[_ Old Earth _] Professor John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

[Barbarian]

Hmm... I go away for a day, and I come back to this. I feel like an archaeologist, trying to piece things together from the debris.

Bottom line, Prof. Lennox has plainly admitted that he accepts evolution as Darwin did.

Time to shut this one down.

 

[cupid dave]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

Posted by cupid dave
All true.

But isn't this too simply the Bible claim that mankind is evolving towards that great day when only the sons of god will exist to represent mankind, while all the others will have become extinct and forgotten?



/////

I have not stated that. I also do not believe it.

You think "all" doesn't mean us all?

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

 

[Tri Unity]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

You think "all" doesn't mean us all?

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The scripture (IMO) continually speak to different audiences. The "all" in this context are all of those who possess the first resurrection. Those who are part of the second resurrection are also addressed in other portions of scripture.

 

[cupid dave]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

The "all" in this context are all of those who possess the first resurrection.

Those who are part of the second resurrection are also addressed in other portions of scripture.

The first resurrection refers to Jesus, doesn't it.
The second will come next when Christ returns since the 1000 year church ended with the Reniassance and must again be collected in accord with Rev 5:5.

 

[Tri Unity]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

The first resurrection refers to Jesus, doesn't it.
The second will come next when Christ returns since the 1000 year church ended with the Reniassance and must again be collected in accord with Rev 5:5.

I don't know anything about this Renaissance business, but the scriptures clearly identify a group of Christians (and not Christ) to be recipients of the first Resurrection.

"Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6)

 

[Asyncritus]

BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/20-voices-of-belief/

Third interview in.

Nice try Async.

You're pretty deceptive Barbarian.

Lennox spends pages 168-172 in God's Undertaker trashing Dawkins' nonsense.

We have now reached the heart of Dwkins' argument. Remember what it claims to show - that natural selectyion - a blind, mindless, unguided process - has the power to produce biological information. But it shows nothing of the kind. Dawkins [and you, barbarian!] has solved his problem, only by introducing the two very things he explicitly wishes at all costs to avoid. In his book [and you'd better listen, your high priest is talkng!] he tells us that evolution is blind, and without a goal. What,then, does he mean by introducing a target phrase? [METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL].

A target phrase is a precise goal which, according to Dawkins himself, is a profoundly un-Darwinian concept. And how could blind evolution not only see the target, but also compare an attempt with it, in order to select it, if it is nearer than the previous one? Dawkins tells us that evolution is mindless. [You listening?]

What then does he mean by introducing two mechanisms, each of which bears every evidence of the input of an intelligent mind - a mechanism which compares each attempt with the target phrase, and a mechanism which preserves a successful attempt?

And strangest of all, the very information which the mechanisms are supposed to produce is already contained somewhere within the organism, whose genesis he claims to be simulating by his process. The argument is entirely circular.

Have you read it? No, I thought not - otherwise you couldn't produce the blithering nonsense you've just written. Go read the book - it's not expensive.

And here we are being treated to the spectacle of the Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, not knowing about conditional probability, while the great Barbarian and Kalvan know about it, and can accuse him of ignorance.

Well, somebody certainly isn't ignorant round here, and it isn't lennx!

And don't you just hope and pray for Free to shut this down!

Your statistics is pretty fragrant, and your reading of Lennox non-existent. You are therefore in no position to comment on this thread.

BTW your video link is not available in the UK, so I can't see it to cane your silly claim.

But isn't it striking that the first page of the blog has as it's headline: WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

You ever seen any blog or otherwise saying WHY GRAVITY IS TRUE? Why is that, I wonder - unless they're feeling the pressure?

 

[Grazer]

But again, all that quote of Professor Lennox's is arguing against is evolution and the origins of life by blind physical forces and chance. He is not arguing against evolution itself. I think Professor Lennox would say that he is a mathematician, not a biologist. In none of his lectures, debates, articles or books has he ever taken on a scientific theory to disprove it, just the conclusions people draw from them. In Dundee, he looked at Professor Stephen Hawkins book and it was just about the conclusion he drew from it; "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" At no point did Professor Lennox question the big bang theory and at no point has he questioned the theory of evolution.

Professor Dawkins may say life came about by blind physical forces and that evolution acts and has acted solely that way, doesn't make it true. Taking him apart does not take apart the theory itself.

 

[lordkalvan]

And, of course, Lennox (and Asyncritus) can only make their point by misrepresenting Dawkins' analogy using the 'weasel' sentence which is not to mimic the evolutionary process, but rather to reflect the power of cumulative selection, 'in which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future building' (The Blind Watchmaker, London 1986, p.49). Indeed, Dawkins makes this very point on p.50:

'Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target...Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection...'

So either Lennox and Asyncritus have not read Watchmaker, or they have read it and either misunderstand or misrepresent Dawkins' analogy. I leave it to the gentle reader to decide which is the more likely of these three possibilities.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ces-of-belief/

Third interview in.

Nice try Async.

You're pretty deceptive Barbarian.

Letting Lennox speak for himself, Async argues is "deceptive." Fact is Lennox not only didn't "demolish evolution", he agrees with Darwinian theory. Did you really think we wouldn't check your claims?

Lennox spends pages 168-172 in God's Undertaker trashing Dawkins' nonsense.

What he did was tell Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it. Why pretend otherwise? It's right there in the video.

We have now reached the heart of Dwkins' argument. Remember what it claims to show - that natural selectyion - a blind, mindless, unguided process - has the power to produce biological information.

Actually, mutation by itself produces biological information. Would you like to see the numbers again?

But it shows nothing of the kind. Dawkins [and you, barbarian!] has solved his problem, only by introducing the two very things he explicitly wishes at all costs to avoid. In his book [and you'd better listen, your high priest is talkng!] he tells us that evolution is blind, and without a goal.

So is gravity. You keep confusing the Carpenter with the hammer.

What then does he mean by introducing two mechanisms, each of which bears every evidence of the input of an intelligent mind - a mechanism which compares each attempt with the target phrase, and a mechanism which preserves a successful attempt?

Not familiar with your high priest's weasel, but it sounds to me that it merely copies natural selection the way engineers do when they have a problem too difficult for design. They let evolution do it. Want to learn how?

Spectacle of the Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, not knowing about conditional probability, while the great Barbarian and Kalvan know about it, and can accuse him of ignorance.

If he actually wrote that (and given his statement that he supports Darwinian evolution, it seems unlikely) then he's made a major goof. As you learned, even making very strict creationist assumptions about mutations, there's still more than enough in a population for observed variation. Would you like to see the numbers again?

Or if you think they are faulty, feel free to suggest where they fail.

And don't you just hope and pray for Free to shut this down!

You've been embarrassed again. Your "anti-evolution" professor turns out to be an evolutionist. Don't you get tired of people laughing at you?

Your statistics is pretty fragrant,

Feel free to challenge the math or the science. You'll be embarrassed yet again.

and your reading of Lennox non-existent.

I have his statement on video that he's a Darwinian evolutionist. Seems like pretty good evidence to me.

You are therefore in no position to comment on this thread.

Lennox is. He says he accepts evolution as Darwin did.

BTW your video link is not available in the UK, so I can't see it to cane your silly claim.

But there it is. He says it. Try here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfBMFPYuLsE

About 3:50. Surprise. Lennox also allows that God might have used evolution to produce humans.

You ever seen any blog or otherwise saying WHY GRAVITY IS TRUE? Why is that, I wonder

Probably because no religious sect is scared of gravity. So there's no need to point out the obvious. As you know, gravity is almost as certain as evolution. Both are observed phenomena, but of course we know why evolution works. We still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

Anyway, nice try. And tell us where my math was faulty, hear?

 

[cupid dave]

Re: Profeso5 John Lennox Demolishes Evolution

I don't know anything about this Renaissance business, but the scriptures clearly identify a group of Christians (and not Christ) to be recipients of the first Resurrection.

"Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6)

Yeah...

The first resurrection was clearly Jesus, and the second death refers to the apostles who died but are raised up again when Jesus is seen coming in the clouds to reign over the 1000 year kingdom:



Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments);

and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

 

[cupid dave]

But again, all that quote of Professor Lennox's is arguing against is evolution and the origins of life by blind physical forces and chance. He is not arguing against evolution itself. I think Professor Lennox would say that he is a mathematician, not a biologist. In none of his lectures, debates, articles or books has he ever taken on a scientific theory to disprove it, just the conclusions people draw from them. In Dundee, he looked at Professor Stephen Hawkins book and it was just about the conclusion he drew from it; "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" At no point did Professor Lennox question the big bang theory and at no point has he questioned the theory of evolution.

Professor Dawkins may say life came about by blind physical forces and that evolution acts and has acted solely that way, doesn't make it true. Taking him apart does not take apart the theory itself.

So far the Law of Probability seems to have been totally ignored here.
That Law directs the process in an indirect way, tending to procede in the ways that are most probable.

Tielhart referred to this directed evolution as headed for Omega Point.

 

[Asyncritus]

Can I ask you 3 which part of that citation from Lennox above you don't understand?

If you could indicate, I will endeavour to explain what he said as best I can.

 

[Barbarian]

Bottom line? We have Lennox's own statement that he accepts Darwinian evolution.

End of the issue.

And since you chose not to point out where you think my analysis of mutations and evolution is wrong, I assume you've realized that it isn't wrong.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
BTW, Async is indeed up to his usual stuff. In this video, John Lennox tells Richard Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ces-of-belief/

This link does not work. Try another fake.

Letting Lennox speak for himself, Async argues is "deceptive." Fact is Lennox not only didn't "demolish evolution", he agrees with Darwinian theory. Did you really think we wouldn't check your claims?

No, I thought you could read. You clearly have a problem with either reading ability or comprehension or both. I don't teach English, so I can't help you there.

Now which part of the above citation don't you understand?

What he did was tell Dawkins that he accepts evolution as Darwin saw it. Why pretend otherwise? It's right there in the video.

This fake video that won't work?

Actually, mutation by itself produces biological information. Would you like to see the numbers again?

More fakes?

Not familiar with your high priest's weasel,

Sorry, that's YOUR high priest, Richard Dawkins speaking.

but it sounds to me that it merely copies natural selection the way engineers do when they have a problem too difficult for design. They let evolution do it. Want to learn how?

You clearly have no idea how that works, or you wouldn't be bringing it up.

If he actually wrote that (and given his statement that he supports Darwinian evolution, it seems unlikely)

Free, kindly note that this man is calling me a liar. I shall feel free to respond in kind, and I trust you won't be bringing down the roof on me for doing so.

then he's made a major goof. As you learned, even making very strict creationist assumptions about mutations, there's still more than enough in a population for observed variation. Would you like to see the numbers again?

Which part of the above citation - which I have here in print, black and white, and so could you if you were willing to buy a copy on eBay if you don't want to pay the full price) don't you understand/grasp/comprehend? I'll try to help you.

You've been embarrassed again. Your "anti-evolution" professor turns out to be an evolutionist. Don't you get tired of people laughing at you?

Don't you get tired of manufacturing false claims? You do pretty well at it, I must say.

But I again ask you, which part of the above citation don't you understand?

Feel free to challenge the math or the science. You'll be embarrassed yet again.

It's up to you to challenge Lennox's maths and science. Please do so without too much arm waving and deceit. Show clearly where he is mistaken. No arm waving is allowed.

I have his statement on video that he's a Darwinian evolutionist. Seems like pretty good evidence to me.

I ask you again - which part of that citation don't you understand? I'm sure I can diminish your incomprehension. Though I have my doubts.

As you know, gravity is almost as certain as evolution.

You're lying again. Show us a reputable physicist saying so.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

There's a nice lampoon for you. BTW, this is another test of your comprehension. Don't fail it, now.

Want another newspaper writing idiot to speak? OK.

Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, which was already as well established as the theory of gravity, has taken a big leap forward. According to the New Scientist (see Dave Scot’s post earlier today), E.Coli bacteria have evolved the ability to digest citrate, after only 44,000 generations.

What a confirmatory piece of research! 44,000 generations haven't produced a single new species.

How many generations will it take to produce the Cambrian explosion? And how long would that take, you think? Show your working out, based on reasonable estimates and on this piece of research.

Here's my working:

0 new species come from 44000 generations

Therefore,

1,000,000 new species come from (44000 / 0) x 1 000 000

Assuming 1 generation = 1 year

Then that's (44000/0) x 1 000 000 x 1 years.

That's a zillion years. Life hasn't been on the earth for long enough!

Both are observed phenomena, but of course we know why evolution works.

Sorry, we don't. Another lie.

 

[Grazer]

So far the Law of Probability seems to have been totally ignored here.
That Law directs the process in an indirect way, tending to procede in the ways that are most probable.

Tielhart referred to this directed evolution as headed for Omega Point.

I may be misunderstanding your point but laws don't cause anything though. They are our explanations of whats we've seen. So the law may explain that it tend to proceed in ways that are most probable but the law itself does not cause that to happen. C.S Lewis put in his usual eloquence;

"They produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event - if only it can be induced to happen - must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform - if only you can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe - the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. For every law, in the last resort, says: If you have A, then you will get B." But first catch your A: the laws won't do it for you"

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

Can I ask you 3 which part of that citation from Lennox above you don't understand?

If you could indicate, I will endeavour to explain what he said as best I can.

Perhaps you can address the fact that you and Lennox appear to either misunderstand or misrepresent Dawkins' 'weasel' model?

 

[lordkalvan]

This link does not work. Try another fake....

It's not a fake, I have watched the video and, in conversation with Dawkins, Lennox says what Barbarian says he does. I quote from the video:

Lennox in reply to Dawkins asking him whether he believes in evolution:

'I do believe in evolution, as far as Darwin saw it....'

(Emphasis detected in original.)

Talking of fakes, have you watched the video where Dawkins exposes Lennox quote mining Dawkins from a public debate they had between them? Here's the link again:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWsca2-BgDU

So I'm not sure you should be throwing around unsupported accusations of fakery in this context.

 

[Grazer]

It's not a fake, I have watched the video and, in conversation with Dawkins, Lennox says what Barbarian says he does. I quote from the video:

Lennox in reply to Dawkins asking him whether he believes in evolution:

'I do believe in evolution, as far as Darwin saw it....'

(Emphasis detected in original.)

Talking of fakes, have you watched the video where Dawkins exposes Lennox quote mining Dawkins from a public debate they had between them? Here's the link again:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWsca2-BgDU

So I'm not sure you should be throwing around unsupported accusations of fakery in this context.

The first video is blocked here in the UK but it doesn't surprise me if that is what John Lennox says for the reasons I've given previously. As for the other video, I don't believe Lennox intentionally lied but if he was wrong then Dawkins has the right to defend himself. The debate they refer to is available via YouTube so people can check what was said.

But this is the same Richard Dawkins who cited a professor of German language as his expert ancient historian in the book The God Delusion

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

The first video is blocked here in the UK but it doesn't surprise me if that is what John Lennox says for the reasons I've given previously

It should be accessible through a VPN, perhaps.

As for the other video, I don't believe Lennox intentionally lied but if he was wrong then Dawkins has the right to defend himself.

Well, if it was a genuine misunderstanding, it does little credit to Lennox's intellectual acuity.

The debate they refer to is available via YouTube so people can check what was said.

But this is the same Richard Dawkins who cited a professor of German language as his expert ancient historian in the book The God Delusion

Who was this and what was the context? TGD isn't very much about ancient history at all, but does Dawkins misrepresent or misunderstand his source? I am not sure what point you are seeking to make.

 

[Grazer]

The context of the point Professor Dawkins was making was that the existence of Jesus is disputed by historians and scholars. To support his claim, he quotes Professor Wells as one such historian. Professor Wells is a professor of German language though, he's not an historian.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2