a bash on the “faith”, at least be honest please - Your now pretending to be open minded and looking for a mutually edifying dialogue on the subject?
I’m just being objective here - this is a far from neutral website on the issue.
Look at what was posted on the top page:
“Oh my God! I love her reasoning of why she believes in creationism. What a damn fool”.
This seems almost as hateful and mean as the religious freaks I have met : )
Is that sort of thing welcomed, but me being a bit sarcastic is unacceptable now and making my “religion look bad”. Irish You are making this entire conversation not acceptable due to your not admitting the truth.
For someone who is fine with religious people and hates lieing your not holding your own to well here.
How in the world can you be so double minded as to spend your days here on this site posing as an intellectual skeptic?
Does anyone who has the guts to admit the truth want to engage here? Admit you hate Christians already people!!
As for our discussion Irish - sorry I need someone who can be honest and come right across the table and put their chips down.
Come to the table or go volunteer in the community with the “pretty religious people”.
Personally, I could never be involved with someone I thought was lying to little children - how sad is your hypocrisy.
How do you like those apples Irish?
February 10th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Ps) Lets not pretend we love eachother just yet ok? Thats Gods job - he loves you all - I like most of us “Christians” am a maga hypocrite and fail to live up to Christs demands to love and pray for my enemies. Personally I dislike you all right now.
: )
February 10th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I’ve got chips to throw down on the table for ya. Yes I know I’m feeding the trolls and adding fuel to the flame bait, but if you’ve got a reasonable question to ask, go ahead. I toss you an answer back.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Cool Jones - Please comment on this. “The Uncaused Cause”
Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in “voids” and “clumps,” or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, “where did everything come from?” Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
Help me - I’m lacking the faith in believing something came from nothing and exploded.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Hi Freebooter,
I agree, I think the word “empirical” would be the correct insertion in the place of “metaphysical”
Basic definition: originating in or based on observation or experience
Now on to the discussion…
First, I did not bring up the analogy regarding building materials, I merely responded to John Smith’s comments which poorly defend the theory of macro evolution. I used the terms macro in relation to one species or organism having the ability to evolve into another. Consequently, I use micro evolution to refer to small changes and adaptions within a species or organism but not beyond their category.
Second, my comments relating to, “building materials turning into living matter,” were not aimed at dealing with the origin of life, but rather that we do not observe one designation entity becoming another on an empirical level. This is what evolution claims, that one type of organism can become another through Natural Selection and mutations over a long period of time. This is where we run into the main problem, you even admit that macro-evolution can,
“…not be ‘proven’ in having being observed (it takes too long to happen)”
So it fails the qualifications of being scientific and requires “faith” to believe in this doctrine without current observable evidence from existing organisms.
Third, why is it that the so-called evidence for human macro-evolution always turns out to be a hoax?
1. Piltdown skull - Dawson the amateur turned out to be a fraud! http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/featur_piltskull_delibfake.html
2. Java man - “In 1890 Dubois found a skull cap (of a giant gibbon) and a human leg bone 45 ft. away” and then later put them together and claimed that he found a walking ape. He later admitted that he lied!
3. Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - One tooth was used as evidence of this fallacy, which later turned out to be an extinct pig’s tooth!
4. Neanderthal - Found in pretty early strata
5. Pekin Man - Very fragmented and later one found along side modern skulls in 1934.
6. Australopithecenes - These fossils have been proven to be mere Apes and are not human.
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm
THEY HAVE EVEN BEEN DISCREDITED IN THE NEWS BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA! This is clearly a scam that should be rejected by all intellectuals.
So I do not find one ounce of credibility in even fossil that clearly reveal tampering and deception to support the false presuppositions of those who hold to macro-evolution.
This is the kicker: If evolutionists hold themselves to the standards of science, which require empirical evidence that can be observed and repeated in the present–evolution fails miserably. Why? Even if one argues that macro-evolution happens over millions or years, one must still be able to observe in the present some organisms that are half one species and half another. But the problem is that there is no observable evidence to support macro-evolution in the observable present. Anyone can take bone fossils from one animal and mix it with the bones from another, which by the way is what many paleontologists have been accused of time and time again as I have just demonstrated.
Science CAN NOT demonstrate macro-evolution in the observable present, if there are fossil remains from millions of years ago showing evolutionary variations (which I have demonstrated to be falsified time and time again), then why can we not observe them in animals and other organisms living today? What about the current fossil record? They provide no credible evidence what-so-ever of new species evolving. What we see are extinct animals in the fossil record, but no new credible specimens evolving in the present.
4. Carbon dating is scientifically inaccurate beyond about ten half-lives, because there’s very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can’t be dated at all. That is why carbon dating up in the millions of years is a bit of a joke to be honest.
6. What new species have evolved that have not been debunked? NONE
Another day I will address Humanistic Jones and his interesting but problematic comments in posting #34
I want to extend my thanks to those who wish to discuss this issue from an intellectual standpoint
By the way, Brad, please keep your unhelpful comments to yourself. God loves these people even if we believe them to be deceived. I found Jesus to be true first through the love and of others, then personally through my own experience, then through the evidence I have discovered over time and continue to do so. I do not see any hope for life after death or purpose in evolution, but I do see people who need to place their hope in something.
over and out…
February 10th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Hey Good Post Genesis Man.
Sorry Its just been my experience and a valid one.
These comments of mine as bitter as they sound have also been a real observable science in my life and I would be lying if I didn’t come to the table and own our not so holy conduct my friend.
They could prove to be a real help rather then unhelpful to those who have been burned by the Church and concluded that this simply can not be real based on the religious hypocrisy they have seen - Ive been there. Have you?
These people seem tough - they can handle the truth about how we suck at relationships sometimes lol.
Its quite a gong show at times that causes people to stumble and re-look things, Been there as well.
Best stick to the “other” scientific facts though - if we get into people and how they conduct themeselves then Im moving back to the aethistic camp because they are nicer as a whole. : )
Just keeping it real.
Again - Great post Man.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I didn’t catch where it was claimed that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. Where did that picture at the top of the page come from?
February 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Ps) Hey Genesis Man, Did you see the article on the Remnant Church !!- this is what happens if you are a Deer in the Headlights in not calling Churches and the people in them on their BullSHite.
I go to Church and do it all the time. You may not be in the front pew - but you will sleep well at night.
Believing in Christ and going to Church doesnt mean we love and accept without questioning the devils in our midst bro.
That lady is a little scronny she- devil fer sure : )
Cheers.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hello Genesis Man, brilliant post. This is what keeps me coming here - the honest debate.
You’re right that carbon-dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years, and beyond that the error in the measurement becomes quite large. However, it can say with certainty that some fossils are significantly older than 60,000 years - which is enough to rule out young-earth creationism.
You are also correct that the fossil record is incredibly difficult to work with. Very few animals become fossils at all, so the number of fossils in good condition is small. That overhyped pieces of evidence from that period has been debunked - both transitionary fossils and creationist evidence such as the human and dinosaur footprints - should not cause any alarm. It should just be discounted. Although I thought the whole point of Australopithecenes was that it was “just” an ape which showed some human features.
The main reason I think evolution is true is because it is observed on the small scale. It has not been observed for the large scale, but I see no reason why it would not be true for large scales too. After all, where would you draw the line? Dogs if dogs can evolve into different breeds of dog, at what point do they stop having a common ancestor? For the wolf? For the jackal? For the fox? Do you include cats? Or all mammals? For whatever point you put a common ancestor on, you’d have to explain why there is similarity with other nearby species - why they have the same number of toes, for example? Why they all have teeth, and fur, and so on. If I was designing a new animal, I’d make it have ears on its feet and have ten arms - why was God so restrained? If they were made for us, why were some extinct before we came along?
The second problem with creationism is that is isn’t testable. Scientific theories make predictions, which are then tested to see if the theory remains acceptable or if it is wrong. Creationism does not allow this - whatever set of results you get, it will never be disproven. That doesn’t make it wrong, but in my view it does make it a bit useless.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Hi All,
Us Christians would love to prove you all into believing in God and I have just realized how wrong this was of me and I apologize.
Would anyone walk into 7-11 and tell the guys holding up the place to stop being so violent?
How would that intervention technique go over?
What should I have expected?
If people are searching for God and have questions and doubts which we all do - then that is one thing, but having a website titled religiousfreaks.com?
I mean it is obvious here there is one motive.
The problem I am having is that God thinks people who do not believe in him for whatever reason are fools.
He said it not me:
Consider the following:
In Psalm 14:1 we read, “The fool says in his heart, ”There is no God.’”
That’s a pretty blunt accusation - that a person who says there is no God, is a fool isn’t it?
Our modern overly-sensitive ears are startled when language like this is used. However, when the Bible speaks of “fools” and “foolishness” it isn’t engaging in adolescent name calling. Instead, the word “fool” is used to describe a person who is in a state of moral and intellectual dullness.
Also in the words of Jesus himself:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and trample you.
So I am going to be a good little Christian boy now and refuse to go any further with ya all. It looks as though nobody is here searching for the Gospel of God’s Love are they?
Gods desire is for you to believe in him and not die in your sins- but at the end of the day it is a choice for you to make right?
I mean if all the evidence was in and we proved over and over again that Jesus was God in the flesh and created the universe that would be enough right? Wrong - look at Judas, this guy walked with Christ and witnessed all his miracles with his own eyes - but still he didn’t believe. This was not an intellectual unbelief - as a matter of fact no unbelief related to God is intellectual, it is moral.
Judas’ problem was not his education, neither was it so called evidence of another form of our origins, it was his wicked heart that hated Jesus and betrayed him. Period.
In every age there have been skeptics. People who hide from the truth behind so called intellectual systems that claim to be “Greater than God”.
Hide behind any dogma you wish, be it Darwin’s, Huxley’s, Freud’s, Marx’s, Humanism, Intellectualism, Secularism, Paganism, or any other “ism” and the end result is still going to be the same.
You will get to meet one day and get a chance to take on the great Scientist himself face to face.
Right in his own Lab.
I hope I am not there to hear the results when the tests are in regarding the ones who knowingly rejected him. One look from him on that day and you will already be in hell - he wont even have to send you there.
And I hope that nobody in this room faces the horror of the reality of God’s perfect and just wrath which he storing up for his enemies on that day.
I will hide in him - not in my unbelieving pride which I once walked in. Suggest the same for you all.
Does that seem too simple and not intellectual enough to accept?
Well guess what, it is that simple. Make the journey as complicated as you want but I do hope you all reach the desired destination being the salvation of your souls through Christ.
Cheers Gentleman. Brad out.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:47 am
@Brad (post 59)
There is NO link between BB theory and evolution. That many evolutionists believe in BBT do not mean anything, it only proves that scientists builds their views on the most common knowledge when they are asked about stuff not within their branch of science. Among the scientists who actually devote their life to astrophysics you will find many who do not believe in a the BBT but rather string theorists and multiverse theorists. Undoubtfully most of these will also believe in evolution, but there is no link between these to scientific branches.
You ask a few questions which I personally think you do not understand yourself. If you had understood them you would know that these questions cant be answered by writing a few lines. Please visit http://arxiv.org/ for information on your questions (be advised that these papers involves advanced math and are not written for anyone to understand) but you will find papers commenting your question. Please sit down do some reading, write down your questions (refer to paper) and submit them to the author. You will find that most of the authors here will answer you if you have done your homework and actually submitted a sound question.
As a final note I would like to say something about proving a scientific theory.
A scientific theory can NOT be proven. One builds a theory on the basis of what is known. One then go out and try to falsify that theory by measuring reality and see if reality fits the values the theory predicted, if the values match then your theory still holds (for now), if not, it is either modified or thrown out as bad science. This process newer stops, a theory is NEVER proven per se, every time new data is gathered it is used to test the present theories, if any data deviate from the predicted values the theory must me adjusted or thrown out.
Let us look at Newtons law of gravitation. It was believed to be correct, but falsified when the general theory of relativity was able to predict Mercury’s perihelion orbit where Newtons laws were not. We still use Newtons law because it is much simpler than Einsteins models, and it gives almost the correct answers, but it still not “trueâ€, the general theory of relativity is the only model that has held true all the way, but is still not “proven to be trueâ€
So rest assured, if anything can disproof evolution the scientific community will do so. But up until today no scientific data has ever disproved evolution, one can argue that we have not proven evolution since we have not (and will never be able to because of the way science works on theories), but more important all the predictions have been found to hold, and thereby strengthening evolution as a theory.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Thanks for beating me to that one NewOne, I am still working out my response. String Theory and Cosmology are nowhere near my fields of expertice and finding the right info to answer Brad’s questions is posing a time consumer. I do plan to get back with my researched responses however.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:11 am
Thanks for the reply, Genesis Man.
You’re right about the inaccuracy of carbon-dating, of course. *extracts foot from mouth*
The other points you raised were addressed quite eloquently in h2g2bob’s post (#64).
And to Brad, and every other hellfire-preaching Christian:
If there exists a god, and he/she/it decided to torture me, or anyone else, for eternity for a finite “sin”, it is my firm conviction that it is the moral duty of every thinking being to do everything in their power to bring about the demise of that god.
Any being that metes out infinite punishment for a finite transgression has done an infinite evil, and is therefore infinitely evil itself, and should be fought at every turn.
I am, however, firmly convinced of the non-existence of the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so threatening me with the fires of Hell just brings a smile to my face. :-) I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of some kind of creator of the universe, but if there is such a being, it is highly unlikely to care if I worship it or not. Such a being demanding my worship would be akin to a microbiologist demanding that all the bacteria on a petri dish worship her, because she is more powerful than they are, and they exist because of her. (Not a perfect analogy, but it will do.)
February 12th, 2007 at 5:21 am
@Brad
The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including
-Techincally the Big Bang is not an Origin theory, I will get to that in a bit, but I will address the concerns as they arose.
1)the uneven distribution of matter that results in “voids†and “clumps,â€
-This is not as much of a problem as it may seem. Cohesive forces do tend towards even spread, but even on a small scale we can observe the formation of uneven structures by way of cohessive force.
Take for instance a shallow circular pool of water on a table, enclosed by a barrier of some kind. If the barrier is removed, we should expect by a naturally even force like molecular cohesion, that the water would expand in an even circle, across the table. If the cohession would break down at a certain distance, we would expect a geometric break down, producing the same pattern on all sides in all directions. However, if one actually does this, the water begins to spread in random directions, beads breaking away in different sizes at different lengths as the threads of expanding water travel out, resulting in a mess of voids and clumps. The factor here is that despite the even nature of the force, nature tends towards the simplest answer to a problem. In attempting to maintain the cohesion of as much matter as possible, the mass of water will pull apart unevenly, resulting in what we end up seeing.
Gravity is quite a bit different, but I feel the example should suffice. Logically if all the matter in the universe were compressed to the same area and then evenly expanded out, the question arises as to why we have clumps and voids. To say it simply, some area of matter had to clump up first because of gravity. Even with even gravitational force keeping all particles at equilibrium with each other, all the free energy working on the early matter would have created vibrations forcing particles together. These resultant clumps would then attract more and more matter forming the clumps so stated. The areas between would quickly (relative to cosmological scales of time) be swept free of their matter, preventing more massive forms from occuring as the few remaining particles would have such weak gravitation towards each other relative to the new galaxies.
2)the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Retrograde motion in no way violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. This law simply states that if a system has an angular momentum X, then if it splits apart the resultant pieces must retain a net angular momentum of X. If say the early universe had an angular momentum of 10 (just an arbitrary number) if split into two equal pieces, these pieces would have to have a net AM of 10 so 5 and 5 would work, or 9 and 1, or even 12 and -2. Given the 12 and -2 example, the second particle has angular momentum in the opposite vector from the original system, but the first particle accounts for this by gaining angular momentum. This change becomes even easier if we split the system into more and more pieces.
Now having seen this argument used before, I bring in the example used most commonly, Venus’s rotation. The claim is made that Venus should not rotate backwards from the other planets because it must rotate the same direction by angular momentum. This is very much incorrect. Firstly, this example connects Venus’ rotation to the rotation of the early Bang mass. However, by the Big Bang, Venus was not thrown out of the early mass as a whole planet orbiting our sun. Venus would have gained its rotational energy from the activation of our sun’s planetary nebula. Even by this Venus is still capable of rotating “backwards”, simply because if it were rotating the other way, the other planets would simply be rotating slower to conserver the angular momentum of the system. This example also assumes a Kinematic system in which the angular momentum is the only force at work. Collisions by stelar bodies, gravity, explosive forces, etc. can all act on a planet to change its rotation (and still conserving angular momentum as force was added to the system to change the rotation without affecting the other planets).
3)Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, “where did everything come from?†Did nothing explode?
-The big bang theory does not at all presume to say where the matter and energy originated. The simplest, accurate statement I can give of the big bang is as follows from Wikipedia (a wonderfully simple statement of the theory lacking in the large equations typical of cosmology)
The Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.
Naturally this does not deal with the origin of the matter, something that requires entirely different fields of study. To answer the question of “Did nothing explode?” the statement of the theory is saying that something existed at a very small point, that then expanded, not that there was nothing which then exploded.
4)How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
-The typical progression of thermodynamics would account for this. Progressing towards more stable and lower energy formations, matter would have coaleced, reducing the amount of free kinetic energy into more complex chemical forms. Since the theory is not a statement of an explosion, but more a statement of a cosmological expansion, we aren’t dealing with the kinds of destructive energy in a bomb (though destructive is in itself a relative term on this scale). Gravity causes particles to attract forming into structures, chemical processes form the more complex molecules using the free energy in the early universe and later the radiative energy of stars. Order achieved.
Hope this helps, I may not be making alot of sense given that Cosmology and Astrophysics aren’t my fields in the least, I’m going off of alot of sources, and its 5am as I’m finishing this up. Hope this answers your question Brad.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Great Post Humanistic Jones.
The matter at hand is very complex, far more complex than one is able to show by analogies (you did good though:). Just think of the problems we have when it comes to 4 dimension visualisation. We break up the system to 3+1 where time is the +1 dimension. But this is just a crude visualisation technique. When working with a 4 dimension world we map the system down to 3 dimensions to be able to grasp what we think is happening. This is why we struggle to get the any conclusive answers. Just as a 2D person would not be able to grasp why 3D objects mapped down to 2D behaves as they do. What then when we are working with 10+ dimensions?
Anyway, when it comes to questions as “where did everything come from†I must confess we have no knowledge of this, and further more it really does not matter. When inside a singularity all laws of physics breaks down. There is no conservation of information, force or matter. There is nothing within a singularity which says that 2+2=4, 2+900=4 is just as true. All dimensions are meaningless; length and time as we know them are of no consequence, since they can not exist within the singularity. Since no naked singularity have been and never will be found we can not say what is happening within it since the event horizon denies us this insight. Because of this anything happening before the BB is of no consequence since anything before this moment can not influence events after the BB.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Thanks for your input h2g2bob,
I too see small changes in living organisms that have been observed for centuries, which I refer to as micro-evolution (e.g. Darwin’s finches are a good example of this scientific fact). But, I would not go as far as saying that this is a good reason to believe one species can change into another (what I refer to as macro-evolution). That is a whole different ball game, and consequently where I draw the line. There is no evidence for this in the observable present, which is a stipulation required to qualify as being scientific.
Regarding where to draw the line, let’s use dog breeding as an example.
When a dog breeder breeds dogs via intelligent selection, many different types of dogs are produced. However, no cats ever result from this process no matter how many times certain dogs are bred with other dogs. Basically, this is clear evidence of micro-evolution (some dogs are brown, some are black, and some have short fur, while others have long etc), but macro-evolution (a dog becoming a cat) is never observed even after 100’s of years of breeding. From the beginning of time, dogs, wolves, jackals, and foxes have all been related. This has been proven by researchers who have discovered…
‘The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has been established … we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide … suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations.’
Savolainen, P., Zhang, Y.P., Luo, J., Lundeberg, J. and Leitner, T., Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs, Science 298(5598):1610–1613, 22 November 2002.
This seems to be a pretty good place to draw the line don’t you think?
As for the similarities in other organisms, maybe they were just created that way in the first place? :o)
As for why some were extinct before we came along, I am sure God knows the answer to that question. However, I do know the answer to why there are so many difference species today that were not around during the time of Noah. They had simply not mutated to the extent they have today through cross breeding leading to different types of dogs.
By the way, Creationism is actually testable, it is just a matter of observing the evidence that we have in front of us. Does it lend more towards evolution (i.e. macro) or towards Creationism? Well, have you ever considered why Creationists say that DNA is evidence for a designer? This observable entity has a sequence that when unraveled contains the instructions for life. DNA can not be explained by evolution, it is needed for Natural Selection to work in the first place. Since DNA is information, which is basically the instructions needed for each cell to work (including self-replication), and Natural Selection requires DNA to exist so that the parts of the cell function to the extent of allowing self replication, then one must provide an alternative to evolution. We don’t see a watch on a beach and say that it must have evolved over long periods of time, no, we instead acknowledge that the intricate parts must have been assembled by an intelligent being. How much more then should we point to an intelligent designer when it comes to living organisms with all its machines and ordered functionality. Each machine is made with a purpose. I could use the bacteria flagellum if needed, since I am familiar with this organism. But I will leave this for a later post, should I need to elaborate further.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Hi Humanistic Jones, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I definitely want to address your statement,
“The genetic level of evolution is not a break down since while it requires a replication organism, the organism requires that there be a method of inheritance.”
At this point you reference DNA as the genetic code that references itself off RNA which does the copying.
So what you are saying is that (to quote my father), “…the evolutionary creation of information requires an accidental device.” But all information as we know it is the product of intelligence as I mentioned in my last post. As a computer scientist you understand what software is and how it works, it is ordered information and can not be explained in terms of “…the random state of hardware.”
Even if the substance of life revolving around proteins and the primordial soup, just happened to evolve out of nothing (the hardware example, which I find hard to believe), then DNA, which is information (or as you say a “template,” which by the way is still information in my books), and RNA which is the mechanism for replication, like software must be acquired by intelligent design.
It would be ludicrous to expect computer hardware to provide ordered information with no software input from it’s designer (the computer programmer).
Don’t you see? DNA is evidence that a designer has provided order to our universe, it is the blue print left behind by our Creator as evidence of his handiwork.
——————————————————–
Regarding your comment on Nucleic Acids, it is best said by the experts:
“The implausibility of prevital nucleic acid
If it is hard to imagine polypeptides or polysaccharides in primordial waters it is harder still to imagine polynucleotides. But so powerful has been the effect of Miller’s experiment on the scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable constituents of a primordial soup and hence that prevital nucleic acid replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of experiments.
There have indeed been many interesting and detailed experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, to my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in precisely the opposite: these experiments allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise have been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible.
Let us consider some of the difficulties:
1. First, as we have seen, it is not even clear that the primitive Earth would have generated and maintained organic molecules. All that we can say is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
2. Second, high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines had to be produced in a sufficiently concentrated form (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
3. Third, the conditions must now have been right for reactions to give perceptible yields of at least two bases that could pair with each other.
4. Fourth, these bases must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made, and the solutions must have been sufficiently concentrated.
5. Fifth, in some other location a formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M must have built up.
6. Sixth, this accumulated formaldehyde had to oligomerise to sugars.
7. Seventh, somehow the sugars must have been separated and resolved, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose.
8. Eighth, bases and sugars must now have come together.
9. Ninth, they must have been induced to react to make nucleosides. (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry-phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides (Orgel & Lohrmann, 1974).)
February 13th, 2007 at 2:30 am
10. Tenth, whatever the mode of joining base and sugar it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the alpha or beta-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms (see page 29). For nucleic acids it has to be the beta-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 % of the correct structure.)
11. Eleventh, phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things (Ponnamperuma, 1978).)
12. Twelfth, the phosphate must be activated in some way—for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate—so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible.
13. Thirteenth, to make standard nucleotides only the 5′hydroxyl of the ribose should be phosphorylated. (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1971). Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed (Osterberg, Orgel & Lohrmann. 1973).)
14. Fourteenth, if not already activated—for example as the cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate—the nucleotides must now be activated (for example with polyphosphate; Lohrmann, 1976) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
15. Fifteenth, the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) must now have polymerised. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate (Orgel & Lohrmann. 1974)); but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem:
* While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U)—they are in fact triple helixes—and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid—mainly to di(A) stable helical structures were not formed when either poly (A) or poly(G) were used as templates.
* It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides—ATP or cyclic 2′,3′-phosphates—were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5′-phosphorimidazolides, for example were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1978).
* Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2′-5′ and the normal 3′-5′ types. Often the 2′-5′ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn2+, as well as acting as an efficient catalyst for the template-directed oligomerisation of guanosine 5′-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3′-5′ bonds (Lohrmann, Bridson & Orgel, 1980).
16. Sixteenth, the physical and chemical environment must at all times have been suitable—for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations.
17. Seventeenth, all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
18. Eighteenth, unlike polypeptides, where you can easily imagine functions for imprecisely made products (for capsules, ionexchange materials, etc.), a genetic material must work rather well to be any use at all—otherwise it will quickly let slip any information that it has managed to accumulate.
19. Nineteenth, what is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. A whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps millions of years: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides at the least.
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.
You might want to argue about the nineteen problems that I chose: and I agree that there is a certain arbitrariness in the sequence of operations chosen. But if in the compounding of improbabilities nineteen is wrong as a number that would be mainly because it is much too small a number. If you were to consider in more detail a process such as the purification of an intermediate you would find many subsidiary operations—washings, pH changes and so on. (Remember Merrifield’s machine: for one overall reaction, making one peptide bond, there were about 90 distinct operations required.)”
Reference
Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982 (list formatting added).
February 13th, 2007 at 2:59 am
However, your argument does not disprove evolution. Regardless of the method of the origination of the nucleotides, they are a necessary component to be existant BEFORE we arive at evolution. What happened before that is not for evolution to prove or disprove but for chemistry and such.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:17 am
@Genesis Man
“It would be ludicrous to expect computer hardware to provide ordered information with no software input from it’s designer (the computer programmer).â€
Since you brought it up, Please refer to the all knowing oracle google.com and its articles on “self evolving hardwareâ€.
Anyway what I want to say is that you, as expected, points out the improbability of the DNA evolving. This is standard argument from such as you, but then you completely ignore that you are not an third party observer, you are part of the system or rather a result of that exact improbable thing happening. This means that, yes it is an unlikely event if you pick one planet among hundreds of billions of planets and then expect a DNA to pop up in a few billion years. But if you take the entire population of planets, and then have the same expectation its no longer that unlikely.
Ok, lets make an analogy. Lets say give 6 billion people one number each from 0 to 6 billion, then let a computer pick a random number between 0-12 billion. The likelihood of you winning the lottery is infinite small, but the likelihood of any one single person winning is only 1:2. So as you might see, the improbability argument is really not as valid as you think it is.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:22 am
“By the way, Creationism is actually testable, it is just a matter of observing the evidence that we have in front of us. Does it lend more towards evolution (i.e. macro) or towards Creationism? Well, have you ever considered why Creationists say that DNA is evidence for a designer? This observable entity has a sequence that when unraveled contains the instructions for life.”
just like thunder bolts are evidence that Zeus exists? Seriously this is in no way evidence of evidence.
For some nice examples about computer programs using random mutations to solve a given problem, you can look for Genetic Algorithms.
There might be some common ground for us though: if God didn’t create species as they are, then perhaps god created the mechanism by which we evolve(just like he created the laws of physics, but probably didn’t make the planets by hand, he just knew they’d turn out this way in the end.)
I’ve encountered some religious people who believe in this version, and we atheists(at least me) don’t have a problem with you guys teaching this, because it doesn’t throw the science out of the window(to quote southpark “couldn’t god be the answer to why while evolution is the answer to how?”)
February 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Newone…
I am sorry, but no hardware will ever become something without the input and design of a programmer behind it, even if it can adapt and change based upon allowances in its program–it was already placed there by the programmer–make your point. SELF EVOLVING HARDWARE IS RIDICULOUS, and I think you should also serious consider my arguments instead of coming up with all these possibilities with regard to planets when you simply can not prove it! I just proved to you the impossibility of the primordial soup providing the structure and the raw materials that evolution uses, regardless of whether this disproves evolution or not, you have nothing to work with prior to evolution.
Agony, algorithms are calculations made by websites regarding a number of factors, they process information and are programmed by people at google–what is your point?
Humanistic Jones you can not escape the need for explanation. I have already spoken about the problem with evolution’s mechanism for change (NS), and now you seem to be backing out of the arguments against the nucleic acid statements made in your last post. DNA is information and there is no way around that argument–but I will let you refer to it as a template if you like? :o)
I hope you see the improbability of such Nucleic Acids forming randomly resulting in “crystaline structures” as an explanation for the material structure inherited by the evolutionary process. There is just too much order to be explained by the primordial soup theory, which requires improbabilities beyond this study above.
Lastly, the parts making up the bacteria flagellum can not be totally provided by co-option (30 are unique!), which is the method by which an organism borrows parts from other organisms. And even if the parts could be provided entirely independent of this organism, an explanation for the sequence of those parts has to be provided (as per my previous discussion, the existence of DNA can not be explained via the evolutionary model, it requires DNA to exist prior to the mechanism of Natural Selection). Secondly, those parts independent of the whole would leave the entity nonfunctional (even if all are present except one–say the rotor) and therefore would not be beneficial to survival under the evolutionary model. Please read the quote below from William Dembski’s response paper to Ken Miller:
“To sum up, the Darwinian mechanism requires a selectable function if that mechanism is going to work at all. Moreover, functional pieces pulled together from various systems via coevolution and co-option are selectable by the Darwinian mechanism. But what is selectable here is the individual functions of the individual pieces and not the function of the yet-to-be-produced system. The Darwinian mechanism selects for preexisting function. It does not select for future function. Once that function is realized, the Darwinian mechanism can select for it as well. But making the transition from existing function to novel function is the hard part. How does one get from functional pieces that are selectable in terms of their individual functions to a system that consists of those pieces and exhibits a novel function? The Darwinian mechanism is no help here. Darwin himself conceded this point. Writing in the Origin, he noted: “Unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.” To say that those profitable variations are random errors is to beg precisely the point in question.â€
PLEASE READ:
“STILL SPINNING JUST FINE: A RESPONSE TO KEN MILLER”
By William A. Dembski, 2.17.03, v.1
Keeping it real, until next time…
February 13th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
huh? Algorithems are used (mainly?) in websites? and written (mostly?) by google? I must have missed the newsflash where google got a patent on algorithms and programmable machines…
Anyhow, my point is that we can simulate the laws of evolution within a computer, and get some very interesting results out of it. No simulation i know of encompasses all the various aspects of life, but they do contain the basic framework for it, so as I said: reading up on aLife and Genetic Algorithems might be a very good idea, because they simulate exactly what you call Macro-Evolution.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I really wanted to read all of Genesis Man’s posts, but I just couldn’t. They are so full of logical fallacies and plainly ridiculous claims that it made my brain hurt. Here is one of my favorites:
If you find a watch on the beach you have to assume someone created it not that it evolved that way. Of course, but you DO realize you are comparing a non-organic non-living item to an organic being right? There are more than a few differences. A watch isn’t made up of cells is it? Comparing the two in that way completely and utterly invalidates your arguement.
Its like talking to a brick wall with these people. The let the book make up their mind for them and that is it. No matter how much you try to talk sense into them they refuse to see it. It is just too frustrating sometimes.
Good luck Humanistic Jones, I hope you enjoy talking into a void. You can’t show a picture to a blind man and have him understand what it is.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Michael you need to reeducate yourself and get in the game. Here’s is a good starting point about inanimate objects and their obvious creator…
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/04/30/an-atheists-worst-nightmare/
February 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Damn, I knew I forgot something. Genesis Man’s favorite whipping post here: Macro evolution. The problem is, you will never see proof of macro evolution, no matter how long you live. You can see evidence of it though, which is more than can be said for your creationism. If I were you I would stop trying to use DNA to prove creationism, if anything it proves evolution.
You want to see an intermediary species but you wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it. Thats because right now it IS the end result, but millions of years from now who knows what it may be. Pure baseless speculation here but you would agree that a lion on the savannas of Africa shares a common ancestor with a common house cat right? Yet, while both of them are still cats you can see that they are very very different. Do you believe that the divergence is going to stop there? Do you completely discount the possibility that in 100 million years the descendants of those animals will be completely different species? This doesn’t even take a big leap of faith. Certainly nowhere near as much as believing in god.
The willful ignorance of believers is amazing sometimes.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Oh but Gasmoso I didn’t say inanimate. While I did say organic BEINGS, thereby implying a sentient creature, the same argument applies to a non-sentient banana. Isn’t that the best kind though? What would a sentient banana be like? Anyway, a banana is an organic growing, reproducing thing made of cells too and thus is susceptible to evolutionary pressures as well. When is the last time you saw a watch reproduce itself? Reproduction is a required aspect of evolution.
P.S. I get the joke, just wanted to throw that in too!
February 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
My big problem I have here are the terms Macro and Micro-evolution. They didn’t exist until critics of evolution created them. But what they fail to realize is that both occur by the exact same process, thus if one can happen, the other can. The use of the term micro-evolution is simply interchangable with the more accurate term Natural Selection. They in fact use micro-evolution to support the idea that organisms can change over time.
The term they then claim is false is macro-evolution. Now the problem with the term macro-evolution is that it makes either simply inaccurate and sometimes bizarre claims (such as the Hovind-esque “Was your grandfather soup?” or “Evolutionists say if you breed dogs long enough, you’ll get cats.”) about the evolutionary process. The first is the idea that species are some set-in-stone, iron-barred division between kinds of life, which is simply not the case. They are mearly names of milestones along the tree of life.
Much as we mark maps of elevation with rings denoting the elevation at a certain point, the naming of a species marks certain milestone changes in the evolution of life. The map only shows markers for every 10m, but we do not assume that the mountain is composed of nothing but ring like plateaus every 10 meters, instead we assume that the mountain slopes gradually between the markers and that the markers are there to let us know when a certain referencable location has been reached. In much the same way, species simply mark good reference points, points on the tree of life where adaptations have created an organism capable of producing a large population with few variations within itself. One should not assume that life simply jumps between forms. It gradually and fluidly shifts from one to the next over long periods of time, until a point is reached where the organism can dominate an environmental niche.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:06 am
@Genesis Man
I should have guessed that you wouldn’t be able to use google, anyway let me point you to some friends of mine, http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~pauline/ehwmain.html and http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~pauline/EHW/che.html NTNU have done a lot of research on this and have gotten some pretty fantastic results. But of course you know better and should probably tell them that this is a dead end project and save the community from investing millions in stuff you (being all knowing) know is a dead end.
“I just proved to you the impossibilityâ€, No you have not proven the impossibility, you have proven that it is unlikely. That was my point, it is unlikely that such process will happen on one specific planet, but it is not improbable that it happens on any one planet. By your logic we are not alive since it is unlikely(impossible would you say) that we were born. Since we raced for the egg together with millions of other sperm cells (we were lucky just to take part of the race), the likelihood that just that one sperm cell witch made up you and I got to the egg cell first, it is so unlikely that, by your standards it couldn’t have happened. What you need to understand that such logic breaks down when your observation of an event is only possible when the event has actually come to pass. Please bear in mind that you didn’t only have to be the fastest swimmer in your group, all your ancestors also needed to be the fastest swimmers, and decide to get a baby at the exact time they did. One headache 10.000 years ago would have made it impossible for you to be born.
Disclaimer: after writing this I suddenly realised that you of course will say that God created you and thereby breaking the logic behind my post. So this post is not aimed at you, but at the people who base their life on reasoning and logic.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I get a big kick out of it when creationists say they don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution, and I see it all the time. Its one of their little “talking points”. This is code for “I am ignorant, have no idea what evolution is and believe every word out of the mouth of the man with the bible”. I find it funny when they claim that evolution has been disproven by science when the exact opposite is true. Propagada at it’s best.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:31 am
You know, I sure wish Gasmonso would figure out a way to let us edit our posts. I just realized I got that wrong. They say they don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. The gist of the post still applies though, just wanted to correct myself before someone else does.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Agony, who said anything about google being the only ones who use Algorithems lol…
Michael, you obviously don’t understand Macro vs. Micro evolution, but hey a fool speaks before he understands. Changes within a species are clearly observed so what is your argument??? Read one of my previous post, oh wait, you don’t seem to have evolved to that point. By the way, I haven’t heard anything sound from you yet LOL, let the others speak if you can’t understand my arguments or speak with an once of intelligence. You don’t understand analogies either, they are a logical way of explaining something else, but I guess…. hmmmm you didn’t get that…. Intermediate beings…lol, they would be part one species and part another observable in the present…, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Newone, I expected better from you, I read several articles on the website–what is your point? They are programming (i.e input) a computer to do certain things based upon certain circumstances and calculations. No one has ever seen a computer assemble itself without any human input that allows them to make calculations. Computers only do what human programmers have programed them to do, and any so called hardware adaptions come as a result of human invention. All these things require human intelligence behind them, and therefore point to the creator of that intelligence (i.e. humans). Boy that wasn’t so hard was it? I must admit, the site you sent me was interesting, but doesn’t really deal with the issues at hand… the origin of life and the mechanism of evolution as it relates to living organisms. I am still reading through articles such as “Evolving messing gates…” and “Messy Evolution…,” but so far nothing that is intellectually satisfying to be honest (although interesting I must say).
Ok one correction, I have proved that macro evolution is unlikely…
I don’t mind talking with most of you, but I am not going to waste my time with cheap shots (i.e. Michael).
My argument is that it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in Dembski and Behe’s defense of intelligent design using the Bacterial Flagellum.
See my previous link to “The Bacterial Flagellum: Still Spinning Just Fine” by William A. Dembski
You also might want to watch the video “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life,” which goes into detail regarding the intelligent design debate. This information along with other studies have been enough to convince me over macro evolution.
By the way you guys might want to check out their credentials on google if you know how to look them up ;-)?
Over and out…
February 14th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hell Genesis Man,
I am returning here after missing quite a bit of the conversation. I haven’t read all of the previous posts so please bear with me if this has already been covered.
I took your advice and I looked up the bio of Mr. Dembski. I couldn’t help but notice that he is a mathematician (not a very good one), philosopher, and theologian and not an evolutionary biologist. He even had trouble finding an academic job after grad school until the Discovery Institute picked him up. As such, he is not a credible critic of evolutionary theory.
As a philosopher, I am always interested in the ID debate. I’m sure Mr. Dembski has much to say about this topic. The largest flaw I’ve noticed in ID is that nature exhibits spontaneous complexity. That is, complexity that comes about as a result of non-intelligent means. Also, Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion presents excellent arguments against ID. How does he respond to these objections?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
LOL, talk about a Freudian slip! The first three words of my previous post is supposed to read “Hello Genesis Man”.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
@ Genesis Man-
“..I have proved that macro evolution is unlikely.”
Your arrogance notwithstanding, you have proven nothing.
I will make one more suggestion, as to where you can go for accurate information regarding macro evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
I will be happy to help you through the more difficult parts, although I am no miracle worker. It’s complicated stuff, so don’t feel bad if you don’t understand it right away.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
The Genesis Man: “Michael, you obviously don’t understand Macro vs. Micro evolution, but hey a fool speaks before he understands.”
I don’t think it is so obvious. From my perspective it is you who does not understand evolution. You seem to want to separate evolution into two distinct areas with some arbitrarily drawn line. The problem is, they are all part of the exact same process just different parts of the time line. I really think you should actually look up what some actual scientists have to say about the subject and not what your preacher has to say.
“Changes within a species are clearly observed so what is your argument??? Read one of my previous post, oh wait, you don’t seem to have evolved to that point. By the way, I haven’t heard anything sound from you yet LOL, let the others speak if you can’t understand my arguments or speak with an once of intelligence.”
Pot. Kettle. Black. This little diatribe just goes to show, to me at least, that you realize your weakly constructed arguments are falling apart. Do you understand the concept of speciation? It is when a single species evolves, over the course of a very long time (millions of years) to the point at which they are no longer the same species. They share a common ancestor. It is what you incorrectlu call “macro” evolution.
“You don’t understand analogies either, they are a logical way of explaining something else, but I guess…. hmmmm you didn’t get that….”
I am almost embarrassed to address this one but I can’t help myself. Of course I understand analogies but your analogy was so outrageous to the point of uselessness. There is more I could say on this point, but why bother?
“Intermediate beings…lol, they would be part one species and part another observable in the present…, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???”
You really mean to say you don’t think I understand what you meant? What I was saying is that it is not cut and dried line, you will not find any cat-bears or dog-horses. That is the stuff of mythologies, including your bible. What you will find is a slow deviation over the course of a very very long time and then at some point they will no longer be the same species.
And to think, you actually had the nerve to imply that I was stupid.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Michael, I really don’t think he’s listening. I’ve been saying that since I started addressing him. And I really haven’t seen a coherent challenge to any of my responses.
Given that, I guess I’ll ask for some.
1) I request proof that information requires an intelligent source.
2) I request proof that the protien templates within DNA must (not can, must) be representable by binary procedural data for the metaphor of computational information to stand.
3) I request given the watchmaker/computer-maker metaphor that you use in your discussion of apparent design in nature, I wish to see similarities between the inorganic mechanical and the organic biochemical that would imply that atomic and molecular bonding requires the same scale of orientation based interconnection to function.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Michael
Simply put dude, there is no empirical evidence in the current fossil record for evolution between species, they have all been debunked, and you were the one who does not pay attention and is not following the argument. You are the one that basically thinks that because animals adapt within their species there is no clear line. I disagree, the line is one species to another. For that there is no evidence and you rely on blind faith. Just so you know, I did not draw that picture above, and I have not claimed anything regarding biblical animals. However, there are creatures mentioned that no longer exist today, but the descriptions are not precise (just the author’s description) so I would not argue anything based upon such things.
By the way, the Bible is the oldest book of antiquity and is historically very accurate. That which has been discovered verifies the time periods and also many who lived during those time periods. I guess you can read Hebrew and Greek too huh? Apparently, you have a text that is older and more reliable than the biblical scrolls of Qumran sitting in our Congress’s library?
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/lc.rel.mats.lbry.html
Or what about all the New Testament manuscripts??? Maybe you should be a little more respectful before discounting a 2,000 year old text that you no nothing about. Spend some time researching the text and maybe you will find yourself second guessing some of your disrespectful statements.
That is all I have to say, keep it fair and less of the punches below the belt. I have a degree in this area, so maybe you should leave the Greek up to me. Thank you.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
@Genesis man-
“the bible is the oldest book of antiquity.”
That statement alone proves your complete and total disregard of facts. Are you lying in the hopes someone will believe you? Or, are you just that ignorant?
I don’t feel like teaching you the history of writing, but i will say this:
The myths in your bible come from earlier myths. Sumerian, Babylonian, among others. Your Noah myth, for example, pre-dates the writings of the old testament.
How about the Chinese? They have an unbroken written history that pre-dates your new testament by THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!
You write..”I have a degree in this area.” What area? From where? You remind me of the “scientician” on the Simpsons.
Unfortunately, In reading your posts, I have found no reason to believe you have an open mind to science. Your “logic” is filled with fallicies, straw men, and outright lies.
You would be laughable, but I get the impression that you are surrounded by ignorant zealots who delight in your “intellect.” Move to Kansas, you’ll be a star.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
@Genesis Man
We have rather extensive knowledge as to the mechanisms that turn one species into another. It’s call speciation.
it is described rather well here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
need evidence?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
No blind faith needed. Just evidence and logic.
Historically accurate or not, I seriously doubt that people had a better insight as to the origin of life than we do today.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
2000 years is not that much, there are older texts still but am not believing in Tiamat either.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hello again Genesis Man (I’m a Guinness Man myself),
I still await a response to post #88.
While you are considering that, please join me on a thought experiment. You accept what you call ‘micro’ evolution, that is, small variations can occur over generations within a species. Now biological beings are very large and complex things. Let simplify the complications by using the following analogy:
Consider a red square. After a few moments, this red square splits into two and passes on its ‘redness’ to its descendants with a slight variation. These pieces then grow into squares. Though visibly no different, each new square is either ever so slightly more purple or ever so slightly more orange. After a few more moments, both of these two red squares repeat the process producing two new squares each. These also inherit their parents’ redness with slight variation either towards the the orange or towards the purple. Repeat this long enough and there will eventually be squares which are no longer red but are purple and orange. These new ’species’ of squares are recognizably different from one another yet share a common ancestry.
If we continue this process even further, allowing the color to vary ever so slightly from one generation to the next, we will eventually evolve squares of every color under the sun.
This analogy demonstrates that micro evolution, given enough time, inevitably leads to macro evolution.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
1. Ordered information itself is that evidence, there is no explanation for anything orderly through random processes is there?
2. The order behind DNA, the code or information (ACTG code) is a repeatable pattern found in all living matter. This code is a blue print providing order–that order is proof of a designer (computers do not make themselves, and software is evidence of the computer programmers handiwork).
The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning to different people groups.
3. The molecular machines found in living organisms are a clear example of this parallel analogy. We see the design in the watch and know that a watch maker is behind the design, in the same way we see design, molecular machines, and order within living matter pointing to the same thing. The interconnection between
base, sugars, and phosphates create the DNA helix, which have to be in a certain order.
“Each spiraling strand, comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and attached bases, is connected to a complementary strand by non-covalent hydrogen bonding between paired bases.” See the web link below:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/dna_molecule.html
——————
Regarding David Hume, feel free to read some of these articles, but there are many other good ones.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/miracles.htm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
The problem is, Genesis is indoctrinated to believe that no matter what, a cat will always be a cat. In 100 million years a cat will still be a cat. Now, I have no empirical evidence, so yes, some of this is taken on faith but it is built on a solid foundation of evidence (that evolution is a 100% verified and extant mechanism) that in 100 million years some of our cats will indeed be a non-cat. Something other than a cat. Or it may not, depends on how well adapted to the environment a creature is and whether environmental conditions change enough to warrant your “macro-evolution”. I believe the shark is an example of a creature that hasn’t changed massively in the last 100 million years.
As for the veracity of the bible as a historical record, I can only deny you that based on the amount of fantasy therein. I do not believe Moses parted the red sea. I do not believe a mere mortal (since I deny that he was a divine spirit taken mortal form) named Jesus fed a large number of people with a single fish and jug of water or whatever it was. I flatly deny the possibility of any of this type of event since they go completely contrary to every shred of physical evidence we have since the beginning of real science. However, I do believe the story of the talking bush to a degree. I just believe the dude was on drugs.
As for your degree? I assume it is in linguistics or Greek something or other (based on the context of your mentioning it), since this is what you know you should stick to it. Leave the debating of evolution to someone who has the merest clue what it is. Your cut and paste jobs from websites to explain it does not impress me.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I really didn’t want to jump into this conversation since I don’t have the training to argue it correctly, but this veers into the philosophical in some areas and since anyone can argue philosophy, why the heck not?
Genesis Man: “3. The molecular machines found in living organisms are a clear example of this parallel analogy. We see the design in the watch and know that a watch maker is behind the design, in the same way we see design, molecular machines, and order within living matter pointing to the same thing.”
You are making a basic error here. When we see a watch we know there was a watch maker behind it because we have never seen non-organic material grow, evolve, or any such behavior. Plus we have seen humans make watches. So based on this evidence, we assume that watch had to be made as well. HOWEVER. We have seen organic organisms grow and evolve (leaving your pet peeve speciation out at this point), plus we have never observed an invisible man in the sky design and build a brand new complex organism. Again, your watch analogy is full of holes. Evolution does not address origin, just the mechanism through which we get from there to here. As for the origin of life, we have no (nor will we ever I suspect) have solid evidence as to how it all got started. I am more apt to believe that some alien life form from another universe poked through to this universe and seeded our planet with the building blocks than I am your invisible man in the sky, despite the similarities. In fact, a happy accident of organic compounds in the primoridal soup is infinitely more logical and believable to me than your invisible man.
My point is, you can claim evidence by the existence of DNA all you want, but it really just makes you look silly. You are seeing what you want to see, nothing more.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I thought you’d ask that, I present pulsars!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
Dense, fast rotating balls of neutron rich gas, formed out of a massive explosion and then gravitational collapse that emit regular pulses of radio waves (information) that when originally examined were thought to be of intelligent origin, now simply explained by pulsing stars.
Then there is Trinitite, or the glass found in nuclear fallout craters. Crystaline matterial formed from the sand around the area by way of the massively random nuclear fireball. Though not information so much, it is a more complicated structure formed by a random insertion of energy. Similar glasses are found made by lightning strikes and meteor impacts.
The ice crystals growing on the ceiling of my freezer (reminds me, I need to defrost it) are a repeatable pattern found in all sub zero water formations (HOH code). The structure of this code results in ionic reorientation of the molecules to form into hexagonal structures, which happen to be some of the most stable architectual structures in the world. They propogate themselves such that those crystals that formed into more stable patterns seed more crystal formation, resulting in those patches producing vastly larger structures. Calcite is similar (CaCO3 code), and is produced by a similar process (instead of freezing to better formed crystal structures, the material instead precipitates out of water). None of these require a programmer to make them behave this way.
There is no meaning as you define it here. No concious process is needed to interpolate the “data” provided by DNA (at least I hope my cells aren’t thinking for themselves). The letters A, T, C, and G are abreviations for the codons Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine. They don’t so much spell things as they provide places where enzymes can latch on to form new protiens. I suggest going over the wikipedia entry on DNA since it provides some great information. As you can glean from it, to the human consiousness, DNA can be mined for information on the types of things it will produce, but this information is a secondary attribute assigned to the DNA. On the level DNA works, it is not concerned with what information it may possess, mearly that the structure it currently holds must benefit replication in the long run.
Parts in a watch do not assemble because of natural forces. We put this gear next to that one because we need a transfer of mechanical force to this arm and that spring. In the computer we put the transistor on the current bellow the tripole switch because we need a certain current to flow towards this resistor. There is definate concious purpose observable in every machine that is built. They are built to do things by humans. I have observed a watch being built, and can through logical inference assume that the watch I find on the beach with no sign of people around must have a designer as it is a watch.
Organisms don’t need this explanation, and in fact to introduce a designer adds more layers of complexity to the already complex system. You are correct that the DNA molecule is of a complex shape, but its features are easily explained by simple chemical process.
Here, purines form hydrogen bonds to pyrimidines, with A bonding only to T, and C bonding only to G. This arrangement of two nucleotides joined together across the double helix is called a base pair. In a double helix, the two strands are also held together by forces generated by the hydrophobic effect and pi stacking, but these forces are not affected by the sequence of the DNA.[1] As hydrogen bonds are not covalent, they can be broken and rejoined relatively easily. The two strands of DNA in a double helix can therefore be pulled apart like a zipper, either by a mechanical force or high temperature.[2] As a result of this complementarity, all the information in the double-stranded sequence of a DNA helix is duplicated on each strand, which is vital in DNA replication.
Hydrophobic forces cause the shape, and the fact that this formation can easily split in two and reproduce itself is built into the structure. DNA is everywhere in living organisms because it functions well as a transference and inheritance mechanism. Its almost anthropic really. DNA exists as the mechanism for inheritance not because someone put it there, but because it is necesarily the best naturally occuring formation to do the job.
That’s right natural. And using a little logical extrapolation (and I need anyone better at logical proofs to check me on this if I got it wrong). You would agree that in organisms that exist today, the DNA is not hand sewn together but is assembled by replication processes and chemical bonding, all of which are natural forces… so
-Given DNA exists
-Given natural forces require no intelligent purpose to work (ie crystal formation, ionic bonds, hydrophobic force)
-For all DNA molecules, there is some set of natural forces that can assemble them.
-Therefore for some set of natural forces, DNA is the logical product.
-That set of natural forces do not require intelligence to function.
-DNA requires no intelligence to come about.
Your turn again GenisisMan.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I’ve just watched “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” (suggested above), and have some comments on it.
They like their bacterial flagella. Bacteria have had billions of years to perfect their motor. One possible evolutionary path is provided here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
To me, the outboard motor analogy is apt. It was not just created, it was created by many improvements over time (evolution) by a process of trial and error (natural selection), starting from a simple paddle and still improving now.
Similarly, the house analogy they mentioned in the film. If you built a house, after the millionth house your houses would look pretty good too. You’d know to hang the windows before the sidings.
The origin of life is not covered by evolution. Science is only just beginning to provide answers to this question. It’s like asking “what’s an atom made of” before even starting any experiments.
The main argument seems to be that the probability is vanishingly small for creating a self-replicating organism by random actions. One possible explanation is that there are a large number of universes, most of which are without life. This is similar to the fact that we “just happen” to be on the planet with life, despite the fact there are 7 other planets in the solar system. This is merely a postulate, it is likely to be unverifiable.
What are the origins of DNA - I don’t know. You may suggest it is an intelligent designer, but that is only one of many theories, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life Those theories are in theory testable, but Intelligent Design’s argument appears to be “it isn’t any of the others”. Even if we disprove all the other alternatives, it only proves that it is either ID or some other natural process we don’t know of yet. Is there any way to test ID in a meaningful sense?
What on earth is this information argument. I could say that the positions of stars in a galaxy is information, and they are processed by the force of gravity to rotate that galaxy. So “obviously” the galaxy has an intelligent being working it all out. The argument is just fallacious to the core! As another example, cepheid variable stars get brighter and dimmer in a regular pattern. This order stems from entirely natural processes.
Finally, the film says that science is the search for truth. This is not the case. Science is the search for a way to model the universe. If we observe something unexpected, science will attempt to improve the model. There are gaps, inaccuracies and problems within the model, but that’s fine.
The problem with a god is that it doesn’t fit into the model. If we add one, then whatever we want to predict, we would have no answer to anything, as God could change the result.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I think I covered the main points.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:40 am
@Genesis Man
I show you that evolving hardware is out there, you then argue that they can’t assemble themselves?? OMFG /cry
You have either don’t understood evolution as concept or what these computers do. I’m going to waste my time trying to explain it to you one last time, since you state “a computer to do certain things based upon certain circumstances and calculations†you show that you have completely missed the ball. The point of evolving computers is that you have no idea what the circumstances are, and hence no idea what calculations are needed. These computers are using random mutations to cope with the changing environment. If you shoot a bullet through a normal computer it will probably malfunction, if you do the same to one of these computers they will go down for a while, try to cope with the change / lost circuits, input random mutations in the “OS†to try to get back online. It will also continuously input(mutate) data to try to find better ways to solve important tasks. In some weird circumstances you could for example end up with the sound card handling all geometric data, not because of design, but because the computer has tried millions of mutations and ended up with a system where that was better than the original configuration.
This is the exact same case as normal evolution. Some population of creatures have their habitat changed, so that only those who have extremely long arms are able to eat, all short armed creatures are at a severe disadvantage, so hence all those who carry the long arm gene will be better at getting food and have more children and live better. When a mutation happen and a super-long-arm, super-long-arm+, super-long-arm++ gene is evolved the creatures carrying these genes will be even better adapted at life. If the mutation continues maybe the creatures evolves into a single arm, no feet creature, if this is the best way to live in this strange new habitat. I know I should not have needed to write this, but since you do not seem to grasp the forces driving evolution I thought the discussion might benefit from a short summery to bring you up to speed with the rest of us.
This is my last post in this discussion because it seems its going nowhere, I fear we have only driven the nail further into the wood, but so be it, there is nothing to do about that now.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:37 am
WOW….THIS IS A CLASH OF THE GEEKS MAN !!
GENESIS MAN SEEMS TO BE WINNING ALSO WHICH IS VERY ODD.
WAY TO GO GENESIS MAN - LIKED THE POST BY THE BOLD BRAD MAN ALSO, WHY BOTHER WITH THESE PEOPLE THEY ARE LOVING BEING LOST. MAYBE WHEN THEY DIE THEY CAN STUDY HELL FOR ETERNITY…..HMMM I THINK WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO STAND THESE TEMPERATURES HERE….YES YES! THERE HAS TO BE AN EXPLANATION HERE. LOOK AT THESE CREATURES TORTURING US….HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN HERE? HMMMM YES..”PUSHING UP THEIR GLASSES”
February 16th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Well, the “all caps, no post” filter would be nice.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:16 am
ÙOkay… the last post i read was 89, I’ve not read the other posts yet, but Genesis Man, you forgot to tell me your opinion about simulated evolution using those algorithms we were talking about…
February 16th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Science? Religion? I’m listening to the guy with the lens in a tube rather than the guy with the corpse on a stick
February 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
@Stumbled On Here
How to flame atheists properly…
* Personal abuse: check
* “Going to hell”: check
* Badly formatted: check
* Bad spelling: nope
* Bible quotes: nope
Spell incorrectly and add bible quotes to support your argument to flame us properly. Take a look at http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/ to see how it’s done. Thanks!
February 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Want a good example of believer self delusion? Check out the all caps post above. He made the statement that Genesis Man was “winning”. Winning what, I have no idea but it certainly wasn’t the debate. His nonsense claims resulted in a total meltdown and he bailed. If that is winning, I want no part of it.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I did not bail, I just have other commitments, like music group and my two little ones that need their daddy’s attention. By the way, when you are getting thing hurled at your by about 4-5 people at once it gets tiring–and quite honestly I have more important things to do right now. I will get back to you when I have time, but I am not sweating it, since no one has really addressed the points I have already stated quite clearly. They are just trying to make new arguments that I don’t have time to address right now. Everyone have a good evening and get some sleep lol. I will be back in the mix before too long. Just don’t be tainted by personal attacks and keep the issues at hand. I am sure you are all nice enough people, but we can aggravate each other if we have no concern for the person behind the belief system. Have a good night… I am going to get some sleep ;-).
February 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
If the universe is only 10000 years old, how would you explain the fact that we can see galaxies much farther than 10000 light years away? Do you really think a god made the universe look 15 billion years old to trick us, even though he wants us to believe in him?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
There appears something of an ethical dilemma on this site. It is setup for the purpose of ridiculing a particular religion by selecting certain proponents of that religion that appear the least credible, and perhaps the most ridiculous, in order to dispense with the religion as a whole. The particular standpoint from which this is done appears to be that of Secular (and religious?) Humanism.
The dominant ethical tenant of both Secular and Religious Humanism is likely that of tolerance. The most common moral argument that Humanists use against traditional religion is that they are intolerant of conflicting viewpoints, whether morally conflicting or doctrinally conflicting. (This is demonstrated, it appears, in the video above.)
But is not this very web page an example of such intolerance? Isn’t there a measure of hypocracy in so many posts that ridicule a religion and its supposed beliefs?
February 17th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Hello Neando,
Humanists are morally required to respect people, but are not morally required to respect their beliefs; especially if those beliefs are harmful to others. Most people who visit here feel that religious beliefs are harmful, and thus do not deserve respect. This website is designed to highlight examples of the harms caused by religious belief.
We do practice tolerance. There are none of us here (save one or two) who do not want to ban religious beliefs or the practice thereof. Think of this site as akin to the anti-smoking messages you sometimes see on TV. We are here to tell people about the dangers of religious belief.
RATIONALIST’S WARNING: Religious belief may cause ill effects, such as intolerance, ignorance, stunted scientific progress, needless guilt, and even war.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded? Tolerance and respect of persons may be admirable in some peoples view but do they carry any objective moral obligation? If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man? Whence is their moral authority?
A Christian might not agree that tolerance is an adequate virtue. Since such is not a humanist/secularist, what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?
February 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
“Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded?”
Humanists get their ethics from what makes people happy and healthy, based on application of logic rather than doctrine.
“Tolerance and respect of persons may be admirable in some peoples view but do they carry any objective moral obligation?”
Tolerance and respect of persons is at the heart of Humanism, which does not make a distinction between any two humans.
“If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man?”
I think most humanists believe in the Rule of Law.
“Whence is their moral authority?”
Humanism is a set of moral guidelines. They have no authority except that which you give to it.
“…what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?”
This is a tricky one. There is no good answer to this question - if you truly believe something, then nothing will dissuade you. Anything a Humanist can do would be as effective as shouting Bible passages at a Muslim, or explaining the Flying Spaghetti Monster to a Jew. It’s just impossible.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
February 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded? ”
They are made up just like those in the bible and all other religious books.
“If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man? Whence is their moral authority?”
On the grounds that they are openly derived and discussed in an objective manner. That’s much better than being based on deceptions, cons, manipulations, fears and lies invented thousands of years ago.
“A Christian might not agree that tolerance is an adequate virtue. Since such is not a humanist/secularist, what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?”
It doesn’t matter what objective arguments non-believers could give a Christian or any other religious person. They believe irrational things and will judge the arguments in a non-objective manner.
Forgive me for jumping in late, but I can’t let this go by without commenting. Sorry if my answers sound flippant; my excuse is that the questions are loaded. They imply the validity of a religious standpoint to start with.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
sidfaiwu,
I’d like to carry your analogy of smoking and religion a step further. Personally I’d like religion banned from laws, government, and public places due to the public health risks it poses. Instead of the special statuses that let them evade taxes and more, I’d like to tax them extra just like cigarettes are taxed, and use the money to fund Social Security.
I don’t have anymore the patience displayed by Humanistic Jones and all of you who take the time to reply with well-thought out answers. It’s admirable. You know who you are.
Brad is right about one thing: I’m not “open minded” anymore “and looking for a mutually edifying dialogue on the subject”. However, he’s wrong about hate. I don’t hate religious people, and I don’t think people here really hate them (boy are you people patient, actually!). I’m disgusted by religions and religious beliefs. There’s a difference. I come here because it’s a relief to find other people who get outraged or disgusted when they see what religion does to people. It relieves the frustration I get but can’t share when I see all these idiotic things being done. It’s therapeutic. I’m here for group therapy and support, not for engaging religious people. I hope that’s OK.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
It seems many religious people are “happy and healthy” and have a very good rationale for being that way. More than that, many consider it their goal to help others to be such at their own expense because they believe that all people possess inherent worth and dignity, including their enemies. Humanists have no basis for this. Making oneself happy and healthy makes more sense unless making others that way redounds to oneself in some way.
The humanists moral guidlines (which are a hangover from the Judeo-christian heritage) have no inherent authority? Morality that cannot say ought and ought not is a contradiction. The authority that humanists give to their unfounded guidelines is their own, as you say, because their is no authority above man. Those who sufficient collective authority frequently enforce their “morality” on others. For some it may be benign or beneficial, but for others it may be deadly.
If tolerance and respect of persons, and belief in the rule of law is today valued by humanists, wonderful. But if their is no permanent grounding for this, then there is no reason for this to be abandoned tomorrow.
The objective standard that a humanist can hold a Christian to is a Christian one. If a Christian does not love his neighbour and his enemy, or treat others with respect and dignity, the Humanist can certainly tell him that he a hypocrite and that his actions are morally reprehensible on Christian grounds. But the Humanist has no grounds that are common by which to make his own moral judgement. Perhaps, I might suggest, that the profuse mocking of Christians is the best a Humanist can do. I think G’man has felt that.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hello Neando,
I have often had to dispel the myths that you believe. I will do so once again.
Myth 1: Humanism has no moral basis.
Truth: Humanism is a morality based on reason and evidence. Humanists experience pain, suffering, joy, and happiness and notice how they express such feelings. We see others express themselves similarly. It is rational to conclude that other humans feel such emotions as well. We also notice that the things that cause those emotions are similar to the causes of our own emotions. It is a small logical step to conclude that others, like ourselves, prefer to be happy than to suffer. We should thus treat others in a way that would minimize suffering or maximize happiness. This morality is often (over) simplified to “The Golden Rule”. For convenience, I’ll use that title from here on out.
Myth 2: Humanism inherited their morality from the Judea-Christian tradition.
Truth: The Golden Rule is derived solely from reason and evidence. The fact that some of humanistic morality
overlaps with Christian morality should not be a surprise. This is because Jesus, and the other founders of the religion, were, themselves, in possession of a rational mind and the ability to see evidence. Thus they derived The Golden Rule as well. In fact, ALL cultures and religions have some version of The Golden Rule as part of their cultural moral rule. Furthermore, Confucianism taught this morality 500 years before Christianity claimed it as there own.
You are displaying the usual religious self-righteousness that secularists are forced to endure frequently in the US. Your ignorance of the foundations of humanism is no excuse for claiming others have no basis for their morals. You come across as conceited in your beliefs and condescending with such assertions. I hope that this is not your intention. Perhaps you have been told by other Christians that it’s proper to treat others this way, as long as they are not Christians. I would suggest a less insulting method of engaging secularists if you want to do your religion justice. So far you have only succeeded in making Christianity even less appealing to us.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
“It seems many religious people are “happy and healthy†and have a very good rationale for being that way.”
Believing in superstitions is not rational. They are happy the way people on Prozac and other drugs are happy. Your argumentation is a fallacy. Humanists have a very good basis for being happy and grounding for their morality (c.f. sidfaiwu).
Neando, do you really think all humans are so primitive that they need to be told what is right and wrong from authority? Do you know that an appeal to authority is a fallacy? Hence, all “morally religious” people live a fallacy! Mature enough people, such as humanists, can figure out what morality should be (hence why the Golden Rule has been re-discovered many times). Others need to be told that the great man in the sky says so.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Thanks Sidfaiwu for your thoughts. Not all atheistic philosophers agree with your grounding morality on the facts of human experience and on reason. They call it the is/ought fallacy. You appear to move from from what is: “It is a small logical step to conclude that others, like ourselves, prefer to be happy than to suffer,” to the ought of: “We should thus treat others in a way that would minimize suffering or maximize happiness.”
Second, is should be observed that it is the negative form of “the golden rule” that is found so broadly (Confucus, etc.). The positive version is unique to Judeo-Christianity. Jesus’ statement is grounded in the the 2nd great command to love one’s neighour found in the Torah.
THe negative form is “rational” in that it is prudent. It is the withholding of possible harm that may come to others from a particular action or inaction, etc. This may spring from a variety of motives; it could be entirely benevolent but not necessarily, or it could be entirely selfish or just plain prudent. The positive form may not be “rational” in that it is grounded in a particular view of man: that he inherently and objectively possesses inestimable value and dignity and that this in turn creates the moral obligation of the Rule. Without this view of man, altruistic benevolence is indeed irrational.
One futher note about tolerance. This began its journey, I understand, with John Locke the Deist. I believe he had a point in the context of his time. Christians believe that it is inadequate on the ground that it falls short of a proper regard for others, that is, to love and do good to those who oppose and abuse them. I, however, do appreciate whatever tolerance is shown me by those who disagree ;}
Your last paragraph I have no answer for. It sounds like preaching, but thanks anyway.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Hello NoReligionIsPeace, I hope you can put up with me a little longer. I might even have to concede that some of your anger may be justified.
About the prozaic and drugs: First, I might just have to concede that some expressions of Christianity (esp. in the West) seem to fall into that category and that repulses me also. I regard it as a mimicking of the narcisistic trend in the general culture.
Happiness, in the classic sense is rather to do with wholeness of being and the proper function of the human personality. Those who seek to follow Christ will reject the former and embrace the latter even to the point of self-sacrifice and death for the flourishing of others. Many have done and are doing so.
You have used the word “fallacy” often but not yet shown my arguments to be such.
You seem to misunderstand my reference to authority. I was arguing that moral oughts and ought nots are obligatory and binding by their very nature. I have also argued that these logically cannot be derived from what is. They regulate human behaviour so how can they be derived from it?
Torturing babies for fun, for example, is not merely unpleasant, repulsive and unacceptable, it is universally morally evil for all people for all time. I do not need a rational basis to know that this is an objective moral truth (although I could argue that way), I just know it. Such a truth, it seems to me, is rather odd furniture in a purely accidental universe.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Neando,
Ethics is what you think is right, morality is what you do in reality. Please refer to the definition of normative ethics, as it is what you are engaging in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
Appeal to authority is one of the classic fallacies (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). You appeal to the authority of a superior being to derive your ethics. That’s a fallacy, in addition to being a lie because religious ethics have been written by mankind anyway. Moreover, invoking a supernatural being is repugnant because it is giving up on your faculty of reason — it is morally wrong in a Kantian sense (so I believe that religions are morally wrong).
The other fallacy you seem to imply in your reasoning is that if we don’t have all the answers, it makes religious ones correct by default. I won’t elaborate further, it should be obvious why that’s a fallacy.
How to derive a morality without appealing to a superior being to define it for you is another question. You seem to like the idea that nothing can be self-regulating, and that order cannot appear out of chaos. Bad news for you, biology uses biochemical processes to regulate other biochemical processes. There is no foundation in your (implied) assertion that knowledge of human behavior can’t be used to derive rules of conduct and regulate human behavior. I understand though how this may seem like a circular argument to religious people, ironically, but it’s only because you use as an axiom that someone created all of it.
If you honestly wonder how to derive rules of conduct, and knowledge of what is right and wrong , you could start by reading about Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Contractarianism. I like to salt those with some virtue ethics. In addition, I think not all things are entirely black and white; there are shades of evil and good, so I also disagree with your binary view of ethics, ought and ought not.
As to why torturing babies for fun is repugnant, it could be for many reasons, including being due to evolution. If your brain wasn’t wired for it, it’s likely that our species wouldn’t exist anymore. Why don’t female animals eat their young? Did they need to be told by a god? Another theory is, because almost anyone has the brains to see it’s unfair, and we learn quickly through experiences that we want fairness. IMO, the invocation of religion at this point reflects a lack of imagination.
“Accidental universe?” Isn’t it funny how order can appear out of chaos. No, I don’t know the answers to everything, but that doesn’t make religious ones correct by default. It’s explaining something I don’t know with something I understand even less. It’s silly.
Damn, I’m tired of arguing with religious people. I didn’t want to do it, and I’ve been had again.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Hello Neando,
All ethics suffer from the is/ought fallacy. Even your authority based deontoloty. Here is God’s law, thus we ought to follow it.
Here is a positive statement of The Golden Rule from Confusionism: “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4 He wrote this about 300 years before the existence of Christianity.
“Not all atheistic philosophers agree with your grounding morality on the facts of human experience and on reason.” Please, give an example. I am interested in ethics and am curious. Anyway, your original claim was that Humanists have no basis. Are you now revising that to say the Humanists have multiple bases?
Finally, I am sorry about my last paragraph. It was preaching. I’ll try to rephrase it more politely. I’d like to warn you that claiming others have no basis for their morality can be perceived as arrogant. If your goal is to try to convince others that the Christian ethic is superior to others, there are ways to do so which would seem less insulting. I would suggest something like “I am interested in the foundations of Humanistic morality. Could you describe to me the basis of Humanistic moral thought?” This would give others the opportunity to explain the basis. You could then critique their basis and present your own in its place. I think that you would find this much more effective if you were to try it in the future.
Come to think of it, this is an application of the Golden Rule! How would I like to be approached about a different moral system? That’s exactly how I should approach person X about my moral system!
February 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
NoReligionIsPeace, sorry to disturb your peace. You seem to put a lot of words into my mouth. I don’t think I have said that I base moral obligation on divine authority. I in fact reject divine command moral theory as do most theistic philosophers.
sidfaiwu, thanks for the comments. I was unaware of the Mencius reference and find it interesting. THe philosopher I had in mind is Kai Nielsen and I have some agreement with him here.
Why should I apply the Golden rule? It might result in a more amiable discussion and that would be preferable. If I talk nicely others might talk nice back and thats better than being mocked, etc. But although this may work, is rational and may result in desirable consequences, it is only pragmatism and need not go beyond selfishness. This, I think , is the limit of the negative form.
The positive form may also have equivalent consequences. If I believe that I should love others regardless of their behaviour and negative consequences for myself, I think it requires a different rationale though. Being merely commanded to do so by someone more powerful than myself will not do. The belief that all mankind possesses inherent and inestimable dignity and worth, if true, does seem to imply the moral obligation of the positive form. But this value of man demands a basis outside of man.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Neando, sorry if I thought you implied things you didn’t. I don’t understand what you were getting at, then.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I seriously don’t get why keep saying Atheism is impossible because of morality. You people (those who make this argument) obviously have an internet connection. How about combining it’s use and that of your brain and looking around a bit for the oft repeated, ever present answer to your “dilemma”
Now, a responce meant more in jest:
Ahh, i’ll respond to this with the universal religious answer. You guessed it!
February 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Alcari, probably a minority of theistic thinkers believe in a young earth and universe. I tend to opt for an old universe and have ddifficulties with the arguments, biblical and scientific for recent creation, but then I’m no scientist anyway. Your mocking doesn’t enhance your credibility.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:41 am
actaully, i believe it demonstrates very clearly how you shouldn’t be approaching the problem. The proper scientific way would be to say “What could have caused this” “hmm, it might be this and that” then test your hypothesis, and reject if it wrong.
whereas the universal religious answer follow this reasoning. “I know god did it, but how to prove it?” then take some results that are vaguely contradictory and say “See this scientific explanation is clearly wrong, therefor god must have done it”
But, all excuses and justifications aside, You’re right in it not reinforcing credibility. Then again, i’m only pointing to other for proof, as it’s all been given before and I don’t really have the time nor the urge to reproduce vast essays on here.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am
To me, there is no difference between these people and the 9/11 highjackers. both had beliefs deeply rooted in fantasy. both believe there is a better life after this one( which devalues this one).And both can be very easily led to do very extreme things if the right preacher comes along that can interpret their fantasy world a different way. All they really have to do is find a bible verse that says it’s ok to kill non-christians.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
randypagan may be right concerning those to whom his description applies. A follower of Mohammed will do what Mohammed did and approved. Likewise will a follower of Christ. Muslims can follow the Medina model or the Mecca model; they can be moderate or militant according to their beliefs and still be faithful.
A follower of Christ must love his neighbour of whatever race, colour, class or creed–including Atheists and Wahabists–and seek their eternal well-being, including in this life. Whoever contradicts this, whether bishop or peasant, cannot be a follower.
One may give his life to send his neighbour to hell and himself to paradise; the other may sacrifice his life so that his neighbour may join him in eternal wholeness and joyful fulfilment of divine purposes.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
@ Neando
Not all Muslims are terrorists.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
h2g2bob
Neando never made that distinction, in fact if you read his last post he was stating just the opposite (i.e. not all Muslims are extremists or terrorists). Must run, but enjoying the dialog.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I found this great graphical representation of the argument
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20–%20science%20vs%20faith.html
February 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The link’s broken, Alcari :(
February 21st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Oops, got the wrong end of the stick there, sorry :(
February 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
@ sidfaiwu, Alcari
Fixed link is http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20–%20science%20vs%20faith.html
It makes the point quite well, I think.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I say fixed, apparently it’s a bug on the forum :( Anyway, it’s the “Science vs Faith” item on here:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
If these people dotn believe in dinosaurs, then how they justify oil?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Why do people think that evolution means “beginning”? Evolution DOES NOT mean “beginning”. Why can’t Crationism and Evolution live hand in hand? Why can’t there be a Creationism that allows things to evolve?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
simple dicknot(may wanna rethink that name),
evolution goes against the bible. The bible states that god CREATED man and all the other creatures, which makes it impossible for many christians to accept evolution for the truth. However i do know a few individuals who believe that god was simply the catalyst to begin life and evolution on our planet.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Q: “If these people dotn believe in dinosaurs, then how they justify oil?”
A: “god did it”
March 8th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I stumbled across this website. I have to say several comments seem resentful, hateful and not the lest bit tolerant of those that have a belief system that differs from the posters personal belief. There were attacks of both the Christian and Muslim faith systems, and faith in general. I find that fascinating! How can you say yours is the right and theirs is the wrong? Some mentioned that if Christians want to prove they are right then do so by the scientific method. I challenge you to do the same. If Christians are wrong then prove it with science. I’m not talking about evaluation vs. creationism here (the creation myth is far older than the Christian Bible). I am saying that all have the right to believe how they choose to believe so long as their beliefs do not infringe on another humans rights. Mocking another beliefs does not make that individual and their belief look bad it makes you. Please remember Atheists, you do have a belief system, yours is a religion even if it isn’t a mono or polytheistic “God” you believe in. You don’t want people to judge you for your beliefs or “lack” of beliefs then you should treat others with the respect you wish to receive from them.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I know I am a late poster on this. The reason for this is this video has nauseated me every time I tried to watch it. I finally got through it and noticed I am not the only latecomer.
@Marjorie: Atheists are the least liked and least trusted minority in America. Our own president said, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Imagine for a moment him saying that about blacks or asians. He would be shouted out of office for hate speech. But he said it about atheists and it barely made a blip on the radar. So you’ll pardon us if we are a bit bitter about our myth following brethren.
You want proof of evolution? Check out every evolutionary biology textbook. They get more and more definite every year. What proof is there for creation? A 2000 year old book of dubious origin translated more times than I can count with each translation adding, removing, or changing things a bit.
To top it off, it was written by men who claimed to hear the voice of God. In Psychology today there is a litmus test. If you talk to God you are religious. If he talks back you are schizophrenic. The religious are using the words of men who by today’s standards would be committed to an institution as their science and you expect us not to be sickened that they are passing this disease on to children? Really?
March 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Hello DeusExMichael,
I just want to clarify one thing you said. The bigoted quote about atheists was made by our former president, George Herbert Walker Bush. You know, king George I. Our current president probably isn’t sure what an atheist is. He actually had to ask his father what a neocon is.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:49 am
True. My original source had the quote mis-attributed. Thanks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 am
Hello Majorie. I hear your complaint about the bitterness of athiests butI wonder why you think there are such things as “rights.” If you merely mean that your Constitution prescribes them well that’s fine (my country doesn’t have one), but if you believe that human rights are not a human invention, then where do they come from? When you say “I am saying that all have the right to believe how they choose to believe so long as their beliefs do not infringe on another humans rights,” on what grounds do you believe this is true? Why would an atheist be morally bound by this value? Also, if a person beleives that all conflicting belief systems cannot be equally valid, why should he be tolerant of those beliefs he believes to be false?
On atheism being a religion: It normally comes in the variety that the universe is the whole show, i.e., monistic (and perhaps pantheistic). Most are materialists and guard this belief passionately as if it really mattered. The religiousness of it is often demonstrated in the passion with which it attacks rival systems and proclaims its tenets as ultimate truth.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 am
“Which means that I, too, find this video highly disturbing, perhaps more so than many of you who discount the Bible entirely. Fundamentalists who take the Bible to the absurd literal extreme and try to make it into the authoritative science, history, and English (because we all know that it came inerrant from God in the original King James Version…)”
So which version of bullshit do you subscribe too? No matter how you put it, it’s fantasy.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Even an atheist can acknowledge internal logic of a belief system he disagrees with. If the Bible is, as it claims to be “the word of God,” and if the God of theism exists, the laws of logic and morality are necessarily founded in his nature, so then what he says and does cannot be false or contradictory.
If an atheist wants to be taken seriously by theists, he really needs to move beyond such rants and mocking and speak from an understanding of their best proponents. Religious freaks are as abundant per capita as irreligious freaks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hello Neando,
“If the Bible is, as it claims to be “the word of God,†and if the God of theism exists, the laws of logic and morality are necessarily founded in his nature, so then what he says and does cannot be false or contradictory.”
I’ve always found this an interesting claim. Even if such a belief system is internally consistent, the core reasoning is still circular, thus invalid. Here’s a fictional dialog to help explain my point:
Religio: “God Exists.”
Philo: “How do you know?”
Religio: “It says so in the Bible.”
Philo: “How do you know the Bible is correct?”
Religio: “Because it is the word of God.”
Philo: “But declaring it the word of God presumes the existence of God. Your reasoning is circular. You cannot presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God. You must either first prove that God exists or prove that the Bible is correct.”
Religio: “What does it matter, as long as my belief system is internally consistent? It’s very consistency demonstrates that its true.”
Philo: “Consistency does not guarantee truth. I’ll demonstrate through an example. Consider the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book. They, too, claim that it is the word of God and is internally consistent. Yet it contradicts the Bible. The Bible claims that Jesus was the son of God, the Qur’an claims he was not. One of the two must be untrue. Thus despite being internally consistent, at least one of the two is not entirely true.”
Religio: “But the Qur’an is not the word of God!”
Philo: “By what criteria do you make that judgment? More to the point, what is the objective criteria an unconvinced person can use to determine which book correctly identifies itself as the word of God?”
Religio: “I must admit, one must take the Bible’s truth on faith and not reason. But once one does so, they will find the Bible entirely consistent and, thus, logically satisfying.”
Philo: “But once one takes the step of taking something on faith, reason has already been subverted. As with any logical derivation, a false step along any chain of the reason casts suspicion on the validity of any conclusion.”
Religio: “Based on your strict adherence to reason, there is no way for me to prove to you that the Bible is the word of God.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Thanks sidfaiwu. You will have noticed that I only defended internal consistency. If I did establish an external foundation for the claim but the claim itself was incoherent it would be equally invalid. So my reasoning was not circular as far as it went. Many claims agaisnt the Bible (and Christian theology) are aimed at internal coherence and truth claims, and many are made against its foundations. These can be argued independently to a degree as many arguments against Christianity on this site are but are often confused.
I only argued that if the theistic God exists, he exists necessarily and certain things would thereby obtain including his ability to communicate and of course his ability to intervene in his universe. So the ideas of revelation and miracle are moot once one grants theism.
I for one would not argue as your religio
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Hey Neando,
“I for one would not argue as your religio”
That’s the problem with these types of dialogs. They are great at clearly expressing one’s own position, but often misrepresent others’ opinions. My guess is you would disagree with Religio’s claim “It’s [the Bible's] very consistency demonstrates that its true.” Thus it ended up being a straw man. Oh well. It was fun writing it :)
The clarification of your post helps. I now understand that you were defending Christianity from a charge of inconsistency, not trying to prove Christianity correct because of consistency. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
March 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Sid, I would add that internal consistency is necessary for truth but not sufficient. I believe that correspondence with reality must be reasonably established. The map ought to be testable against the terrain at crucial points.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Even Darwin declared that his Theory of Evolution was just that, a Theory. He proposed that if the so-called “missing Links” (dirty great big holes in the Theory) that exist in Evolution were not found over the next couple hundred years (which have now past) then it would mean that his Theory was wrong! Don’t take my word for it read Darwin’s works, and when you fill yourself with the dead fruit that he himself has by his own words proved it to be, then do yourself a favour and actually think for yourselves, sit down in a quite place, try to remove the pre-determined negativities that you may hold towards the Bible (possible from the indoctrination of your parents/schooling etc) and spend sometime actually reading it. It can be argued that Humans have spent more energy trying to disprove God and the Bible (and particularly Jesus) that anything else. But guess what, the more humankind tries to disprove the truths contained within the Bible the more they find themselves confronted with the truth. After all, Science cannot disprove God because the basis of Science is proof of things that can be seen. The contradiction in Science though is that they accept the existence of the wind even though you cannot see the wind, only its affects and they accept the concept of love but again they cannot prove its existence only its impact. Look around you, you may not see Gods face but you can see His creation. Why is it that most reasonable thinking people would argue that it would be impossible for a million separate parts of a 747 Jumbo Jet to be magically put together (and be a plane that is fully functional) as the result of an explosion at the Boeing hanger, but those same people would deem it perfectly reasonable that the whole Universe in all its magnificence was created in such a way? Just open your mind to the possibility that there may be a creator out there that is more powerful than yourself. That however takes humility. It is far easier to believe that we are “master” of our own destiny.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
carl, do a little bit of research and youll find a lot of people have used the exact same arguements that you have, and been shown either wrong or just stupid. im really asking you to do research, not to prove your wrong, but so youll get a better understanding of all the information available. Id like to hear about what you find.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
G’day, I’d be glad to do the research that shows these arguments to be disproved if you care to supply me with the references. I agree with you the arguments I have put forward have been used before. After all Soloman in the Old Testiment said that there is nothing new under heaven. I’ts all been done before. However, having said that the arguments I have borrowed are useful because they are factual not theoretical. They have been used but never disproved by science. If you can enlighten me with such evidence I would be more than happy to read it. After all, the Relationship I and one or two others have with Jesus is one not based on blind faith but one based on independant historical evidence. If you care to share your independant references I will likewise pass on the mountains of evidence that exists outside of the Gospels. I might add, the “Independant” evidence I suggest you might care to read what was written by Jewish and Roman historians of repute who had nothing to gain and every thing to lose from reporting what they saw and experienced. Likewise, can you honestly tell me that thousands of people (including many of the remaining 11 deciples) would willingly have themselves put to death rather than renounce the divinity of Jesus if they themselves had not witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yes, an argument could be put forward that the 11 deciples may have had something to gain out of continuing the deception of the Divinity of Jesus (if that is what it was) but for Deciples such as Peter continuing the “lie” to the point of being crucified himself and for the likes of Paul to also be killed when all he had to do was fess up to it all being a con, beggers belief. No, Peter, Paul and thousands experienced and witnessed the events which ultimatly led them to going to their own deaths rather than denying the truth. Only a madman (or thousands of mad men/women) would go to that extreme. Yes, again a well used argument, but once more an argument that many have tried to disprove but have failed. Again, if you have proof to the contrary, please pass on the references.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Why is it that most reasonable thinking people would argue that it would be impossible for a million separate parts of a 747 Jumbo Jet to be magically put together”
This isn’t how evolution works at all…
Carl, I’d suggest checking out the new evolution 101 thread. I believe it was made for people like yourself. Every argument you’ve made has previously been covered, and you clearly don’t understand evolution. It’s not a crime or anything… and I don’t mean do be a dick, but you don’t. I’d suggest looking at some of the references made in the thread I mentioned. If you want to make your arguments (one at a time) there, I or someone better suited, will offer an explanation.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
THINKING OF A NEW EARTH CREATIONIST
The Missing Links Episode
Creationist: Between species A and B we have a large gap in the fossil record.
A————————-B
Thus evolution is false.
Darwinist: We have just discovered a previously unknown species in the fossil record, we call it species C. It is a transition species between A and B.
A—————–C——-B
Creationist: Now you have TWICE as many gaps as before! Evolution is now even LESS true.
Darwinist: *sigh*
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
@Sidfaiwu: I couldn’t have put it better myself.
@Carl: I find that using a 2,000 year old collection of manuscripts of often dubious origin and poor translation as evidence against current, logical arguments backed by decades of solid, testable science a poor method of attack.
You want to prove the dinosaurs lived side by side with humans? How about the earth being thousands of years old instead of billions? Show me something other that the writings of people who thought earth to be the center of the universe. Prove carbon dating wrong in a repeatable, undeniable experiment. Show fossil records of man and dinosaur co-existing with some verifiable method of dating. Otherwise you don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate.
As to the Bible’s veracity, there were many others who claimed that Christ was simply a Prophet. Their record contradicted what the church decided was official dogma and were left out. Further, the books that made it were not written by Christ’s contemporaries and are third hand accounts at best. Outside of the New Testament the only record of the man we call Jesus is a mention of his birth by the record keeper Josephus.
Add to that it was translated hundreds of times, each time adding or leaving out whatever the patron commissioning the translation desired, often deleting entire books. Other things were added to justify the crimes of kings and Popes. The versions we have today are the bastard descendants of an original record long lost to the greed and lust for power of men.
People go to their deaths every day defending the Prophet Mohamed but I’m willing to bet you wouldn’t. Don’t those people have the same level of dedication to their myth as Paul? So what makes their record less true? Just because idiots are willing to die for something does not make it true.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
damnit you all beat me to it, hopefully carl will actually read it
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Thanks DeusExMichael, but I cannot take full credit for it. I first heard a version of this from Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, of which I am a member, speaker, and author of Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, and How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, among many others.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I am a minister who fully believes the Bible to be the Word of God. There are many things that we can’t understand and I think that many people try to hard to make the wondrous works of God fit into a tiny box that my human mind can understand. I think it VERY sad and dangerous to teach simply evolution or creationism. There is a place for evolution within the story of creation. Because God created time for us, we don’t know how long a “day” in was for God. I salute those who work hard to use the science to prove God and vice versa. I hope that you all will not bracket all Christians into a this group. There are many of us who are dedicated to fixing things like this that are corrupting our churches.
Dancin’ with Jesus,
Dousmile4jesus
April 4th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hello dousmile4jesus,
Many of us know people like you are out there, trying to reclaim Christianity’s (especially Protestantism’s) liberal roots. I just wish your voices where a lot louder. We’re having trouble hearing you over the Jerry Falwells and Anne Coulters of the world.
I think almost all of us want a plurality of beliefs so that our ideas can be shared. What we don’t like is the lack of acceptance of non-Christians prevalent in the US. We also don’t like the privileged status that religions receive. We want to end the social pressure to respect everyone’s beliefs. Everyone should respect everyone else’s right to believe what ever they want, but not the beliefs themselves.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Do you really beleve all of this…?
It is real FUN, you are my personal “Stand Up Comedians”
Applause and thanks to you all!!!
Still laughing.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Amen sidfaiwu.
dousmile4jesus, we welcome open minds with open arms here. Pardon us when we bristle at those spouting Falwellesque rhetoric and extremist right-wing nonsense.
I personally used to use a similar explanation to the one you use to meld my Christian beliefs to my scientific knowledge. In my case I one day realized my rationalization to explain my beliefs could not truly hold up to the light of scientific scrutiny. It was then that my faith in God died and I realized that blindly believing something with no proof is in fact less a virtue and more a vice. When I was honest with myself I realized my beliefs were a product of years of indoctrination, not of any “Holy Spirit”.
In closing, we welcome you and all willing to speak with an open mind and rational argumentation. As sidfaiwu said, we respect your right to believe anything you want, not necessarily the belief itself, and only ask the same from those who post here.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
America is becoming a nation of idiots.
Some lunatics are happy to see nuclear explotions in NY just because in their crazy minds that is the apocalypsis and the arrive of god.
This is disturbing for the rest of the world, every day is more importan to enforce law to avoid another insane man like Bush in the White House, for the best interest of the american citizens and the hole world.
Good Look.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The girl at the end says that, the journalist(believe in evolution) has not been reading the fact good enough. The only thing the girl had ever read i the bible! one book that is many thousands years old, which is factless besides all scientists today! who is it who have not read the facts well! :D
January 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I almost couldn’t stand to watch the entire video as short as it was. People proclaim that every word in the Bible is literally true but they conveniently ignore the contradictions that leap from the page to the eyes of the truly enlightened!
People eat shrimp, they eat pork, etc,etc,etc when the good book explicitly prohibits such. What hypocrites they are!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:39 am
I have three simple requests of all creationists: If you truly feel that evolution doesn’t have any basis in reality, then you must never:
1) Go see a modern physician. Modern biology is founded upon evolutionary theory and the Germ Theory of Disease. You are free to go see witch doctors and faith healers at will (faith healing, by the way, has been demonstrated to be a function of biofeedback at the neural/immune system interface, discovered in the 1990’s).
2) Do not use a computer. It is built upon elements which include quaantum mechanics, also a “theory.”
3) Breed. It involves using the genetic code, which Gregor Mendel first discovered, Watson and Crick explained, and Darwin postulated (a “mechanism of inheritance”).
I make these requests because for Creationists to do otherwise would make them hypocrites. No one wants to be a hypocrite.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Kind of like this one:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-05-20–when-im-king.html
But I totally support creationists not breeding, that might solve some problems.