Feed on Posts or Comments 20 December 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 10 Aug 2009 12:11 am

Can living things come from non-living matter?

A Christian poses this question in the forum:

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don’t come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don’t see ‘em.

See this thread for a discussion:

God vs. Spontaneous Generation

156 Responses to “Can living things come from non-living matter?”

  1. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am 1.Tommy said …

    There is no bright line between living and non-living.

    Eventually, scientists will create life. I wonder what Christians will do then?

  2. on 10 Aug 2009 at 5:11 am 2.Anonymous said …

    Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.
    Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.
    What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?

  3. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:28 pm 3.Chip E said …

    “How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?”

    Quite simple. God is beyond the natural whereas you are arguing that something came from nothing in the natural realm. It is a problem atheist struggle with. They attempt to minimize the problem with much could, may and possibly.

    Man will never create something from nothing in a lab therefore the atheist is backed in a corner with this problem. If man can ever create life from non-living matter in the lab if will just go on to prove intelligence is needed for life to form.

    .

  4. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 4.Kevin said …

    Umm, Argument-Fail. Scientists have never observed God either, nor has he ever been reproduced in a laboratory. From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life – or some invisible, as yet unobserved and undefinable power dunnit. Occam’s razor applies (as well as GOTG).

  5. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 5.Morph said …

    Ockham’s razor states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

    We are not creating unnecessarily, in this case one is necessary.

    “From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life”

    Conveniently Kevin has failed to provide origin of chemicals and energy. Kevin also failed to mention this has never been observed much like the undefinable power he goes on to reference.

    Kevin’s fallacy is typical and consequently his argument fails.

  6. on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:37 pm 6.boomer said …

    It seems that none you fully understand that scientist will never be able to create a human from a mound of dirt. Better yet do as God did and you create it from something that you made. They can’t use anything that was made by God or from God. Good Luck!! I would go as far to say that they will not be able to create a human from one rib. If for some odd reason they do I bet it will not be completely different in its DNA. My God is a awesome God and one day you will bow and proclaim that!!!! Philippians 2:10-11 The next time you do a video on how repulsive the Bible is please use your scripture in context! Surely you should know that…..

  7. on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:04 am 7.swbts student said …

    wow boomer nailed it,

  8. on 16 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm 8.Denis Loubet said …

    All of us create living matter out of dead matter every day. It’s called digestion. You eat dead matter, and it becomes part of the living matter that is you. It’s all completely natural.

    This is not what abiogenesis is about, but it does establish beyond doubt that dead matter can become living matter through natural processes.

    Of course there’s no difference between the atoms of living matter and dead matter, it’s all in the ARRANGEMENT of the atoms that determines what’s alive and what’s not.

    So we see atoms in dead arrangements, and atoms in living arrangements, and we even see a chemical process where atoms in dead patterns can be re-arranged into living patterns.

    I don’t see that much of a stretch to get to abiogenesis. It’s all just atoms being pushed around. It’s all chemistry.

  9. on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:51 pm 9.tdhladhla said …

    First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything. You cannot tell me that you have an explanation to every single thing that exists. You can doubt the existence of God, but dare not dispute it. And your 10 questions on GodIsNotReal are totally out of context. When reading the Bible, you have to read it in context with a wise mind. eg Sure in the OLD TESTAMENT, God commanded people who worked on the Sabbath to be put to death. But between then and now, a Savior came to bear our iniquity. He died on the cross; a righteous man made to carry our filth so much that the Father he had been in fellowship with from the beginning of time turned His face away from Him. Our sin made God turn His face away from us then…. but now, because we have a person who argues our case with Him, we have a chance to be redeemed.
    It is unfair to say we’ve never seen Jesus… He’s in heaven. But he sent Holy Spirit to be with us here on Earth. And to have a personal encounter with God, you need the Spirit.
    It could be looking at the sunrise and realising that certainly it couldn’t have ‘just’ happened.
    And on your point about suffering… the fall of man caused God to curse man but not so much as to kill man. Suffering is under that curse (Gen 3: 14 -21). But God also promised that there would be a Savior and he hasn’t failed us.

    True, there’s always gonna be so much we do not know or comprehend about God. But the fact of the matter is, He gave us enough evidence to make it rational and plausible that He exists but not enough to compel us to believe.
    You believe there is no God… that was a conscious choice you made. An example of the freedom God gave you.
    I believe in God and if you asked me why… I’d take a whole day,2 or even more telling you about what He has done in my life.
    The difference between me and you is that when i do something wrong (sin), i don’t guilty…I am driven to the feet of a Father who is rady and willing to forgive me.
    When you do wrong, all you can do is feel bad and guilty about it.

    It’s a heart matter…. not a mental/intellectual matter. After all, the mind follows the heart; not the other way round.

    Be blessed

  10. on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:16 pm 10.Denis Loubet said …

    “First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything.”

    Let’s see where this “logic” goes.

    “to say there is no Zeus, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Odin, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Shiva, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no IPU, you must know everything.”

    Since you ascribe to this logic, I must assume you believe in Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and the Invisible purple Unicorn, along with every other unevidenced supernatural nonsense that comes down the pike.

    That must keep you very busy.

  11. on 18 Aug 2009 at 4:08 pm 11.tdhladhla said …

    I did not say i believe in all those gods that you mentioned. But i will not ridicule a person who does, but simply tell them about my God.My reason to not believe in them: there’s nothing that points to their existence. cartoons, astrology,’myths’ and whatever else they are associated to are not enough reason for me to even consider their existence.
    It’s what i’ve felt in my heart and the physical manifestation thereof that has driven me to believe in God.

  12. on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:59 am 12.Denis Loubet said …

    You do not believe in Zeus, and Odin, and Shiva, and the IPU for exactly the same reasons I don’t believe in your god. And those that believed in them believed for the same reason you believe in your god.

    You are an atheist regarding Zeus and Odin and countless other gods that mankind has believed in at one time or another. Congratulations. You have just one more god to disbelieve in and your atheism will be complete.

    Good luck.

  13. on 20 Aug 2009 at 8:56 pm 13.tdhladhla said …

    As i said i do not ridicule anyone who has any other belief…. i just strive to explain to people why I believe in God whenever an opportunity arises. It’s never easy… Not everyone is receptive. But i know that once you open up to experience this truth, your whole perspective changes. According to definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia etc, i do not qualify as an atheist. I quote from wikipedia “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.”
    “Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.”
    If you want to have an intellectual argument on the existence of God, so be it. The very same arguments you use work against you. But as i said, its a heart matter, not a mind matter.
    I’ll ask you a question… Why do you say there is no God? Can you rationally prove that there is no God?

  14. on 20 Aug 2009 at 10:17 pm 14.Denis Loubet said …

    If you’ll read carefully, I have not said there is no god. That would be a knowledge statement about the state of the universe.

    I have only said I do not believe in one. That is a statement describing my subjective status regarding belief in gods, not a statement about whether they exist or not.

    I am an atheist because I have not been presented compelling evidence to convince me there is a god. Failing that evidence, I remain unconvinced there is a god.

    It would take extraordinary evidence to convince me of a god at this point because so many people are able to believe in mutually exclusive gods that it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right. This is exactly why I brought up Zeus and the rest. People had great faith in them, but since you refuse to believe in Zeus, it must be that you think their belief is wrong. That their faith has led them astray.

    This means you absolutely cannot trust faith.

    So, I’ll need concrete evidence to change my mind.

  15. on 21 Aug 2009 at 1:31 pm 15.Lou said …

    “it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right.”

    Atheism?

  16. on 21 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 16.Denis Loubet said …

    No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about being right or wrong.

    A gross mischaracterization of skepticism might fit the description, but that would be a gross mischaracterization.

    There is one human endeavour that elevates faith to a virtue, rather than recognizing it as the synonym for ignorance that it is, and that’s religion.

  17. on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:48 pm 17.Lou said …

    Denis atheism is either right or wrong. BELIEVE ME, atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional.

    You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith. This “lack of belief” is just a new spin that doesn’t change the fact or what atheist REALLY claim.

    Last argument against you is that SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion. Everyone places faith in something so enjoy the ride and accept you are like everyone else.

  18. on 22 Aug 2009 at 4:49 am 18.Denis Loubet said …

    Even if it were true that “atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional”, an argument could be made that that is preferable to “I’m right and I agree with my god that atheists deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire”.

    As to me having faith that it’s possible I could be correct in my belief, wow, that’s quite a logical contortion just to move some goalposts. Is that what religious faith is to you, the notion that maybe there’s the possibility that there’s a god? Is that what you would call a man of faith? The people I hear being called men of faith are the ones that claim to harbor absolute certainty in their god, and no doubt whatsoever as to what it wants. The more certainty the better.

    Since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing. That’s not even dipping into the “If atheism is a faith, then not playing baseball is a sport” territory.

    And as powerful as the SCOTUS may be, they do not dictate reality.

  19. on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:49 pm 19.Lou said …

    “since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing.”

    Oh yes Denis, this makes you unique! Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally. That is why you see atheist becoming christians, christians becoming atheist and so on!

    Now…..if you can prove with certainty that God does not exist, then you have a fact. Until then, it is faith. Look it up.

  20. on 22 Aug 2009 at 7:17 pm 20.VeridicusX said …

    Lou, you’re (willfully?) mistaking gullibility and delusion, (read faith), for normal beliefs.

    Specifically, faith is believing in contempt of the facts.
    [See Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 8:24]

    “You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith.”

    … is just another theist lie.

    To state that something is possible is simply to say that the statement agrees with itself and with known facts. It doesn’t contradict itself – this is known as coherence – and it doesn’t contradict the facts – this is known as consistency. Facts are verified physical evidence.

    When a rational person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are not certain.
    “Did John say that the shipment will arrive today?”
    “I believe so.”

    When a religious person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are sure of or certain of, things that they cannot possibly know, often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

    “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – The Bible. New International Version.

    I should just define a lie for you. Theists conveniently don’t seem to be able to remember what one is.


    Noun 1. lie – a statement intended to deceive.

    Noun 2. lie – a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.

    Noun 3. lie – an unqualified baseless assertion. An avowal not based on fact.

    If I declare something to be true, even though I know that I have no valid evidence to support my statement at the time that I make it, then I am lying. (Even if it subsequently turns out to be true).

    If I assert that you are a pedophile without valid evidence, then I am lying. It doesn’t matter how much “faith” I have. It is still an unqualified baseless assertion which leads others to believe that what I say is based on facts.

    If I say, “Jesus rose bodily from the dead!”, I’m lying.

    I’m not lying if I say, “I gullibly believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, even though I have no valid evidence to support this belief and all the verifiable evidence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to bodily resurrections being essentially impossible”.

  21. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:44 am 21.Denis Loubet said …

    Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally? That must be why I hear things like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

    And since I don’t make the claim that god doesn’t exist, I am exhibiting no faith whatsoever regarding that issue.

    I simply lack belief in any gods.

  22. on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 22.Lou said …

    Not only does your ilk “not make the claim” they are also emphatic there is no God.

    From Merriam Webster:

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    Since you like to put out there what you hear let me put out what I hear. I hear atheist who sound more like evangelist attempting to save the multitudes! This website for one. Atheist stating “there is no God” and “Christians/Muslims/etc are delusional”, are making a faith statements….according to Merriam & Webster.

  23. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:35 pm 23.VeridicusX said …

    #22.Lou

    Lou, you are mistaken in thinking that people who are strong atheists concerning the Abrahamic God are making a claim of faith.

    The capital-G God is indeed impossible. No faith needed.

    I don’t need faith to know that square circles don’t exist. Likewise I don’t need faith to know that a supernatural-omni-creator God doesn’t exist in reality.

    Here’s the proof in multiple dimensions so you’ll know that no faith is needed:

    a) Spiritual or Supernatural in a religious context means above nature, incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical.

    Non-physical means no physical properties.

    Physical properties are:

    Dimensionality – spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.
    Energy – radiation, mass, information, entropy, force, effect.

    Therefore, for something to be spiritual or supernatural it must have zero dimensions, no energy, information, force or effect and not exist anywhere in the universe at any time – past, present or future.

    b) An omni entity is a self-contradictory concept.

    You can easily look up the myriad contradictions that arise from the usual claims of omni-whatever properties ascribed to the conjectured God.

    c) The concept of a creator god is incoherent or undefined.

    Space and time are physical properties of the Universe.
    Whether or not space and time had a beginning, there is no before time where a cause could exist.
    There is no time when the Universe did not exist.
    Causation is a physical property of the Universe.

    So the Creator God conjecture is either meaningful and false or nonsense.

    If something contradicts the facts and/or itself it is provably false. No faith needed.

  24. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:48 pm 24.Denis Loubet said …

    Not many atheists I know claim that there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any.

    I think what you’re hearing is atheists calling you delusional because you believe in something for which there is no evidence. They don’t have to make the claim that gods don’t exist for that to be true.

    And Mirriam Webster seems to agree with my definition of faith.

    Since I have complete trust in nothing, I fail to see how this supports your position.

    Some atheists are out there to save the multitudes. They see the damage religion does, and seek to reduce it by trying to convince the theists to free themselves from it’s influence.

  25. on 23 Aug 2009 at 6:55 pm 25.Lou said …

    V,
    You have proven nothing other than you limited ability to detect and measure. You have faith that your five senses provides all needed detection and measurement. Highly unlikely and therefore you have proven only that you have faith. You have no clue what happens in the darkest regions of the universe.
    According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

  26. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 26.VeridicusX said …

    I’m sorry Lou,

    If someone says that God is The Quintessence of Square Circles, I know that it doesn’t exist.

    See how that works? I don’t have to perform an exhaustive search of the whole Universe and every possible world.

    “According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.”

    I think I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t believe in the objective existence of any God.

    I certainly don’t believe that a God can have physical properties while at the same time not having them, which is what is taught by the main Abrahamic religions and is what you seem to be suggesting.

    How not believing in The Quintessence of Square Circles means that we should not even be here, I don’t know.

    It seems that according to your conjecture, an [impossible] invisible, child molesting, mass murdering wizard in the sky wished everything into existence. Now that’s silly.

  27. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 27.Denis Loubet said …

    I’m not V, but I’ll take a stab.

    Yes, our ability to detect and measure is limited, I doubt you’ll get an argument there. And our five senses doubtlessly do not provide all needed detection, that’s why we try to supplement our senses through technology. I also doubt you’ll get an argument about not knowing what happens in the darkest regions of the universe. I sure don’t.

    We’re unlikely, but here we are. So what?

    Well, according to the bible, the god did conform to the physical universe for a time. Ended badly on a cross thingy. I agree it’s silly.

    So, what super-senses do you have that allow you to detect this god-thing? And if you can’t detect it, what made you posit its existence in the first place?

  28. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:32 pm 28.Lou said …

    V you can’t even stay on subject. You bounce from God to Christianity and back. Maybe you are ADD/ADHD but try to focus.

    You really should put that in book form and prove this hypothesis to the rest of humanity. Any man that has all knowledge and the unlimited ability to detect, manipulate and solve all possible metaphysical scenarios is one fella who would be in great demand. You should consider, just for a moment, that all theist may have a reason for believing in God rather than just being delusional.

    When a very small minority calls the vast majority delusional, the minority might need to take a look in a mirror…..or just maybe this is the greatest hoax in history, huh?

  29. on 23 Aug 2009 at 9:30 pm 29.VeridicusX said …

    OK Lou,

    You got me there.

    Lots of people believe in Square Circles, therefore rational people should too?

    If you’ve decided to change the definition of God so that it isn’t the supernatural and/or omni and/or creator version or The Quintessence of Square Circles, then I can say nothing about it. Maybe you’ve decided that your gerbil is “God”?

    I have no evidence that you have a gerbil, so I’ll remain agnostic about it.

    Traditional theists have presented no valid evidence of any gods, only definitions which I have shown are provably incoherent.

    Of course, I’ll suspend judgment or assign a probability to “gods” that we cannot prove or disprove or possible entities for which we have no verifiable evidence.

    If you have a non-contradictory definition of God you’d like to share, I’d love to hear about it. Better still, if you can present some valid evidence I’ll make every effort to attend the presentation of your Nobel prize.

  30. on 23 Aug 2009 at 10:45 pm 30.Lou said …

    Oh no V, I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate. I don’t even do that for the planet compositions orbiting in the Messier 89 galaxy and they are comparable to your square circles!

    But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist? If you have done this, maybe others could be saved? But if you want to attempt this feat, you need to stop with the silly square circles and attempt an honest analysis. Calling most of the world delusional just won’t cut it. Here is where you fall. Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?

    I see you as one of those guys who doubts everything you can’t see. The Bah humbug of the world if you will I prefer to see many possibilities and discoveries that man can not yet imagine. I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.

  31. on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:25 am 31.VeridicusX said …

    “But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist?”

    If you have any integrity, rebut my refutation – with reasoned evidence.

    Who, what or where is this “he” to which you refer? Oh, that’s right. “God” is no longer the set of contradictory statements we’ve been told about for centuries and that I’ve clearly refuted.

    “God” is now suddenly undefined…

    “I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate.”

    I’m sure you don’t, because you have no evidence of any such thing. You’re making it up.

    You talk about honesty. Ethics and personal integrity require that we don’t believe things for which we have no valid evidence. Beliefs have consequences, beliefs determine behaviors.

    Do I have to mention 9/11 or the people who have been in court recently for negligent homicide, due to “faith in God“?

    “Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?”

    I already know why people believe in “God”. And so do you. You keep on bringing it up.

    It’s called indoctrinated fear and wishful thinking or “faith”. No magical mass murdering molesters required.

    If you believe that you’ve won the lottery you will in all probability feel Really Good™.
    It isn’t required that you’ve really won the lottery, only that you believe it.

    Remind you of anything?

  32. on 24 Aug 2009 at 6:05 am 32.VeridicusX said …

    Lou,

    “I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.”

    You do realize that if your answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is anything other than “yes”, then you’re an atheist?

    Certainly, your position is incompatible with the traditional “omni” God.

    This particular God is supposed to be the necessary creator of the capital-U Universe, everything that could possibly not exist. As such is is supposed to be present in the history of every possible world.
    If you suggest, as you have done, that there’s any possible world in which it doesn’t exist, then you don’t believe in it. [See Alvin Plantinga's "Maximality", the Ontological Argument, etc.].

  33. on 24 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 33.Burebista said …

    What is a traditional OmniGod? This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.

    Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness. We may see the results but how can you prove scientifically that the conscious exists? But I would venture a guess you would argue you do.

    Can you prove it? The same kind of proof you desire for God?

    BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

  34. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:15 pm 34.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista,

    If you don’t know what the traditional “descriptions” of God are, then you’re not equipped for this discussion.

    “Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness.”

    You’d better hope it can should you ever go into hospital for surgery.

    “BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

    I don’t believe you.

  35. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm 35.VeridicusX said …

    Oh, and Burebista,

    Present a rebuttal. “I’m an idiot!” is not an argument.

  36. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:48 pm 36.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista again,

    “This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.”

    A what?

    You seem to be the one who’s confused. It’s impossible to know if any so-called “deity” is supreme. Even said so-called “supreme deity” can’t know. So I’d be interested to see what “the argument of a supreme deity” might be.

    See Descartes, The Simulation Hypothesis, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.

  37. on 24 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 37.Burebista said …

    Great argument. “I don’t believe you” The incredible Vee has the ability to know what everyone believes and feels. No need to go further with that idiocy. I didn’t use the argument you are an idiot, but you now make it fit.

    A supreme deity is not a religious argument no more than SETI is since we have members of the scientific community taking up the task. ID offers up many possibilities in the realm of a supreme diety. I doubt you would look into them since I find many of you to be narrow minded and incapable of examining other lines of reasoning.

    So, once again, prove the existence of the conscious. You do believe in the “I” don’t you? You attempt was lame and not believable.

  38. on 10 May 2011 at 2:59 am 38.Christy said …

    I believe your all crazy. im a CHRISTIAN AND PROUD those who have not been touched by the Lord ya’ll need to get a grasp on reality and get to know him he will change your life. Look up cool stories of people being healed and God blessing them.I hope I was a help.

  39. on 10 May 2011 at 1:36 pm 39.Lou said …

    38.Christy said …

    “I believe your all crazy.”

    This from somebody who believes in a maniacal god who allegedly heals and blesses people – LOL!

    Take your own advice – “get a grasp on reality.”

    “I hope I was a help.”

    You weren’t. It’s people like you who are the problem.

  40. on 05 Jul 2011 at 1:58 pm 40.Bovice said …

    Lou- I completely agree with you on the fact that people like Christy are the problem.

    Christy- I am a Christian and believe everything you believe but stating things like you did are not going to convince an atheist of anything.

    I was born and raised a Christian. Do I have some doubt, yes. But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.

    I could sit and give you facts on why there is a God and everyone will accept or refute them based on their own beliefs.

    Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.” This supports my belief in God and rejects numerous scientific hypothesis about the creation of the world. Where did living organisms come from if science can not prove this? My logical answer-God.

  41. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:15 pm 41.Lou said …

    40.Bovice said …

    “But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.”

    Your thinking is not at all logical. It’s an old argument known as Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, so I’m not going over it again here.

  42. on 05 Jul 2011 at 8:00 pm 42.Severin said …

    40 Bovice
    „Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    Please see here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1945 , posts #19, #48, #57, #66, #67

    Think about it, and, if you want, try to find week points in this reasoning.

  43. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:05 pm 43.Ian said …

    “If your god is so obvious, why can’t you prove his existence?”

    Looks to me he has proved it. Seems quite obvious which is why the vast majority have no problem in belief in a creator. We are here, the universe is here. I don’t have enough faith to believe chance created it all.

    _________________________________________________

    “However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied.”

    Absolutely telson.
    ______________________________________________

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.

    _____________________________________________

    ” Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together?”

    Yes, God is required to hold the universe together.
    ____________________________________________

    “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    If there is no proof of God, there is no proof of such a process.

  44. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong”

    Another lie (fallacious even) that has been prove wrong numerous time. Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.

    I think Pascal has a little more on the ball than some atheists on blogs who do not even understand his wager.

  45. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:00 am 45.DPK said …

    There are so many problems with Pascal’s wager it is silly.
    First, an all powerful god would not be fooled or impressed by a “decision” to believe… that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed. You also assume that he would be more impressed with someone taking a “safe bet” to gain eternal live than with someone who has an honest and sincere disbelief based on the intellect given him, or her. This requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell. But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice.

    Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one. Considering the hundreds of gods we have to choose from, the odds of you picking the “correct” one to believe in is quite small. You may decide to believe, but pick the wrong deity and you will be in the same lake of fire as me. The chance of you simply picking between Jesus, and say, Allah alone greatly reduces your chances of getting it right… add in all the hundreds of other sundry gods, and the very real possibility that NONE of the current major religion’s gods are actually the true one, and you chance become almost nil. What if you die and find that the Raelians or Mormons, or scientologists actually have the “right god”? You lose.

    Third, you assume that an omniscient and omnipotent being of such vast intelligence as to create the whole universe and everything in it would be so unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation. That would be very much like me smashing my dog’s head with a sledge hammer repeatedly for not coming when I called him. Hardly behavior worthy of a supreme being.

  46. on 06 Jul 2011 at 3:16 am 46.Lou said …

    43.Ian said …

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    “This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.”

    Of all of your idiotic comments, I will only choose this one for a reply because it illustrates your dishonesty. You intentionally edited his comment that was labeled a fallacy. To wit, “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

    The second sentence of his comment is a fallacy. You are either very presumptuous or very ignorant to think that anybody would fall for your dishonest tactic. However, I think the latter is more likely because of your rather simple defense of the strong rejection of Pascal’s Wager.

  47. on 06 Jul 2011 at 11:11 am 47.Ian said …

    Debunking DPK”

    “that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed.”

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?

    “unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation.”

    Yes, what does this have to do with the wager? Run out of objections? Once again Pascal was Christian. You are like the little kid who doesn’t like his parents punishment. Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.

    DPK vs Pascal?

    Well, Pascal wins again.

    Lou sorry, you are not worth my time.

  48. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:34 pm 48.DPK said …

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    A belief that is predicated on a favorable outcome is not a “belief”. It is not possible for me to “decide” to believe in god. Such a belief is shallow and disingenuous. To claim to do so would be a lie. Like Bovice above who admits he has doubts but chooses god to be safe, after all, what’s the harm, would not cut mustard with an omniscient being. Therefore the idea of “which is the better choice” is fallacious.

    Assuming a god who demands belief as a condition of avoidance of eternal punishment, which is what the wager is about, atheism has a zero chance of success, but belief in god, when there are hundreds of possible gods to choose from, with no way of knowing which one is right, is not much better… perhaps one in a thousand?

    Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.
    I am simply trying to think rationally about what behavior an supreme being would exhibit. YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me. I’m just saying that the way you claim he behaves is not in keeping with the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being of infinite intelligence. YOU are claiming that god is the christian god, that he favors you, and that he will reward YOU for believing in him. That takes some balls.
    What will you say to Allah when he asks you why you worshiped this fraud Jesus instead of him, the one true god?
    Run out of answers?

  49. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:47 pm 49.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.”

    Again, most of your comments are too idiotic to justify a response, but your last comment reflects your obvious bias. DPK doesn’t even believe in god, so he has no belief of how your god “must act,” but only how a logical, rational being would act. But you, being an irrational, illogical being have the “chutzpah” to tell anybody how your imaginary, maniacal god, for whom you have no evidence, DOES ACT – complete, utter delusion, and that’s not even considering the stupidity of Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager requires an irrational belief in a maniacal god. If that’s you, then are deluded.

  50. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:26 pm 50.Lou said …

    44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.”

    Simply being the “pov” of a xtian (chutzpah) invalidates it. Therefore, all other arguments, regardless of their merits, against it are moot. Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.

  51. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:44 pm 51.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    “Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?”

    No, he isn’t. Pascal is making the choice (comparison) between (his) the xtian god only and “non-belief.” This also invalidates the wager because it’s a false dichotomy unless you’re a deluded xtian.

  52. on 06 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 52.Ian said …

    “YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me”

    Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.

    Again you would like to take Pascal’s wager beyond that which he makes the wager. This is why you guys who think you have debunked it fail. His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.

    In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.

  53. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:34 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Ian said …

    “His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.”

    Yes, that is understood. That’s why I previously wrote “Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.”

    It’s still an unacceptable “wager.” Substitute a leprechaun for god and a pot of gold for heaven. There’s no point in it, yet theists somehow see and use use it as an argument for their belief in god. There’s no point in having an “intellectual analysis” about a leprechaun and a pot of gold.

  54. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:56 pm 54.DPK said …

    “In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.”

    haha… then your “safe bet” is really no safer than mine. Thanks for at least admitting it.

    “Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.”

    You are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. Let’s look at the assumptions that YOU are making about god in order to get the outcome from Pascal’s that you desire:
    1. You assume that god really cares about whether you believe in him or not. If he doesn’t, your wager fails.
    2. You assume that the god you choose to worship is actually the correct one. Pick the wrong god, you loose.
    3. You assume that he rewards those that profess a belief in him for a self serving interest over those who are true to their (ehem, god given) ability to reason. If you’re wrong about his behavior, you loose.
    4. You assume that he does in fact, punish people for all eternity and that he is, in fact, a “jealous god” full of anger and wrath. If he is, rather a forgiving and loving god… you loose.
    5. You assume that he will accept someone choosing to believe in him because it is the safest bet to be satisfactory to him. If he sees through your rouse, you loose.

    In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions that your god will behave according to how YOU want him to behave.

    If your statement is true, that “He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.” then there is no point in trying to understand him at all. He will do what he wants… and your fate has been determined since before you were conceived.

    I wonder why god choose to give YOU the gift of faith and belief, and deny fully 2/3rds of the world’s population? You think very highly of yourself, don’t you?

  55. on 06 Jul 2011 at 10:44 pm 55.Ian said …

    “In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions”

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.

    It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.

    Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not? Should I be a self-loathing twit? I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.

  56. on 07 Jul 2011 at 12:22 am 56.DPK said …

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    What? The bible?? Every religion has it’s holy book. There is no evidence that your “word of god” is any more valid than any other.

    Yes, if against all odds, you happen to have gotten it 100% right and I have it 100% wrong, you get the gold ring and I loose. But at least I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god. So, if I have it right and you have it wrong, you don’t get the “same thing” as me. Because I got to live my life free of delusion and superstition.
    “Diversions” aside.. I’m not avoiding the wager. I’m pointing out to you how weak it is. It’s like saying “Assuming that I know exactly what lottery number will come up, it is a safer wager to play the lottery than not play. Well, it’s true… you can’t win if you don’t play, but the odds of you actually knowing the winning number are remote. You act like it’s a 50/50 deal. It isn’t. In fact, the odds that YOU have everything right number is very small.

  57. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:13 am 57.Lou said …

    DPK,

    You can forget all the arguments against Pascal’s Wager because someone like Ian will always have some answer for them that they will accept over your argument.

    My point of the leprechaun and gold analogy was meant to illustrate how Pascal’s Wager is “rigged.” That is, to use Ian’s term, for it it to be “true,” you must believe it to be “true.” Even Ian admits as much when he writes “From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.” If you aren’t a xtian (believer), then it isn’t true. It’s a “rigged” wager.

  58. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:29 am 58.Lou said …

    55.Ian said …

    “No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.”

    There is no “God’s Word,” only your delusional belief that there is. You missed again.

    “The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.”

    It’s only “sound” to the extent that Pascal set the limitations of the wager.

    “It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.”

    Anyone who agrees with your analysis is not intellectually honest.

    “Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not?”

    No, you should not because so far you haven’t exhibited to us that you have any reason to.

    “Should I be a self-loathing twit?”

    No, you shouldn’t.

    “I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.”

    All theists pretend to know more than god. It’s the only way to maintain their delusional belief. God is an invention of man. Therefore, a man who believes in god must know more than god does.

  59. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:48 pm 59.Bovice said …

    For all of you that do not know much about religion, my christian God is the same God that the Muslims and Jews both believe in. In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not. Christianity is the only faith of the major religions that you need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. (Although I believe this to be false) The major point you all miss is that you need to live a righteous life in order to be saved as well. You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved. Someone who constantly steals from others or kills others will not be saved.

    I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic. Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex. There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.

  60. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:52 pm 60.Ian said …

    “I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god.”

    What???? I hope you don’t really believe that. It so ridiculous. I know a God who loves me and provides for me. I am free, full of joy and gratitude. I can’t imagine my life any other way.

    The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.

    I wish I could agree you have a life free of delusion. You do not and that is truly too bad. You are probably one of those guys who has a religion and gave up on it. I can relate. Religion is a waste of time.

  61. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:11 pm 61.Lou said …

    59.Bovice said …

    “I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic.”

    Evolution is a fact, not a belief. It’s irrelevant whether or not you believe in it. It has nothing to with logic. Gravity defies logic and explanation, yet it is a fact. It operates regardless of your belief in it.

    “Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex.”

    How much more complex?

    “There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.”

    We understand your position and reasoning. It’s not unusual for deluded people to think they are sane and that everybody else is not. God or gods were always the explanation for unexplained natural events. However, once they are understood, they are no longer supernatural events. There are no supernatural events. There are only natural events, both explained and unexplained. Only the feeble-minded continue to explain unexplained natural events with gods.

  62. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:49 pm 62.Bovice said …

    Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis. There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.
    The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.

    I could go on for days. Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained. Our world didn’t happen by chance.

  63. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:11 pm 63.DPK said …

    “The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.”

    Spoken like a truly delusional person. You know no such thing. You think you do. But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat. Even the atheist here are not so irrational as to claim that they know things that are not known or unknowable. We look at the evidence and make a rational conclusion based on what is most likely real. You read a magic book and have a tingly feeling in your tummy and think you are blessed. Sorry, can’t buy into that snake oil.

    Bovice… go to a real university and study biology and stop listening to the religious whack jobs and their voodoo “science”. Even most main stream religions have accepted evolution as a scientific fact, although predictably, they now want to claim it as god’s work. Seriously, you sound like the church leaders who insisted the earth is the center of the universe long after it was painfully obvious they were wrong. You make yourself just sound silly. The alternative is that god poofed everything into existence and then created an overwhelming mountain of evidence to trick us into believing he didn’t. That Yahweh, such a kidder!

  64. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 64.Bovice said …

    DPK…You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job. I am no scientist but I am well educated. Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.

    For all you that love spitting in philosophical anayalsis consider this:
    If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent

    Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.

  65. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 65.Ian said …

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.
    __________________

    “But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat”

    Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?

    Atheists like to claim they make no claims but that is like Obama stating we need to live with in our means financially. It is just talk.

  66. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:28 pm 66.Lou said …

    64.Bovice said …

    “You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job.”

    You have already demonstrated that very thing, he is correct until you demonstrate otherwise.

    “I am no scientist but I am well educated.”

    Again, you have demonstrated just the opposite. You obviously are not as well educated as you think you are.

    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless.

    What part of gravity do you believe? I wonder because I only believe the part that planets orbit each other because of gravity. But it’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it.

    “To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.”

    It might be if someone presupposed that. But even if they did, it’s still not as “logically incoherent” as inventing a supernatural being to account for it. Again, ignorant people have done the same thing for centuries until science explains how nature works. Simply because there’s no scientific explanation for a natural event doesn’t mean that god did it. That is the most “logically incoherent” explanation that there is, provide by “logically incoherent” people such as yourself.

    “Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.”

    Of course every argument supports your belief because you pick the arguments that you agree with and reject those that are in conflict with your belief. Your belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Another problem you have is understanding the concept that no belief is not a belief.

  67. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 67.Bovice said …

    Lou you are so biased and make no sense.

    “No belief is not a belief”
    Yes it is, you believe in nothing.

    Your arguments are not sound at all. All you try to do with your arguements is tick people off. You are way too biased in all of your philosophy. The object of philosophy is to make you think, and you are completely one-sided. Become better educated on the most important information-facts. All you do is put a philosophical spin on others comments. Facts speak for themselves. Your way of thinking is based on a possibility of something to be true. Bring facts to the table if your going to argue, that is what I have done. Until you do that keep your comments to yourself.

  68. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:56 pm 68.Bovice said …

    Lou:
    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless. ”

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.

    Well put Ian

  69. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 69.Lou said …

    68.Bovice said …

    “Microevolution is a fact”

    Prove it.

  70. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:01 pm 70.Lou said …

    67.Bovice said …

    “No belief is not a belief”

    “Yes it is, you believe in nothing.”

    I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?

  71. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:02 pm 71.Bovice said …

    mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples

  72. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:08 pm 72.DPK said …

    “Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?”

    Yes, you’d like that, wouldn’t you? Prevent anyone else from voicing an opinion that differs with yours. How typical of your deluded xtian worldview. Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice, and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.

    Your tired dogmatic babble has already been debated here ad-nausium. You bring nothing new to the debate that hasn’t been presented and rejected many times before.

  73. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:09 pm 73.Bovice said …

    Lou said “I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?”

    If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.

  74. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:18 pm 74.Lou said …

    71.Bovice said …

    “mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples”

    HA! You fool! God did it.

  75. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:22 pm 75.Bovice said …

    HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?

  76. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 76.Lou said …

    75.Bovice said …

    “HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?”

    No, my sarcastic replies only serve to demonstrate how absurd is any reply that attributes natural processes and events to some imaginary god.

    Both macro-evolution and micro-evolution are part of the same natural process that we know as evolution.

    Now, back to my question – what part of gravity don’t you believe in?

  77. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:35 pm 77.Bovice said …

    never said a thing about gravity.

    your a joke I’m done with you

  78. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:54 pm 78.Lou said …

    77.Bovice said …

    “never said a thing about gravity.”

    I know you didn’t. So do you believe all of it or none of it? You won’t answer because perhaps you know where I’m going with it, and it will make your cherry-picking of evolution look absurd.

    “your a joke I’m done with you”

    I finally got through to you. My sarcastic replies were merely a parody of the idiotic comments you made starting with #59. You respond “your a joke I’m done with you.” Now you understand how your comments appear. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with anybody who makes the claims that you made in #59.

    P.S. I am not the same Lou who made comments in this thread before 10 May 2011.

  79. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:58 pm 79.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not.”

    Why, then, aren’t you a Muslim? Why do they all hate each other and faith mutually, and call other religions heretical?
    You are wrong!
    ALL religions claim that ONLY they are right, and that ONLY their god helps and “saves” people.
    You should not talk such things without carefully study things you are talking about.
    No non-muslim can be “saved” by definition (read, ask a muslim, as I did). In Islam, ALL non-muslims go to hell, and SOME muslims have chances to be “saved” under certain condition (that are very different from group to group!).

    You are wrong, and all your conclusions based on this wrong premise are wrong.

  80. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 80.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved.”

    What is “saved”?
    I don’t believe in god, I live a very decent and fruitful life, and can’t see what “saved” could mean. Heaven?
    I dont believe that BS, I expect to dissapear for ever when I die, so if not heaven, what is “saved”?

  81. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:09 pm 81.Bovice said …

    Severin. Did my research buddy. I have watched countless shows on this and read plenty of things.

    Quotes from a book of Islam:
    2:62 Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

  82. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:15 pm 82.Severin said …

    68 Bovice
    “Microevolution is a fact
    Macroevolution is a philosophy.”

    When you are sick, you go to doctors, don’t you?
    You trust experts for TV when your TV set doesn’ work.
    You trust experts and enter a plane, you don’t think it will fall down?
    You use your mobile phone, so you obviously do trust experts for mobile telephony.

    When you come to evolution, you STOP trusting experts!
    Why?
    Are YOU an expert, who has decades of research job behind you?
    What do YOU really know about evolution?

    Before you debate so resolutely, please READ something, for example:
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/2008/7/Microevolution-vs-Macroevolution.htm#b , AND a few other kinks suggested there.
    After you read this, THINK, and try to give some ARGUMENTS (not only your opinion) against it.

    Then we can talk.

  83. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:34 pm 83.DPK said …

    Like the bible, you can find support for any condition you want in the Quran, even contradictory ones. This from a Muslim website:

    31. What about non-Muslims do; they go to heaven?
    Ans: Allah only accepts Islam. He says in the Quran: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam it won’t be accepted of him, and he will be one of the losers in the hereafter”. I would rather lose anywhere, but not lose in the hereafter. This is because hellfire is eternal. It never ends and we never die when we go there, if we go there.
    Source: http://www.sultan.org

    So, it appears Bovice, you have a quandry. Just like the bible says “thou shalt not kill” and then god instructs us to kill all manner of people for the most trivial offenses, like working on the sabbath, being disrespectful to our parents, and being homosexual. It tells us to love one another, and instructs us on the proper way to procure and beat our slaves. Just more evidence that it is ALL superstitious nonsense.

  84. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:01 pm 84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.

    Another wager for you.

    You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?

  85. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:03 pm 85.Ian said …

    Bovice,

    Don’t feed Lou the troll.

  86. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:40 pm 86.Lou said …

    84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    “So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.”

    Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t. The rest of DPK’s sentence was “…and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.”

    “You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?”

    Specify – what delusions and whose throats? And what do you mean by “but shutting down this site?”

  87. on 08 Jul 2011 at 1:21 am 87.DPK said …

    Not a chance. What makes you think I have the power to shut down this website anyway? And why would I want to? It’s a voice of reason and rationality and obviously serves to annoy you, so that’s two good reasons to support it.
    My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions, why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.

  88. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:32 am 88.DPK said …

    “Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t.”

    Lou, seriously, you’re surprised that christians use deceit and lies to try and make their point of views look valid? It happens all the time. I actually find it extremely amusing. They are so predictable. What do you expect from poor Ian who believes he has a personal relationship with an invisible man, but also claims that he believes in him because it’s a safer bet than missing out on eternal life in heaven with Jesus.

    I wonder if he ever thought about why, if heaven was so great, did Satan and the other angels decide to rebel against perfect god and leave? Guess he wasn’t so perfect, huh?

  89. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:34 am 89.Lou said …

    62.Bovice said …

    “Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis.”

    Evolution is a fact. There are hypothesis for how it works.

    “There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.”

    REALLY?! “The missing link?!” The lack of certain transitional fossils disproves evolution? Wait until paleontologists hear about your discovery! It will keep them all awake at digesting your discovery, wondering how they will now make a living.

    “The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.”

    Where do you come up with such nonsense?! Ever heard of penguins?

    “I could go on for days.”

    With more nonsense? No doubt you can.

    “Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.”

    Really? Would you care to explain gravity to us. Please do, because if you can’t, then it doesn’t exist, and we will most certainly be flung from the earth and fly into space.

    “Our world didn’t happen by chance.”

    Please elaborate. How did “our world” happen? I’m dying to hear this one.

  90. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:55 am 90.DPK said …

    While you’re explaining to Lou exactly how “our world” did happen, please explain to me how you suppose you magical god, “happened”?

  91. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 91.DPK said …

    Bovice… take 8 minutes of your life and learn why the stuff you have been told about micro and macro evolution is incorrect. Here’s the reader’s digest version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

    Now, let’s try to explain this. You said:
    “If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.”

    This is a common statement I hear from theists. I assume it is because you are so used to surrounding yourself with people who have different “beliefs” that the fact of “no belief” as it pertains to the supernatural just doesn’t compute. It’s hard for you to comprehend. Look at it this way, I suppose you don’t believe in Santa, correct? Not believing in Santa is not a “belief” it is more a realization. You may say, “Well, no… it;s not the same because everyone KNOWS Santa isn’t real. You can’t say that about god.”
    This is not really correct. There are a large class of people, small children, who DO believe that Santa is real. Your rejection of the idea of Santa is no different than my rejection of the idea of a supernatural god. It is not a “belief” it is a rejection of anther’s belief based on realization.
    The sams can be said about elves, fairies, all manner of other imagined creatures for which no evidence exists. Not believing in fairies is not a “belief”. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explain something that is a common misconception between people of faith and skeptics.

  92. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:16 pm 92.Ian said …

    “My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions”

    Actually you complained about the theist expressing their opinion. I never did until you took exception I am not afraid of the arena of ideas as you seem to be. I simply offered a compromise to soothe your ruffled feathers.

    You seem quite scattered and unable to remain on point.

    Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.

    I’m sure you would like to shut us up and spread you belief without competition. This shows you don’t believe your worldview will hold up under scrutiny. History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.
    ____________________

    Lou,

    It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.

  93. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 93.Ben said …

    “why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.”

    Ian,

    To satisfy DPK’s demand, I would like to acknowledge I agree with you right here on this blog.

    Thanks for completely discombobulating DPK. You have him in a complete tizzy. You have refuted every point and now he has no answers outside of “shut up”.

  94. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:08 pm 94.DPK said …

    Ian… Jesus will not look kindly on your dishonesty. You know full well that my comment was in response to YOUR claim that “You have it 100% right….because of your personal relationship with god.” This after failing to answer any objections to your support of Pascal’s wager with anything more than “I am right and you are wrong.”
    You can attempt to spread your dogma of whatever it is you think you know, but please be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts, or lacking that, logic and reason. If you can. I doubt it.

    And yes, we have gotten off track. Me trying to follow your circular reasoning that always seems to end with “because I have a personal relationship with god.” is quite tiring.

    Congratulations though, you have won the admiration of Ben, the local village idiot. Not much of an accomplishment really. But good for you. I’m sure Horatiio will also give you two thumbs up. Maybe you three could start a tent show revival. I’m sure you’d be popular in the bible belt.

  95. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:10 pm 95.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.”

    But as usual, you avoid answering the question.

    It’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it. Do you agree?

    Evolution happens “here and now,” too.

  96. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:47 pm 96.DPK said …

    Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god. I wonder if he would let me drop a bowling ball on his head while he prayed for god to stop it falling. Then if it cracked his skull, it would be “god’s will”. Up for the challenge, Ian?

    Not for Ian, because I know he is a lost cause, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this who may be less sure that they have it “100% right”, I ‘d like to address another deceitful statement made here. Ian said, “History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.”

    Now, unlike Ian, I will not presume to speak for all atheists, but I can speak for me. In so much as I consider religious dogma to be irrational and superstitious, and unarguably one of the major sources of conflict in the present world, I would like to see religious dogmatic beliefs abandoned in favor of a more rational, human based worldview. Notice I did not use the word “eradicate” that Ian choose, because that implies some sort of unilateral force. I think most atheists, my self certainly, value independent liberties way too much to attempt to force our values on anyone. Convince? Sure… is that wrong? Religions are the ones that history shows have the record of repeatedly and systematically trying to force itself upon people.
    Most of the atheists I know are in fact, good, honest, and moral people. Are there some bastards? No doubt. But I don’t know any of us trying to “eradicate religious beliefs at all cost”. Never saw an atheist strap on an explosive vest or fly and airplane into a building or start a holy war.
    We don’t have a god that commands us to dash babies on rocks, rip pregnant women, stone people to death, or requires blood sacrifice in atonement for some sin of our ancient ancestors.
    So think about which of us should really be on the lunatic fringe.

  97. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:49 pm 97.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.”

    Yes, some of us do mind, because that’s not what you’re doing.

    First of all, atheism isn’t dogma. This is either a typical ploy of redefining words in order to attack atheism or you simply don’t have the capacity to understand the world except in the context of religious dogma. And if you think there is any comparison to alleged spreading of atheism to that of religion, then you are again being absurdly dishonest.

    Second, have you ever considered that some don’t believe or accept that you particular dogma is hope, peace, and salvation? If you are a xtian, then your dogma is to convert people against their will to believe like xtains believe. That is not spreading an opinion. It is, as DPK wrote, to “cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat.”

    Lastly, spreading your dogma has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with evolution. Yet you are so threatened by it to the point that you dishonestly and fraudulently attack it. You’re nothing but a throw-back to the Middle-Ages who attacks anything that you can’t understand or accept because it conflicts with your delusional relationship with an imaginary god – one that I know for a fact that you don’t have. How do I know that? Because I live in the same “here and now” that you do. I am the same species that you are. I experience the same environment that you do. I was raised as a xtian, attended church, bible school, VBS, and I was even baptized. There is no reason that a god would have a relationship with you, but not the majority of the rest the people including me. The only logical explanation is that you are delusional. So why don’t you keep your bastardized dogma of “hope, peace and salvation” to yourself and your fellow jesus freaks, and leave everybody else alone? You are not in anyway harmed by doing that, yet you insist that everybody share your delusion, intruding and trespassing into their right to liberty while demanding yours.

  98. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 98.Lou said …

    96.DPK said …

    “Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god.”

    Yes, I know. But he didn’t specifically answer whether or not he believed that gravity is a natural or supernatural force.

  99. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 99.Lou said …

    Or maybe gravity is only a philosophy.

  100. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:24 pm 100.DPK said …

    I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god. To me, that would certainly imply that gravity is a supernatural force. Without god to magically enforce it, it would not exist. Since the god of the bible has been claimed on several occasions to have countered or suspended the force of gravity, and since Ian knows that “the word of god” makes him 100% right… seems no other conclusion will fit the facts in evidence.

    You would expect though, that gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism would then exhibit some degree of randomness in response to prayer or god’s will. I wonder why we don’t see this? If we lived in biblical times, we would have to have seen this, is the bible stories are to be believed. I wonder why not now?

  101. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:58 pm 101.Ian said …

    Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!

    Ben,

    Thank you friend. I get on a roll and just enjoy myself. I will be asking DPK to back up another comment. Let me see if he produces this time.

    “be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts”

    DPK,

    I will be glad to. Please bullet point my deceitful claims and I will be glad to retract them post-haste.

  102. on 08 Jul 2011 at 7:57 pm 102.Lou said …

    101.Ian said …

    “Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Maybe not 90%, but the majority are. But probably the majority of theists don’t actually claim to have a personal relationship with god like you do, and I think a large number of people actually doubt the existence of god, but they’re too afraid to admit it.

    Your personal relation ship with god claim reminds me of something Sam Harris said -

    “George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”

    Regardless that you somehow equate reality with majority belief doesn’t make it true. First of all, it’s evidence of your inability to think rationally. Furthermore, public opinion and beliefs have been wrong throughout history. If anything, that the majority believes something questionable to be true is evidence that it’s most probably not. When someone like you resorts to defending their position with majority belief, then it’s a safe assumption that you can’t defend it otherwise. The very last defense of any position I take would be to say that “everybody else agrees with me, so you must be wrong.” At that point you might as well raise the white flag.

    But please, you don’t really think that the majority of people are smarter than the minority of people, do you? Your majority belief defense is really only a cop-out for your lack of a real defense, isn’t it? Tell me you don’t really think that because the majority believes something that it must be true.

  103. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:04 pm 103.Severin said …

    101 Ian
    “I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Yes!

    Maybe you overestimated the percentage, but, in principle, and unfortunately: yes!

  104. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:39 pm 104.Lou said …

    100.DPK said …

    “I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god.”

    My point is that gravity is much more difficult to accept than is evolution. It’s common sense that if you place an object on a globe and spin it at over 1,000 MPH that that object will fly off the globe. There is no acceptable explanation other than some mysterious force called gravity that keeps us from flying into space. Gravity is just, as Bovice wrote about evolution, a “made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.” That being the case, then the only other explanation is that “god does it.”

    But then again, this is all moot. Because anybody can look up at the sky and see that it’s the sun and stars that spin above our heads on this obviously flat earth. The majority of the people thought that, so it must have been true.

  105. on 08 Jul 2011 at 11:20 pm 105.Ian said …

    Lou quoted Sam Harris! Oh yeah, that carries some weight.

    To top it off Lou thinks this is a question of intelligence! Well, Trekies tend to be intelligent as well as the truthers! So there you go. You are in the same league. I must contend Lou – you don’t seem exceptionally intelligent.

    Truth be known I could rattle off highly intelligent individuals in each camp. I won’t since I won’t fall into your “appeal to authority” fallacy.

    You are a mess my friend!

    When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult. I will assume Sam is the head of your cult.

    Friends, don’t drink the blue Kool Aid no matter how tastier Sam makes it sound.

    Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.

    Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.

  106. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:11 am 106.DPK said …

    “Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.”

    So, are you going to actually say anything to refute the points, or are you just going to parrot Lou’s statement in a mocking tone and think that counts as a rebuttal. YOU are the mess. Harris’ quote is absolutely true. If the president talked to god though his hair dryer, he would be crazy. Do you disagree? You say you have met god and have a personal relationship with him…. hmmm.

    His point about gravity and scientific theories is valid. Again, I noticed you mocked it, but didn’t refute it. Curious. You seem to be all wind and no substance. I see a pattern here.

    “Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.”

    So? Again, no point. At one time the majority believed the earth WAS flat, mental illness was demonic position, witches cast spells, volcano gods caused volcanos and earthquakes. You point is completely without merit. Even if there WAS any validity to it, the majority of the population does not believe in YOUR chosen god. How does that fit into your position? You haven’t knocked down any fallacy.

    ““Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages!” No, but your reasoning and belief in superstitious ignorance is straight from the middle ages. Again, is there a point to be made? You take your dogma from an ancient book written by bronze age shepherds. So, yeah.

    I don’t have time to retrace all your posts here and call you out on all your intellectual dishonesty, but we can start with your practice of pulling part of a statement from a post and trying to claim it says something it doesn’t. That’s dishonest. You also stated you have met god and have a personal relationship with him. That is a lie. You have not met god.

    Your tactic of “moving the goal posts” on the Pascal’s discussion is also intellectually dishonest. Claiming the argument is valid, and then when faced with a list of problems you claim you must look at it only from the point of view of a christian.. then it is valid. The wager is an apologist’s attempt to convince non-believers to convert. It would be wasted on a Christian. Then your claim to know with 100% certainty that the conditions needed for Pascal’s to be valid are all true. You know no such thing and it is intellectually dishonest (or seriously deluded) for you to claim you do.

    You are so predictable. You don’t make any attempt to actually debate any logical points, you simply mock and act superior. Typical.

  107. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:01 am 107.Severin said …

    105 Ian
    “When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult.”

    Maybe you can call it a cult, but unlike you, and your “90% population”, that “cult” is right.

    There were times when much less than 10% of population claimed earth was not flat.
    90 % were delusional.
    Fortunately, delusions are wiped out.
    It does not happen easy and quickly, but it is unavoidable.

    In 2500., I guess there will be some 5% of religious population on earth (mostly retarded misfits), subdivided in 1,000 to 2,000 denominations, like: “Church of Eternal Gravity”, “Followers of Madona’s Nickers”, “Blessed Earth is Center of Universe Idiots”, “Church of the Holy Big Bang”…

    Christianity and Jesus, Islam and Allah, will be forgotten, except maybe taught in schools the same way we learn obut Greek gods today.

    How many atheists existed on earth 200 years ago?

    How many people believing in Ra have we today on earth?

    You just look at history!

  108. on 09 Jul 2011 at 12:43 pm 108.Leah said …

    Ian

    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life. He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.

  109. on 09 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 109.DPK said …

    Leah,
    Again, like Ian, you make claims with no justification or reasoning behind it. You claim this is to avoid giving “them” credence?? That’s a a pathetic position.
    Let’s review:

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    Because?

    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life.
    What? Please show us where Harris has stated that lightening produces life. You are lying.

    He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.
    Where does he refute himself? Are you saying that if the President stated that he talked to go through his hair dryer, that most people would have no problem with that? That seems to be what you are claiming.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.
    What makes you conclude that there must be a “why” to gravity or the universe? You believe god exists… why? By why I mean, why do you believe he exists AND why does he exist?

  110. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:44 pm 110.Ian said …

    I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.

    Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?

    Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.

    Remember Harris with his olive branch of love?
    Before or after the hair dryer gem?

    “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”

    Yes, and Christians are the ones full of hate. Maybe if we get Harris to talk to more hair dryers he might develop some tolerance rather than being the thought police.

    These rabbit trails are just a way for DPK to avoid answering questions asked of him. He has been wrong on every point and refuses to bullet point my deceitfulness.

  111. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:16 pm 111.DPK said …

    “I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.”

    Apparently so.

    “Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?”

    There you go, being dishonest again. Harris never claimed the president talked to his hair dryer. The point was, he talked to an invisible being and that is considered normal. If he talked to the same invisible being through a hair dryer, (or a magic chalice, or a special telephone for that matter), he would be considered crazy. But the only difference is the addition of the hair dryer that makes the difference between insane and normal. You’re not much on deductive thinking, are you. No surprise, you thin Pascal’s is avalid argument. So now I understand that you figured these things out as a child and haven’t given them much critical thought since then.
    ““some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”
    Despite that you took that statement completely out of context, which again… is dishonest of you, are you saying that the US was wrong to kill bin-Laden?
    Is it wrong to kill a terrorist who is attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon? Is it wrong to kill someone who promotes and aids religious terrorism? You live in a funny little bubble.

    “108.Leah said …
    Ian
    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.”

    I wonder why the two of you are here then if not to argue against “silly myths”. Oh, you just want to spout your illogical dogma without anyone challenging you. Typical. Ian, you are so transparent.

  112. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 112.Lou said …

    110.Ian said …

    “Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.”

    I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable. Ever since you’ve joined this discussion you falsely responded to comments quoted out of context. You posted false information. You’re a fraud. But, then so is your belief and your representation of it. I wonder which came first – your intellectual dishonesty lead to your delusion, or the other way around? Either way, it’s pathetic.

  113. on 09 Jul 2011 at 7:00 pm 113.Observer said …

    Leah- You should read the article I posted earlier about xtians wising up. It is currently under the pot vs. jesus thread currently the first post.

    Ian- I think Lou and DPK are summing you up pretty accurately here. What is your motivation? Are you at a crisis stage in your beliefs and making a last ditch effort to defend beliefs despite everything that is reasonable and logical? Do you ever wonder why the smart folks who are actual scientists do not believe what you believe even though they are vastly better educated than you, and probably have much better minds than you in the same way that Larry Bird was a better basketball player than you are?

  114. on 09 Jul 2011 at 11:38 pm 114.DPK said …

    Lou: “I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable…”

    At first, I actually thought perhaps he was just dim, but now that I see the pattern repeating again and again, I have no choice but to agree with your conclusion. He is deceptive to the point of being despicable. It’s a very sad state that you need to try and deceive someone about what was actually written simply to try and make yourself look right. Doesn’t that fall under the “thou shalt not bear false witness” clause? Makes me wish there was a god to judge because I think Mr. Ian will “have some ‘splainin’ to do”

    I think maybe Observer has it right. He is so desperate to be right he’s willing to lie to himself to convince himself. That sounds like desperation.

  115. on 01 May 2012 at 7:11 am 115.Ken A said …

    Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis: In the “beginning”, God created the heavens and the earth Gen1v1. Time, for us, had a starting point. This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe. There r more than the 4 dimensions in which we reside.

    How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God’s creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason – so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

    The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time’s arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

    Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

  116. on 01 May 2012 at 11:10 am 116.Lou (DFW) said …

    115.Ken A said …

    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    You omitted the most obvious, logical, and probable interpretation – that the bible is a story of myths that in fact did not happen, and that your god is nothing but a fairy tale for which there is no need of being created.

  117. on 01 May 2012 at 11:50 am 117.Severin said …

    115 Ken
    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    Fine, you only tell us which god was it among thousands of gods acting as creators of the universe thousands of years before Christian god came to scene.
    Was it An (Anu), or Baal, or Dagon, Great Mother, Ra,…, maybe Zeus, or his parents Cronus and Rhea, …?

    Then please tell us something about the moment of creation.
    Is it as it was described in Genesis, or a god created universe in big bang?

  118. on 07 Sep 2012 at 5:29 am 118.wane said …

    I was scanning through here and figured id say a few things in a firm believer in God but for those who don’t and scream for evidence because there is no energy or whatever for a spirit well in sure you all know there is a devil and for all of those people who want to argue it is truly invalid it would be wrong to tell you to ask anything o of the devil because that brings on all kinds of demons but look up videos , exorsisoms any thing internet is a great thing or of you know anyone who follows Satan ask them about it but please don’t go ask the devil yourself because he went wait to answer youi hope this makes sense and helps you guys

  119. on 01 May 2014 at 4:55 am 119.B Sattva said …

    I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive. When the time and conditions are right things just start moving. I think that they will find that where ever life can be, it will be. Life is the very nature of the universe. But of course thats just my opinion.

  120. on 01 May 2014 at 11:59 am 120.alex said …

    “I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive.”

    and like the god shit, you got no proof. just because you don’t know, you don’t have to make up shit.

    just because the math says stars should fly off into space instead of being held together in a spinning galaxy doesn’t mean dark matter exist.

    just because we don’t know where the universe came from doesn’t mean god created it.

    it’s ok not to know. we seek answers.

  121. on 19 Jun 2014 at 4:56 am 121.Curious A said …

    Wow, is it midnight already? I was just getting to the good parts of the argument.

  122. on 01 Dec 2014 at 2:05 am 122.Madalynn said …

    I believe in God! people say i have no proof but what proof of evolution do they have? they have none and we arent the ones making things up!

  123. on 01 Dec 2014 at 4:41 pm 123.Anonymous said …

    122.Madalynn said …

    I believe in God!

    Well bully for you…

    people say i have no proof

    That’s probably because you don’t. If you did you’d have presented that proof rather than the fallacy you’re about to give us.

    but what proof of evolution do they have?

    A tu quogue fallacy for the fail. Can you explain what difference it makes if anyone can or can’t prove evolution? Just how does this affect the existence of your God?

    Posters on this site have already conceded evolution for the sake of argument and not one theist has managed to take the opportunity to present a valid argument for their God’s existence.

    Here’s your chance Madalynn. For the sake of evolution lets say that you’re right and evolution is total bullshit. In that case a) what is your argument for the existence of your God? and b) How does the concession of evolution help your argument?

    they have none and we arent the ones making things up!

    You are of course wrong Madalynn. It is a fact that allele frequencies in populations change over time (the very definition of the process of evolution). However, I assume you actually mean the explanation of how that process happens i.e. the Theory of Evolution, in which case the evidence that you deny exists is easily found. You can start by looking at the “29+ evidences for macroevolution” over at the talkorigins site.

    By denying the existence of any evidence for evolution you actually are “making things up!” and that’s before you claim your God is something other than imaginary.

  124. on 01 Dec 2014 at 4:44 pm 124.freddies_dead said …

    That last comment was of course mine. I really should take more care to enter my user name when posting from a machine other than my usual one.

  125. on 02 Dec 2014 at 12:56 am 125.Corbis said …

    Madalynn,

    In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. Many make reference to the site and never critically read it for themselves. They just deem it so. In the critique below, each of the 29 are refuted in detail as to why they do not fit the conclusions they make.

    www^trueorigin^org^theobald1a^asp

    Also here:

    www^uncommondescent^com^intelligent-design
    And here:

    www^conservapedia^com^Evolution

    Macroevolution has never been proven beyond assuming what happens within a species continues and eventually happened across species. No evidence exists to make this conclusion outside of wishing it to be so. Those are the facts are they cannot be disputed.

    As for God, many arguments exist which are as strong or stronger than what exists for Macroevolution. Most have already formed a conclusion and never seriously consider the arguments.

    Good Luck to you.

  126. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:18 am 126.Timeline said …

    Our History by Years Ago – Does this really look like a “God” of a religion did this? ————————————————————

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

  127. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:11 pm 127.freddies_dead said …

    That’s 3 comments into the black abyss of moderation.

  128. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:21 pm 128.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis said…

    That the 29+ evidences were refuted by Ashby Camp but failed to note Theobold’s rewrite to deal with all of Camp’s actual points and gave a full rebuttal to the rest of Camp’s error strewn critique,

    Intelligent design. Except the design hypothesis is self defeating – if everything is designed you cannot then discern design. You must first prove God and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    Conservapedia. Which is a laughing stock for liberals and an embarrassment for liberals. Schlafly doesn’t now the difference between England and the United Kingdom so why should we accept anything he says on more complex subjects?

    That macroevolution is an assumption yet fails to present any evidence that there exists some barrier that prevents small changes building up into bigger changes over long periods of time. Said evidence would make Corbis famous the world over. Step forward and claim your Nobel prize.

    That people only believe in evolution because they wish it were true. Which ignores the huge preponderance of evidence such as transitional fossils, faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchies of extant species and comparative genomics.

    He then claims there are many arguments for God and yet instead of presenting one of those chose to try and take on evolution instead. This is especially baffling as I had already said to Madalynn to go ahead and dismiss evolution as it has no real bearing on the existence of God.

    So here’s Corbis’ chance. For the sake of argument lets say that you’re right and evolution is total bullshit. In that case a) what is your argument for the existence of your God? and b) how does the concession of evolution help your argument?

  129. on 02 Dec 2014 at 4:45 pm 129.Corbis said …

    freedie-dead

    I never claimed to have a scientific theory for God. That is typically what atheists are looking for when they ask for an argument. So, you will not be persuaded by the numerous arguments that do exist for God such as:

    The Argument from Efficient Causality
    Time & Contingency
    Degrees of Perfection
    Design
    The Kalam
    Contingency
    Consciousness
    Origin of the Idea of God
    Ontological Argument
    Moral Argument
    Conscience
    The Common Consent

    How does evolution help my argument? Simple, my point is macroevolution is not a valid scientific theory but many accept it as true. Many accept it out of ignorance not knowing the facts much like they do the politics of the day. If you know anything of science you know this to be true. Evolutionary events cannot be tested nor observed in action at the macro level. Second, a theory requires that the corresponding experiments fit one specific hypothesis but with macroevolution alternate conclusions are viable and cannot be eliminated. It is not a legitimate proven theory.

  130. on 03 Dec 2014 at 12:29 pm 130.freddies_dead said …

    test

  131. on 03 Dec 2014 at 12:46 pm 131.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis.

    I never asked for a scientific theory for God. Just whichever argument you think proves God’s existence but you’re partially right in that I certainly won’t be persuaded by already debunked arguments.

    I could waste time by showing how each of the arguments you listed has already been refuted i.e. How the first cause argument is special pleading – everything must have a cause … oh, except for God. That the kalam merely adds the element of time to the mix in a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of a first cause from the fallacy of special pleading, only to fail as it commits the same fallacy by both denying and supporting the existence of infinites i.e. it first claims infinites don’t exist except that the God it purports to prove the existence of has properties thought to be infinite – omniscience, omnipotence etc…

    Or I could simply point out how every single one of those arguments boils down to a performative inconsistency. They ask us to accept something which contradicts a basic premise that the argument must presume in order to make sense. The arguments presume objectivity i.e. that things are what they are independent of what anyone may wish, want, demand etc… whilst all the time advocating that existence is entirely subjective.

    You could have saved everyone the trouble of reading your second denial of evolution and simply conceded that the question of evolution has absolutely no bearing on your argument for your God’s existence. None of the arguments you listed mention evolution and you make no attempt to show that evolution is some problem for your God belief and needs to be shown to be false in order for your belief in God to continue. Evolution is nothing but a side issue, a red herring thrown in to steer the conversation away from your inability to demonstrate that your God actually exists.

  132. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:03 am 132.Vince Roda said …

    Listen your facts are no good, because already you got the facts wrong about god being jesus, this so called trinity decends from Egyptian sun worship, so any person claiming to know the bible surely must know this simple fact its in every bible, so if your information on this small part is inaccurate, imagine the rest of your post, you people expect god to come down and just make everybodys life easy, you want to know why god doesnt cure cancer, because in paradise, there will be no sicknesses, and the devil is the ruler of this world,and god has allowed, and do you honestly think you can pray for a million dollars, and hell just give it to you get real. Go do some real research on the bible

  133. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:08 am 133.Vince Roda said …

    If you say god doesnt exist, than your saying we are just an accident of a big bang, tell me, how does chaos create order, example if i were to put puzzle pieces in a bag, how long do you think i would have to shake the bag for the puzzle to be in order, same concept with creation, there has to be a designer. Or else we wouldnt be here.

  134. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:10 am 134.Vince Roda said …

    Yah and evolution has been proven wrong time and time again get over it

  135. on 04 Dec 2014 at 4:04 pm 135.freddies_dead said …

    137, 138, 139. Vince Roda said …

    So the Christian Bible claims that God and Jesus are one and the same (Matthew 1:23, Isiah 9:6, Isiah 43:10,11, John 1:1 + 1:14 etc… etc…) but you deny this? The entire Christian mythology is taken from older myths so I would be wholly unsurprised to find the trinity is merely a rehashing of some aspect of Egyptian sun worship, however, this does not change what the Bible itself claims.

    I do not “expect god to come down and just make everybodys life easy” for the same reason that He doesn’t cure cancer i.e. God does not exist.

    I like the way you dismiss the trinity whilst maintaining the view that the devil is real and rules this world – I guess you consider consistency to be overrated – the concept of the devil/Satan was incorporated into Judaism (and on into Christianity) from earlier Sumerian mythologies.

    I’m also well aware of the pointlessness of prayer. Every valid study has shown prayer to be less than useless and of course you won’t get a million dollars as God does not exist to give it to you. Of course the Bible makes a very different claim along the lines of “ask and ye shall receive”. If those claims aren’t true then why should we believe it’s other claims?

    What exactly do you mean by chaos? I suspect it’s something along the lines of something being totally random and entirely impossible to predict. Of course that’s not the same as the way it is used scientifically. In science it’s used to describe a system that is entirely deterministic yet also entirely dependent on initial conditions e.g. weather. Even the smallest change of the initial conditions can lead to huge differences in the outcomes making them very difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to predict. As such the idea of getting order out of chaos is no big deal. If there ever was a time where your version of chaos (totally random and impossible to predict) actually held then we haven’t actually found it yet and everytime we become able to measure something we find it has a certain order to it instead.

    As for your bag of puzzle pieces? Analogies are notoriously poor substitutes for the thing they’re being used to describe and yours here is no different. It fails in a number of ways. 1) it assumes randomness. Evolution isn’t random. It operates under a number of rules – natural selection, prevailing opportunities, supply and demand etc… These rules select for increased fitness while your bag shaking carries out no selection. 2) You’re talking about a serial process – you have a bag of bits, you shake it up and expect a fully formed puzzle at the end. Evolution is a parallel process. Results are built up gradually, guided by selective forces i.e. you’d have to shake the bag not once but many many times, at each step you retain those parts which have assembled properly until you end up with the full puzzle. 3) You’ve specified the puzzle ahead of time. Evolution simply doesn’t work this way. There is no end product in mind. You’ll get what you get. Whatever fits the ecological niche best.

    And your design requires a designer argument fails too. Firstly it’s an example of special pleading as, despite claiming everything needs a designer, you’ll stop and claim that something (your God) has no such requirement. Secondly, when you posit a designer then everything must be designed. How then do you discern design? Currently we compare artifacts to nature in order to say whether something is designed, but by insisting on a designer there’s no longer any nature to compare against i.e. the grains of sand on a beach are every bit as designed as your puzzle in a bag. Now, as you have no way of being able to distinguish design, your only option is to prove the existence of a designer to show design … and you can’t use design as part of your proof.

    Your assertion that “evolution has been proven wrong time and time again” has absolutely no corroborating evidence with it. I suspect that would be because you have none. The process of evolution is a fact – allele frequencies in populations change over time. It happens. No-one sensible argues otherwise. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how evolution happens. It’s here where any disagreements may lie but all accept that evolution is happening. Of course if you have an example of an animal population where the allele frequencies never change i.e. where the process of evolution isn’t happening then you should step forward and present your evidence as scientist worldwide would be absolutely fascinated by it. If you simply disagree with how evolution happens then, once more, it’s up to you to present your argument as to what you believe is happening and the evidence that you think supports your conclusion. That’s how science works.

  136. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:27 pm 136.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead

    I wish you would ‘waste” some time and shown me how just the few arguments I listed fail. Every supposed refutation you claim has been made of the arguments has been addressed many times over. Regardless of the argument I am certain you would refuse to be convinced despite the fact empiricism is marked with ambiguity as a result of the inductive fallacy, falsification restrictions, and Godel’s theorems.

    Second, the the first cause argument is in no way “special pleading” since the nature of God is an entity that exists outside of time and creation. It is a simple cause & effect relationship. IF there exists a material universe which came into existence, then there must exist a prior cause possessing the capacity to have caused it.

    You offered nothing but generalities in the rest of your posts other than I did not reference evolution. No need to since you never rebutted my claim from my earlier posts. Read the last part of the next paragraph to see where it fits in.

    Again, Evolutionary events cannot be tested nor observed in action at the macro level. Second, a theory requires that the corresponding experiments fit one specific hypothesis but with macroevolution alternate conclusions are viable and cannot be eliminated. It is not a legitimate proven theory. Yet, you accept the theory which does not hold up under the scientific method while requiring a higher standard of proof for God.

  137. on 05 Dec 2014 at 7:36 am 137.TJ said …

    Never, not even once has evolution been proved. For evolution to be proven it must be demonstrated that information has been added. All claimed examples show only a loss or switching off of already present information within an existing gene pool.

    As for allele frequencies, it only deals with existing genes and their ratio’s within existing populations. Hardly support for evolution.

    We are in a state of decay, not the other way around. Mutation is not evolution at work, but corruption at play. Any breeder will testify to “throwback” not “throw-forward”.

  138. on 05 Dec 2014 at 2:25 pm 138.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis.

    I’ve already shown you how the arguments fail. The arguments ask us to accept that things are the way they are irrespective of what anyone may wish, demand, hope etc… i.e. they presuppose objectivity, that objects are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them and that truth is possible to determine. Yet every argument advocates the existence of an entity said to have created everything through an act of will i.e. that reality is entirely subjective, that truth is whatever consciousness wills it to be. Quite literally each of those arguments ask us to believe that wishing makes it so which is patently false.

    The first cause argument really does fall to the charge of special pleading. You yourself note that “It is a simple cause & effect relationship” i.e. that everything must have a cause … but then it is claimed that God does not. That special pleading was noticed and the argument changed so that it then reads “everything that comes into being must have a cause”, but of course it’s still commiting the same fallacy by insisting that everything comes into being … except for God.

    I noted your failure to reference evolution in your arguments as that was the entire reason for our exchange. I asked you to show how the existence of your God rested on whether evolution was true or not. You didn’t answer that. Instead you listed a number of arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This simply proved my point. As such I simply do not care what you believe about evolution. Your issues with evolution have precisely nothing to do with your belief in the existence of God. It’s a red herring. A way to steer the conversation away from your inability to demonstrate that your God is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

    Maybe you’d like to try again? Either show how evolution affects your belief in the existence of God – which would make the discussion of it relevant – or stop dicking about and give us a means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining.

  139. on 05 Dec 2014 at 2:36 pm 139.freddies_dead said …

    TJ.

    “Never, not even once has evolution been proved.”

    I’m not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. The process of evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies in populations change over time. This is not controversial. I have to assume then that you mean the Theory of Evolution hasn’t been “proved”. As I noted to Corbis, scientific theories don’t get “proved”. They’re explanations and at the moment the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity.

    “For evolution to be proven it must be demonstrated that information has been added.”

    I’ll ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a requirement of evolution at all and simply point out that gene duplication plus a subsequent mutation in one of the genes = new information added.

    And allele frequencies are how we measure evolution. That’s what the process of evolution is, changes in those allele frequencies over time.

    As for mutations, they are the one true random element of evolution. The vast majority are neutral. However, some are harmful and some are beneficial. Selective pressures tend to favour those individuals with the beneficial mutations and those alleles will end up being passed on and eventually propagating throughout the population.

  140. on 06 Dec 2014 at 12:48 am 140.TJ said …

    freddies_dead,
    What you speak of does not describe microbes to man, which is what the theory of evolution asserts. Gene selection and mutation will never lead to new “kinds”.

    Variation within a “kind” does not equal what evolution preaches, and that is a fact.

  141. on 08 Dec 2014 at 1:07 pm 141.freddies_dead said …

    TJ

    “What you speak of does not describe microbes to man, which is what the theory of evolution asserts.”

    The Theory of Evolution asserts no such thing. Evolution has no goal. It’s not trying to get from microbes to man. Mutations happen. Occasionally they make the host organisms better suited to the environment they inhabit and those mutations end up proliferating throughout the population. Sometimes the build up of mutations makes one population distinct from another and they become a different species. Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t assert that this is happening, it has identified the fact that this is happening and is seeking to explain how it has happened.

    “Gene selection and mutation will never lead to new “kinds”.”

    And that has nothing to do with gene selection and mutation and all to do with the weasel term “kinds”. There is no real definition of the term in a scientific sense. Just which taxonomic rank is it supposed to relate to? I’ve seen the term used to refer to everything from species to classes. When you want to deny that something is happening it’s great to have such a deliberately ambiguous term to use as you do so.

    “Variation within a “kind” does not equal what evolution preaches, and that is a fact.”

    You use the word “fact” but the only “fact” here is that no-one has ever fully defined what “variation within a kind” might actually mean. I’ve seen dog breeds used as an example of variation within a kind but then I’ve also seen it used in to refer to distinct species that are members of the canid family (dogs, wolves, jackals etc…). In that respect it can never be equal to the the well defined scope of evolutionary language.

  142. on 09 Dec 2014 at 1:52 am 142.TJ said …

    freddies_dead,

    The term “microbes to man” is a commonly used term to, and clearly summarizes… “Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today.” … with man being at the pinnacle of such a process.

    Agree or disagree?

    A definition for “kind”.
    For the use of our discussion I propose that a “kind” refers to the conceptual idea put forward in the Bible that all created life was to reproduce after it own kind.

    In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.

    If we again look to dogs for an example we see that all dogs are believed to come from a common dog-like ancestor. Both Biblical and evolutionary theory agree on this. As dogs become more “pure-breed” the common belief is that unwanted traits (ie. genetic information) are removed or minimized from the “breeds” gene pool.

    Although dogs represented variation, highlights what selective breeding can achieve, variation within wild populations isolated from other populations of the same kind can yield similar results of variation. With diet, environment, habits and behavioral traits all playing a role in selecting the prevailing dominant genes that are passed on and retained.

    Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off. Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.

    Extra information can only be introduced by another representative of the same kind with enough genetically similar information to produce viable young. In dogs, mixed breeds are known as “mongrels”. Often the “mongrels” express a wider variety due to the increase of genetic information available.

    In all situations genetic information is never obtained except via a pre-existing source. The family tree for dogs “kinds” is separate from other kinds as it is a separate creation, beginning with a “dog”, with a complete library of genetic information at the top, with lesser information library’s as it branches off into breeds. However, only dogs with genetic representations of the original library will ever be represented.

    Mutations are genetic copying mistakes which can be passed on from generation to generation. These changes are not however new information. They are results of an error. For the error to occur the information that is corrupted must be already present.

    Again with the dogs, breeders will testify that the purer a “breed” is, the more susceptible to disease and ailment it becomes. There becomes a point where offspring are no longer viable and often cross breeding with less pure representatives introduces lost or replaces corrupt information and can re-invigorate a breeds viability.

    Never has it been observed that an accumulation of mutations can lead to a new “kind”. Mutation can corrupt representatives of the same created kind so that their genetic library’s become incompatible, effectively losing their ability to cross breed. This is what science refers to as ‘speciation’.

    Evolution however has simple life at the top of it’s tree of life. Each branching off represents an addition of information to the genetic library available.

    The creation tree of life begins with God at the top, with created kinds branching off and maintaining independence of each other.

    The contrast between the two is of information going in opposite directions.

    In my opinion created kinds best describes what we observe.

    New research is investigating the possibility that environment can influence gene selection. The concept challenges the notion that gene selection is random. The research aims to answer perplexing observations, like quick changes and gene switching in populations in responses to rapid environmental changes, such as pollution, loss of habitat, climate change etc.

    The famous Peppered moth scenario sees the Peppered moth population changing from a white colouring to a dark colouring to match a soot laden landscape produced by the industrial revolution. However, populations returned to a white colour as pollution was reduced.

    This scenario is representative of the type of investigation the research aims to achieve. Do environmental factors influence gene selection or is it purely survival of the most camouflaged?

    Another problem for evolution is stasis. Many of today’s insect, flora and fauna are represented in the fossil record. Over the vast periods of time, things show little to no signs of evolution. Yet we observe rapid responses to environmental changes in all living things. (Alleged) Deep time and geological studies show evidences of climate and environmental changes across the globe. How is it that today’s living things can be represented in the fossil record, but do not show the fundamental changes evolution predicts?

    Again the “created kind” fits the observation far better than evolution.

  143. on 11 Dec 2014 at 8:38 pm 143.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead

    I will ask you to go back and look at the definition of “special pleading” or you may need to look into the the specifics of the contingency vs cosmological arguments for God.

    Very quickly:

    1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

    Those three points are agreed to by all reputable scientist. God never began to exist i.e. God has always existed as an infinite being and therefore is not a case of special pleading in regards to the cosmological argument.

    Once again, I never claimed evolution (not sure which you refer to)has any bearing on God’s existence. That is just a red herring. I did point out atheist believe in this macroevolution without evidence while claiming evidence for God is void. My point still stands and TJ did pretty well showing why this is true.

    I regards to your continued generalities in your post, not much to discuss. If you decide to be more specific I’ll be glad to comment.

  144. on 15 Dec 2014 at 9:57 am 144.freddies_dead said …

    147. TJ said …

    “The term “microbes to man” is a commonly used term to, and clearly summarizes… “Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today.” … with man being at the pinnacle of such a process.

    Agree or disagree?”

    Disagree, because of your final sentence. You still seem to view evolution as a goal oriented process – “with man at the pinnacle”. This simply isn’t true. It is a branching tree on which man is only one of millions of branch “ends”. Evolution isn’t aiming for anything.

    “A definition for “kind”.
    For the use of our discussion I propose that a “kind” refers to the conceptual idea put forward in the Bible that all created life was to reproduce after it own kind.”

    Thanks for confirming everything I said about the term “kind”. Of course it’s unsurprising as a properly specific definition would leave the term open to being shown to be wrong. In light of the non-attempt at a definition maybe you could give us a list of exactly which “kinds” were created instead?

    “In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.”

    So then why don’t all organisms have the exact same pre-set, complete library only with different parts of it “turned off”? Or are you actually suggesting that each “kind” had it’s own complete library to begin with? If that’s the case it should be pretty much a formality to properly define the different “kinds” based on their genome. You’d think molecular genetecists would have noticed it by now. I wonder why they haven’t and instead measure the relatedness of organisms through shared similarities instead?

    “If we again look to dogs for an example we see that all dogs are believed to come from a common dog-like ancestor.”

    The genetic evidence suggests dogs were domesticated from a now extinct wolf-like canid. Of course it depends on whether “kind” refers to the species or the family level to see if this fits in with the Biblical claim. Fortunately you’ve defined “kind” so ambiguously that you could claim kind equals either level or even claim it actually equals something else entirely so that it will always fit with the Biblical claim. Convenient.

    “Both Biblical and evolutionary theory agree on this.”

    What Biblical theory? There isn’t one. It is basically a few verses claiming God created each “kind” individually and that each kind will reproduce after itself. It doesn’t define “kind” any better than you did. There’s also no explanation of how anything happened – although there is a claim that breeding goats in front of striped poles will result in striped goats but I don’t think that can really be called a theory.

    “As dogs become more “pure-breed” the common belief is that unwanted traits (ie. genetic information) are removed or minimized from the “breeds” gene pool.”

    There’s also an enhancement of some traits (bigger ears, shorter/longer coats etc…) and even the emergence of new traits (the wrinkled appearance of a Shar-Pei) through novel mutations/gene interactions which you claimed earlier is impossible because that would make evolution true.

    “Although dogs represented variation, highlights what selective breeding can achieve, variation within wild populations isolated from other populations of the same kind can yield similar results of variation. With diet, environment, habits and behavioral traits all playing a role in selecting the prevailing dominant genes that are passed on and retained.”

    And in the wild you can get enough variation that some populations can no longer breed with others. Speciation has occurred. Of course we’re back to the definition of kind to see which account this fits and fortunately you’ve defined it so ambiguously that you can say it fits yours every bit as well as it fits the theory of evolution. Convenient.

    “Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off.”

    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.”

    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    “Extra information can only be introduced by another representative of the same kind with enough genetically similar information to produce viable young. In dogs, mixed breeds are known as “mongrels”. Often the “mongrels” express a wider variety due to the increase of genetic information available.”

    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    “In all situations genetic information is never obtained except via a pre-existing source. The family tree for dogs “kinds” is separate from other kinds as it is a separate creation, beginning with a “dog”, with a complete library of genetic information at the top, with lesser information library’s as it branches off into breeds. However, only dogs with genetic representations of the original library will ever be represented.”

    So “kind” rests at the canidae level? And yet genetics shows that canids, ursids, mustelids etc… shared a common ancestor – this wouldn’t be possible if each family was a seperate creation as you imply here.

    “Mutations are genetic copying mistakes which can be passed on from generation to generation.”

    They are a little more complex than that. They can result from radiaton or chemical mutagens and also from insertion or deletion of what are known as mobile genetic elements.

    “These changes are not however new information. They are results of an error. For the error to occur the information that is corrupted must be already present.”

    This is, of course, not true. Especially when we consider insertions or gene duplications.

    “Again with the dogs, breeders will testify that the purer a “breed” is, the more susceptible to disease and ailment it becomes. There becomes a point where offspring are no longer viable and often cross breeding with less pure representatives introduces lost or replaces corrupt information and can re-invigorate a breeds viability.”

    This fits perfectly with the ToE which notes that evolution is generally a conservative process. Selective breeding tends to lead to homozygosity where similar/identical alleles are conserved and combine causing usually recessive traits to be expressed.

    “Never has it been observed that an accumulation of mutations can lead to a new “kind”.”

    Of course this all depends on the definition of the term “kind” which you’ve very carefully defined to be as ambiguous as possible. If it turned out to be equivalent to the species level (dogs vs cats vs horses etc…)then it has actually been observed using organisms which reproduce rapidly (certain bacteria and fruit flies for example) enabling scientists to observe many generations over a relatively short timeframe. Of course if you move kind to the family level – as you need to in order to claim 2 distinct species of fruit fly are still just flies – then no, it hasn’t been observed due to the very long timeframes necessary to produce new families of organisms. However, we know that speciation happens due to genetic differences and that genetic differences are produced by mutations. We also know roughly when the extant families branched off from earlier organisms so we know new families are possible. Then there is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests mutations are limited in such a way that new families cannot possibly arise because of their effect on the genome.

    “Mutation can corrupt representatives of the same created kind so that their genetic library’s become incompatible, effectively losing their ability to cross breed. This is what science refers to as ‘speciation’.”

    Change the genetic library not corrupt it. Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and some are beneficial leading to increased fitness. Only the deleterious mutations can be classed as corruption and they tend to disappear from populations quite quickly as they reduce fitness.

    “Evolution however has simple life at the top of it’s tree of life. Each branching off represents an addition of information to the genetic library available.”

    Simple life at the base of the tree with changes in the genetic library causing the branches. Sometimes that will come with new information but that isn’t a necessity for branching.

    “The creation tree of life begins with God at the top, with created kinds branching off and maintaining independence of each other.”

    So you’re claiming creation is a branching tree too? How convenient. Also evolutions’ branches maintain independence from each other too so this point is moot.

    “The contrast between the two is of information going in opposite directions.”

    How so? If both are branching trees then the information is going in the same direction i.e. outward from the base of the tree.

    “In my opinion created kinds best describes what we observe.”

    Well the evidence says your opinion is wrong. Although it’s nice how you’ve basically tried to make creation sound just like evolution while maintaining the ambiguity of the term “kind” and the false claim of “no new information” to try and deny evolution at the same time.

    “New research is investigating the possibility that environment can influence gene selection. The concept challenges the notion that gene selection is random. The research aims to answer perplexing observations, like quick changes and gene switching in populations in responses to rapid environmental changes, such as pollution, loss of habitat, climate change etc.

    The famous Peppered moth scenario sees the Peppered moth population changing from a white colouring to a dark colouring to match a soot laden landscape produced by the industrial revolution. However, populations returned to a white colour as pollution was reduced.

    This scenario is representative of the type of investigation the research aims to achieve. Do environmental factors influence gene selection or is it purely survival of the most camouflaged?”

    Evolution does not claim that gene selection is random – and it has always been subject to external selection pressures in the environment – so your point here is moot. If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate. This is all well within what the ToE says.

    “Another problem for evolution is stasis.”

    Not at all. Evolution is a conservative process if there’s no pressure to change then change won’t occur.

    “Many of today’s insect, flora and fauna are represented in the fossil record.”

    Except that they aren’t. Their ancestors are in the fossil record and their ancestors may be similar but they are ancestors all the same. Whenever we actually look at these “living fossils” in any real detail we find that they still differ quite significantly from the ancestral species.

    “Over the vast periods of time, things show little to no signs of evolution. Yet we observe rapid responses to environmental changes in all living things. (Alleged)”

    Organisms will only change when there is a selection pressure. The ToE recognises this fact.

    “Deep time and geological studies show evidences of climate and environmental changes across the globe. How is it that today’s living things can be represented in the fossil record, but do not show the fundamental changes evolution predicts?”

    The few animals that still closely resemble their ancestors in the fossil record do so because the climate or environmental changes haven’t acted as selective pressures for those animals. Most likely the global climate and environmental changes weren’t as severe on the local level.

    “Again the “created kind” fits the observation far better than evolution.”

    In what way? When rapid environmental changes have acted as a selective pressures we have seen speciation events and even family level branches. This is the opposite of what we’d expect if genomes were limited and only susceptible to small changes as your limited creation theory implies.

  145. on 15 Dec 2014 at 10:35 am 145.freddies_dead said …

    148. Corbis said …

    “freddie-dead

    I will ask you to go back and look at the definition of “special pleading” or you may need to look into the the specifics of the contingency vs cosmological arguments for God.”

    From wiki: “Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.”

    “Very quickly:

    1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.”

    Those three points are agreed to by all reputable scientist.”

    There’s the generally accepted rule.

    “God never began to exist i.e. God has always existed as an infinite being and therefore is not a case of special pleading in regards to the cosmological argument.”

    And there’s your unjustified exception. Where is your evidence that “God never began to exist”? Indeed, where’s your evidence that God exists at all? You make the claim that “God has always existed as an infinite being” but how can we distinguish between your God and something you may merely be imagining?

    “Once again, I never claimed evolution (not sure which you refer to)has any bearing on God’s existence. That is just a red herring.”

    And yet you keep mentioning evolution when the discussion concerns the existence of God so I’m well aware it’s a red herring.

    “I did point out atheist believe in this macroevolution without evidence while claiming evidence for God is void.”

    Even if this were true (you certainly haven’t backed up your assertion with anything like evidence or a valid argument so far) it is still wholly irrelevant. I’ve already said to ditch anything to do with evolution and simply offer either evidence or a valid argument for your God. Instead you keep trying to save an already failed argument and talk about evolution instead.

    “My point still stands and TJ did pretty well showing why this is true.”

    What point? Your point about evolution? Again? Well, apart from the fact that it didn’t stand from the moment you made it – and TJ really did nothing to help it out – you’ve said in your reply that it has no bearing on God’s existence so to continue bringing it up is a red herring.

    “I regards to your continued generalities in your post, not much to discuss. If you decide to be more specific I’ll be glad to comment.”

    To what “generalities” are you referring? If it’s my very specific point about how the arguments you presented for God contain a performative inconsistency then I can see why you’re reluctant to comment on it.

  146. on 15 Dec 2014 at 5:45 pm 146.just said …

    Freddie-dead,

    Not into specifics? I provided a list of arguments and you only respond to one? If they have these performative inconsistencies then show them.

    I already showed that God by definition did not began to exist therefore special pleading is not applicable or necessary.

  147. on 15 Dec 2014 at 8:45 pm 147.The A-athiest said …

    Warning Warning Warning faith is now extinct in the world and it wll soon be raining athiest by the butcket loads. The deluge of Athiest will serve to drown all theism and all thiests.

    But what the heck Noah saving the world. Har har or no saving the world.

  148. on 15 Dec 2014 at 8:48 pm 148.The A-athiest said …

    That joke was imputed into my consciousness directly by the wholey spirit.

    Don’t blaspheme it.

  149. on 16 Dec 2014 at 11:13 am 149.freddies_dead said …

    151.just said …

    “Freddie-dead,

    Not into specifics? I provided a list of arguments and you only respond to one?”

    I actually said I could waste time going through all of the arguments, giving the standard reasons for why each one of them fails. I even quickly showed how 2 of them (the standard cosmological and the Kalam) are fallacious thanks to special pleading. But, rather than going through all those tedious explanations, I chose instead to show how they *all* suffer from a much more basic problem.

    “If they have these performative inconsistencies then show them.”

    I did. Each and every one of those arguments suffers from the exact same problem. Each argument wants us to accept that the the conclusion is an objective truth i.e. something that is what it is regardless of what anyone may wish, hope, demand etc… However, each and every one of those arguments also makes the claim that existence depends on consciousness i.e. that God exists and created existence through an act of will. This makes existence inherently subjective and things are what they are because of what somebody (read God) wishes. This means the arguments presuppose the metaphysical primacy of existence while at the same time claiming the metaphysical primacy of consciousness. There’s the performative inconsistency.

    “I already showed that God by definition did not began to exist therefore special pleading is not applicable or necessary.”

    You haven’t actually shown anything. You have asserted that by definition your God did not begin to exist but none of the arguments you gave are actually valid so your assertion remains unsupported. I can imagine a God that didn’t begin to exist just as easily as you. I can also imagine plenty of other gods too so why should I accept your definition of God as the correct one when you’ve yet to even tell me how I can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining?

  150. on 16 Dec 2014 at 9:31 pm 150.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead,

    Again, you do not understand special pleading. You have redefined a term in your own terms in order to utilize this particular fallacy. Sorry but redefining terms does not give your assertion merit. You would like to ask one to attest to God’s existence while deriving the essentials for the term. God as an entity outside of time and space which never had a beginning does not fit your fallacious accusation. (the irony)

    And again, please, waste some time. Take one of the arguments and logically break it down and show the performative inconsistencies. The presuppositions? The premises?

    But really, wasting time is not your genuine raison d’être for hesitation is it? Making a sweeping claim of performative inconsistencies regarding existence and consciousness is no more than a evasion maneuver you use as a defense mechanism to avoid real debate.

  151. on 17 Dec 2014 at 1:21 am 151.TJ said …

    to freddie-dead,

    Disagree, because of your final sentence. You still seem to view evolution as a goal oriented process – “with man at the pinnacle”. This simply isn’t true. It is a branching tree on which man is only one of millions of branch “ends”. Evolution isn’t aiming for anything.

    Would it have mattered if I said “microbes to dogs”? I have not, and never will express a view of evolution as a goal oriented process. This “goal orientation” is added by you, not me.

    “Microbes to man” is only one tree branch within the evolutionary theory… but it is still a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory.

    What you are saying to me is that you disagree that evolution claims that single cell organisms obtained extra information to produce organs and limbs and all the other attributes of life over vast periods of time. Your disagreement is based on my implication that man appears to be the most evolved animal according to evolutionary theory, and your additional misinterpretation of “goal orientation”, which you presented back at post 141?

    Do I understand you correctly?
    ———————————-

    you said…
    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    Your above statements highlights your inability to follow what is being said.

    I said…
    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.”

    you said…
    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    You have completely missed the point. In “created kinds”, different breeds within the same “kind” are what become limited. Each breed represents a branching of the original the created kind along with the retained information passed on from the original complete set of genetic variety within that kind.

    A mongrel breed effectively has a larger variety of genetic information available than a pure breed. Crossing the two introduces existing information back into the pure breed. Information that was either lost or corrupted in the past.

    When you say we have now got 8.7 million species you are counting “breeds” within “kinds”. How many of those species could be grouped into kinds? However the evidence shows that there many more extinct species that became non viable. This fits created kinds, degrading into breeds that become “unfit”.

    You claimed…
    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    MORE SKIN. Really, more skin? A variation to the amount of skin = new information. The information to produce skin always existed, it is simply the variation of how much that changes. This fits with variation within created kinds. It does not represent the ability to produce a feature that did not exist previously. FAIL.

    The Peppered Moth pre-existed light and dark populations prior, during and after the industrial revolution. I agree with…”If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate.”

    This also fits with “created kind”. But it fails to show a new feature, new information or any other hailed evidence for evolution.

    I suggest you research some young earth creation theories. As you claim… “What Biblical theory? There isn’t one.”

    There is no point in me continuing to push forward as your ignorance will only result in my time being wasted.

  152. on 18 Dec 2014 at 1:46 pm 152.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis

    The original cosmological argument claimed that everything that exists needs a cause but then turned right around and claimed that the first cause didn’t. There isn’t really a much clearer example of special pleading but whatever, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with that as your arguments fail at a much more fundamental level.

    Every one of your arguments fail for the same reason.

    P1. The premises of the argument are true regardless of what anyone may wish etc.. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is true
    P2. The conclusion of the argument is true regardless of what anyone may wish etc.. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is true
    C. Therefore existence was willed into being by God. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is false

    The conclusions are inconsistent with the contents of the arguments so the arguments quite neatly refute themselves. This is something I’ve been pointing out all along. There is no debate here. You offered up arguments, I have shown – several times now – how they all fail. You simply brush this aside – or ask me to repeat myself – and keep complaining about the charges of special pleading instead.

    I’ve also given you the chance to salvage your position by telling us how we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining. You haven’t made any attempt to do that either, I wonder why?

  153. on 18 Dec 2014 at 3:31 pm 153.freddies_dead said …

    TJ

    “Would it have mattered if I said “microbes to dogs”?”

    Depends on whether you also implied that dogs were something evolution was working towards.

    “I have not, and never will express a view of evolution as a goal oriented process. This “goal orientation” is added by you, not me.”

    Nope, the sentence “with man as the pinnacle” implied it. I can only go off what you write.

    ““Microbes to man” is only one tree branch within the evolutionary theory… but it is still a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory.”

    Every lineage is a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory. What isn’t is any intent to form that lineage.

    “What you are saying to me is that you disagree that evolution claims that single cell organisms obtained extra information to produce organs and limbs and all the other attributes of life over vast periods of time. Your disagreement is based on my implication that man appears to be the most evolved animal according to evolutionary theory, and your additional misinterpretation of “goal orientation”, which you presented back at post 141?

    Do I understand you correctly?”

    Nope, I simply denied the implication of purpose in your definition. Both microbes and man, along with everything in between and round about exist because of the process of evolution.
    ———————————-

    “you said…”
    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    “Your above statements highlights your inability to follow what is being said.

    I said…
    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.””

    You display an inability to remember what you wrote i.e. “In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.” In your mongrel scenario no “extra information” can come from either parent dog as they have the exact same pre-set library albeit with differing parts of it switched on/off.

    “you said…”
    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    “You have completely missed the point. In “created kinds”, different breeds within the same “kind” are what become limited. Each breed represents a branching of the original the created kind along with the retained information passed on from the original complete set of genetic variety within that kind.”

    And, according to your theory: “Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off.”, so each change would be a degradation of the original pre-set complete library. You can only degrade the genome so far before it becomes inviable. So, due to the limiting nature of your theory, we’d expect that individual species would become less and less fit and eventually die out until we only have a fixed number of viable “kinds” left. Of course there are now nearly 9 million separate species so when’s the limiting due to kick in?

    “A mongrel breed effectively has a larger variety of genetic information available than a pure breed. Crossing the two introduces existing information back into the pure breed. Information that was either lost or corrupted in the past.”

    So it’s not “extra information” at all then. Thanks for confirming I was correct in my objection.

    “When you say we have now got 8.7 million species you are counting “breeds” within “kinds”.”

    I’m counting distinct species. I have no real idea what “kinds” means as the definition you gave was useless. You have, however, used it to suggest that all dogs belong to a single kind but didn’t expand on how wide that dog “family” might be. So what other species beyond dogs does it cover? Presumably wolves but what about foxes, jackals, hyenas? Where do amphicyonidae (usually known as bear-dogs) fit in? What about actual bears? Racoons? etc…

    “How many of those species could be grouped into kinds?”

    Again, no clue as I still don’t know which level of standard taxonomy you are aiming “kind” at.

    “However the evidence shows that there many more extinct species that became non viable. This fits created kinds, degrading into breeds that become “unfit”.”

    And yet the number of extant species at any one time continued to rise until today’s level – this cannot be explained by your constantly degrading genome creation model but fits just fine with evolution.

    “You claimed…”
    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    “MORE SKIN. Really, more skin?”

    Oh look, you completely ignored the gene duplication plus mutation I’ve mentioned at least twice now.

    “A variation to the amount of skin = new information.”

    Thank you … oh wait, that’s a typo isn’t it.

    “The information to produce skin always existed, it is simply the variation of how much that changes.”

    According to your theory of a constantly degrading genome there should be no way to produce any *more* skin than was provided for in the original pre-set library and, according to you, mutations would only cause a species to degrade the ability to create skin, not allow it to create loads more.

    “This fits with variation within created kinds.”

    Not your version it doesn’t.

    “It does not represent the ability to produce a feature that did not exist previously. FAIL.”

    Except that if we take your constantly degrading genome version of creation then it does. WIN.

    “The Peppered Moth pre-existed light and dark populations prior, during and after the industrial revolution. I agree with…”If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate.”

    This also fits with “created kind”.”

    It really doesn’t. According to your constantly degrading genome theory, once you’d lost the ability to produce light coloured moths you wouldn’t be able to get that ability back.

    “But it fails to show a new feature, new information or any other hailed evidence for evolution.”

    There’s absolutely nothing in evolutionary theory that makes new features or new information a mandatory requirement for us to know evolution is happening. All it takes is change.

    “I suggest you research some young earth creation theories. As you claim… “What Biblical theory? There isn’t one.””

    There’s no point. YEC theories have a caveat that stops any of them being scientific. Whenever the evidence shows them to be wrong i.e. as gene duplications ruin your constantly degrading genome theory or real knowledge of goat husbandry shows that stripey poles don’t have any affect on goat coat colouring, then you have to ditch the evidence instead of rethinking the theory.

    “There is no point in me continuing to push forward as your ignorance will only result in my time being wasted.”

    Your choice.

  154. on 18 Dec 2014 at 4:48 pm 154.Corbis said …

    The cosmological argument states that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The first cause never has a beginning and therefore does not need a cause. Very elementary freddie-dead but you seem to have difficulty with the word “begin”. Scientists at one time alleged the universe never had a beginning but now recognize that was incorrect. The universe did have a beginning. Your special pleading accusation has been debunked and you would do well to let it go.

    The CA has remained accurate but now, you again decline to directly speak to any other argument while making sweeping generalities about metaphysical primacy, consciousness and existence. All very broad themes for which you fail to provide specifics in relation to a particular argument. It seems the following might be spot on.

    P1. freddie-dead does not have even the most rudimentary understanding of the arguments listed

    P2. Freddie-dead only has the ability to offer the same objection regardless of the argument.

    C. freddie-dead therefore attempts to save face by addressing all arguments in broad generalities

  155. on 18 Dec 2014 at 4:58 pm 155.Corbis said …

    “once you’d lost the ability to produce light coloured moths you wouldn’t be able to get that ability back.”

    freddie did you mistype or are you serious?

    The dastardly peppered moth is no more than oscillating selection which we know produces no lasting evolutionary change as TJ as correctly recapitulates. Freddie-dead attempts to perpetuate the peppered myth.

  156. on 19 Dec 2014 at 3:12 am 156.TJ said …

    To Corbis,

    freddie has great faith in his belief that eternal matter gave rise to consciousness.

    He will even defend his conclusion that a human fetus has no value whatsoever. Despite the vast resources hospitals, medical systems and individuals pour into ensuring that a human fetus reaches it’s potential to be born. At which point it assumes value.

    He has a good knowledge of scripture and the concepts represented. Better than most, claimed Christians.

    However his beliefs and faith are a result of a very conscious rejection of a God, especially the God of the Bible.

    Any accusations he makes will be reflective of his own behavior, simply because we are all bias in our beliefs.

    How any of use view or interpret the world around us is based on these individual fundamental beliefs. His mind is already made up based upon his core beliefs… As is mine… as is yours.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply