Refuting the claims of atheists.

[VaultZero4Me]

If you have taken me to be condescending than I apologize. It was not my intent. My intent was to convey to the original poster to not use your argument.

francisdesales : I have, and the problem is the PRESUMPTION that a change in color of a bird's wings necessarily leads to a similar observation of a MAJOR change from one species into another - a reptile into a bird...

If anyone actually was able to witness a reptile evolving into a bird, it would DISPROVE evolution and be tantamount of a miracle, thus being evidence for special creation.

There is no breaking point in evolution. We are evolving today. Evolution means that there are slight genetic changes for better or for worse. We are able to pass our genetics on to our offspring. It naturally follows that the better your genetics, the more apt you will be to reproduce, and your offspring survive. Thus the act of reproduction screens for changes that make an individual more able to survive. After a very long time these accumulate to cause species to be very different than previously.

There is nothing evil about “survival of the fittestâ€Â. It is just logical that whoever is better suited for their environment will likely produce more.

Species (meaning two animals that no longer can produce offspring) are created when some kind of separation occurs (such as continental seperation) that prevents a group of animals from breeding. Eventually, after a long time, the two separated groups differ to an extent that they can no longer breed. Time has caused too much genetic divergence.

francisdesales : It does NOT follow that a change WITHIN a species means that a species ITSELF "evolves" into something no longer recognizable. Science has not actually observed ANY of that. They PRESUME it happened.

That is absolutely false. Science has observed it through well documented fossil records and genetic studies. Just because no one has been able to live for millions of years and observe the changes first hand, does not mean we can’t say it happened.

No one has stuck a thermometer into the sun, but we can say with pretty good accuracy that the surface temp of the sun is nearly 6,000 K. We can do this by studying the solar spectrum.

francisdesales : This is not observed in nature. It is an attempt to explain what exists NOW, rather than a scientific explanation of an observed change. It is based on preconceived notions of what "must" have happened... Darwin observed changes in colors, not a lizard growing wings. And what makes you think that this "macro-evolution" SHOULD have stopped? If it is true, we would NOW observe less complex creatures changing into more complex or "mature" creatures. We don't observe the process now. We don't see monkeys NOW evolving into "pre-men". If the idea was true, we should be able to notice and observe the continuation of the "survival of the fittest" invention. Nor do we observe the paleontology that "proves" it EVER happened that way.

Refer to the above.

I am certainly no expert on evolution as I am a lowly study of business, but I do like to read. From what I read, it makes absolute sense.

Again I refer you to read the two books I referenced to you earlier. Even though it is Dawkins, they are not arguing for or against God. The books are well written and will open your eyes to how much science there is behind evolution. It is probably one of the most clever and beautiful theories in science.

What would you cite to be the causes of all the evidence that leads towards evolution?

francisdesales : I haven't read Behe's books, although I am aware of his "irreducible complex" idea. Again, just as in the last posts, you feel the need to be condescending?

Unfortunately, you find it necessary to use the same tactics as an atheist. Why? Because they are all condescending in their views towards anyone who holds to intelligent design, or anything that questions the sacred cow of "materialistic evolution"... That is the typical strategy they use. Attack, attack, and attack. Naturally, "real" science is only shown in evolution, which has not been observed on the macro scale... Belittle anyone who holds a contrary view. I'm sure Copernicus faced the same ridicule... Because "real" scientists "knew" that he was wrong, he must have been.

You are misreading me. I am not attempting to belittle you. Just the argument. It is entirely fallacious.

You are wrong about a strategy of “attack attack attackâ€Â. The strategy is science to back up evolution. Also, you are wrong about evolution being atheist domain. I am sure there are many theists on this site who support it as well.

francisdesales : Whether Behe was "embarrassed" in court does not prove a thing. Many lawyers have found ways of embarrassing or twisting the truth, both in crinimal and civil law. It doesn't make them true. No doubt you have heard of robbers breaking into a house, falling down, and sueing the owner of the house, and winning. According to your logic, the crook was right...

Are you suggesting that the lawyers twisted the truth in this case? Where is your evidence of that. Certainly you would have some evidence, other than a false comparison, to back that up.

francisdesales : He hadn't read every single critique of his ideas?! Is he expected to read everything ever written that contradicts his idea? Behe has written and backed up his claims, in my opinion. Now, whether he has refuted every person who comes along trying to knock down HIS theory, that may be so. But that doesn't prove he is not a "scientist". If NO ONE questioned the status quo - which is now "materialistic evolution", we would still think the earth is flat... A scientist does not lose his "designation" because he is not able to convince people who do not want to be convinced.

As a scientist, Behe would be expected to:
1. Publish his work in peer reviewed journals
2. Read current papers that are relevant to his theories
3. Review his work and either refute the other papers, or adjust his theories
This is basic science here. He does NONE of this. That’s why he does not qualify as a scientist. Just a propagandist. Same as Hovind.

You are wrong on those papers being refutations to his work. They were largely written without any knowledge of his IR’s. Why? Because he doesn’t publish his work in peer reviewed journals (a place that scientists would find his work). Just paper backs that the Christian public buys for 15.95. That is borderline unethical.

Its not a conspiracy theory, it is much more simple than that. Its not the world against Behe in an attempt to silence him. Show me some evidence for that extraordinary claim. Its Behe misusing science for personal gain, getting caught in the act, and being embarrassed.

Here is part of the closing argument on the plantifs side in that same court case. I think it sums up the whole ID idea in a nutshell:

Eric Rothschild: It is not just Pandas that is faulty. It is the entire Intelligent Design project. They call it a scientific theory. But they have done nothing. They have produced nothing. Professor Behe wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that if a scientific theory does not publish, it must perish. That is the history of Intelligent Design. As Professor Behe testified, there are no peer reviewed articles in science journals reporting original research or data that argue for Intelligent Design. By contrast, Kevin Padian, by himself, has written more than 100 peer reviewed scientific articles.

Professor Behe’s only response to the Intelligent Design movement’s lack of production was repeated references to his own book, Darwin’s Black Box. He was surprised to find out that one of his purported peer reviewers wrote an article that revealed he had not even read the book. But putting that embarrassing episode aside, consider the following facts. Behe has admitted in his article “Reply to My Critics†that his central challenge to natural selection, irreducible complexity, is flawed because it does not really match up with the claim made for evolution. But he has not bothered to correct that flaw. He also admits that there is no original research reported in Darwin’s Black Box, and in the almost ten years since its publication it has not inspired research by other scientists.

Professor Behe’s testimony and his book Darwin’s Black Box is really one extended insult to hard working scientists, and the scientific enterprise. For example, Professor Behe asserts in Darwin’s Black Box that “the scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system†and “the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.†I showed Professor Behe more than 50 articles, as well as books on the evolution of the immune system. He had not read most of them, but he confidently, contemptuously dismissed them as inadequate. He testified that it is a waste of time to look for answers about how the immune system developed.

Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. For Pete’s sake, this is the immune system – our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire Intelligent Design Movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge, and are telling future generations of scientists, don’t bother.

francisdesales : I doubt that there are many actual "atheists" out there. The more likely term to use is "agnostic". Atheism is the idea that there is NO God. Really, where is the evidence to verify or "prove" that legitimately? Atheism is an absolute denial of something that cannot be emperically measured. It is based on philosophical bent, rather than science. However, there are a number of scientists who have not found it necessary to convince themselves that God doesn't exist for philosophical reasons - since EVEN IF macro evolution was true, it proves absolutely NOTHING about God's EXISTENCE. The most it can do is describe HOW God did it. It can never rule out the possibility that God exists. Thus, the whole argument, as I said, is pointless IF the will is not open to hear another opinion.

You think it through backwards. Atheist means you do not accept the stated evidence to be such. It is not the responsibility of the unbeliever to disprove the idea, it is the opposite.

Are you agnostic in regards to Zeus? Or, do you just find the evidence for him incredulous. If so, you are a Zeus atheist. Atheists just take it one step further.

I stated the whole time that evolution does not argue for or against God.

We are derailing this thread, so I am going to stop here.

It is in the posters hands rather or not to use Hoyle’s Fallacy. She (heh sorry about assuming, its just a bad habit of automatically using the he pronoun when sex is unknown) has seen enough of both sides to make a valid decision.

 

[MarkT]

Wasn't Zeus the best explanation at one time? Sure. Zeus, and Thor, the god of thunder and lightening. Of course people invented gods. Now we have a scientific creation story. It's nothing new. Same people. Different time.

It's not evolution. It's common descent by evolution. See the difference? Evolution is natural breeding. Breeding animals to be better in some way is not new. In fact there's a story in the Bible which outlines an ancient breeding technique. Of course in nature we see the effects of fitness, and pure luck comes into it too. Sometimes the parent population is almost driven to extinction by famine, drought, predators, disease. The offspring may not survive. But, as a rule, a few do. This creates a small genetic pool; smaller than the parent pool. And then the animals multiply; they breed among themselves. And this creates a new 'species'. And it's not that the offspring of this pool can't breed with others of their own kind. The fact is they don't want to breed with others that do not resemble them. Look at a population of penguins. They look like a sea of identical looking birds. Any one who looks different is rejected. In nature, animals discriminate with a vengence. There are other ways new species are created. Simply becoming separated from a parent population will create a small pool; the 'lost' animals will breed among themselves. You can introduce a poison which kills most of the parent population but, as a rule, some individuals will have an immunity to the poison, and they will survive and multiply. So the evidence for speciation, if you want to call it that, isn't really evidence for common descent. The common descent hypothesis hasn't been proven. I want to see an experiment, not someones interpretation of the fossil record, which proves the hypothesis.

 

[MarkT]

Vault

Do you not have any sense? If you listen to the spirit that tells you you are an animal, do you think you will escape the same punishment that awaits the wicked? The godless are blind. They can't see the pit and they fall into it. And so do the ones who follow them.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Vault

Do you not have any sense? If you listen to the spirit that tells you you are an animal, do you think you will escape the same punishment that awaits the wicked? The godless are blind. They can't see the pit and they fall into it. And so do the ones who follow them.

Actually it is sense that tells me to not let an interpretation of theology blind myself into disbelieving in one of the best backed theories in existence.

Just because YOU cannot resolve evolution with your theology gives you no right to claim someone is damned because they have no problem resolving the theory with their theology.

When you can back up scriptually that evolution is a sin, you may have a point. You cannot. Until then you walk on dangerous grounds in regards to your claim.

You walk the same line of the church during the 15th and 16th century in regards to the heliocentric theory. A theory which was ruled as heracy. We see how that one turned out in the end.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

 

[francisdesales]

If anyone actually was able to witness a reptile evolving into a bird, it would DISPROVE evolution and be tantamount of a miracle, thus being evidence for special creation.

The problem is that you are presuming macro evolution is true - and looking for the lizard with wings to "disprove" evolution. Normal science is the other way around. We analyze the data that is observed. Evolution is a series of half truths and presumptions that extrapolate very minute changes in a species and presume that with more time, bigger changes occur. We do not witness that today. If such evolution was true, we would witness it going on before our eyes with transistional creatures that already exist and have supposedly changed to some other higher life form. Where are the monkeys evolving into man? There isn't any. Can you explain why this process is not observable today?

There is no breaking point in evolution. We are evolving today. Evolution means that there are slight genetic changes for better or for worse. We are able to pass our genetics on to our offspring.

The vast majority of slight genetic changes are corruption or imperfection. We are not becoming more perfect, genetically speaking. That would be an interesting position - that the genes magically know what to do and how to become better. Genes are not aware of "survival of the fittest". Random mutations very rarely produce superior results, and they do not necessarily carry over into the next generation.

It naturally follows that the better your genetics, the more apt you will be to reproduce, and your offspring survive.

That has very little to do with anything, in rational creatures who do not procreate NECESSARILY. As long as your equipment works, you can reproduce. You line will continue. While your genes may get you a better mate, it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to reproduce.

Thus the act of reproduction screens for changes that make an individual more able to survive. After a very long time these accumulate to cause species to be very different than previously.

Presumptions based on theory. Where is this actually recorded and seen in the real world?

There is nothing evil about “survival of the fittestâ€Â. It is just logical that whoever is better suited for their environment will likely produce more.

When if the one better suited for the environment are killed off first while fighting a war, while the weak sickly ones remain at home with the women folk? Who is better suited to reproduce now? Unfortunately, evolutionists look at the world through very narrow lenses, not taking into account a number of other factors involved in populating the world.

Science has observed it through well documented fossil records and genetic studies. Just because no one has been able to live for millions of years and observe the changes first hand, does not mean we can’t say it happened.

There fossil records show no such thing. We are supposed to believe that across the reptile-mammal transistion, organisms evolved so rapidly that they appear fully formed and diverse in fossil records, showing large gaps between reptile and mammal? The horse sequence is a good example of the problematic assumptions made by macro evolutionists. Overly simplistic and optimistic versions of evolution of the whale, for example, merely hide the fact that the evidence is inconclusive at best.

When new species appear fully formed, as though planted there, they often times remained unchanged for eons. Paleontologist Robert Carroll, for example, says the fossil record "emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species."

He goes on to identify five MAJOR problems for evolutionists. Rather than detailing them, I will just note that this shows that science is not quite universal in accepting the status quo that the "fossil records show evolution"

No one has stuck a thermometer into the sun, but we can say with pretty good accuracy that the surface temp of the sun is nearly 6,000 K. We can do this by studying the solar spectrum.

You are AGAIN mixing your apples and oranges. We should be able to observe lizards with wings growing out of their sides to show the CONTINUING and ONGOING struggle of the "survival of the fittest" as lizard cells yearn to become birds and move up the chain towards mankind. We don't observe ANY such creatures. The sun's temperature can be measured by direct observation of phenomenom. It is not extrapolation backwards into time with the assumptions that macro evolution makes.

I am certainly no expert on evolution as I am a lowly study of business, but I do like to read. From what I read, it makes absolute sense.

Ditto, from the other perspective. I remained unconvinced, and this has little to do with religion for me. As I said before, macro evolution would only show how God did it. It doesn't discount God at all. No science can do that, despite people like Dawkins' rants. I do not buy it, in particular, because of the motives of those who press it so hard - while hiding evidence that disproves it, or at least questions the optimistic notions that try to make evolution a LAW and remove ANY sort of teaching that contradicts it.

As I said before, such attempts to maintain the status quo is very ironic - the proclaimed "freedom of the mind" that some evolutionists claim to have in mind is anything but that, as people are attacked ad hominem, research is totally discounted because of its conclusion, and even LEGAL attempts are made to keep competing scientific thought OUT of the classroom.

Again I refer you to read the two books I referenced to you earlier. Even though it is Dawkins, they are not arguing for or against God. '

I have no intent of reading Dawkins, who considers all those who believe in God to be "idiotic, stupid" and "dangerous". Nothing personal, but that would be the last person I would look to to read an unbiased rendition of evolution. Quite obviously, he doesn't realize that HE HIMSELF is just as bad as any religious fundamental by his attempts to squelch anything that differs from his opinion, while preaching his own opinions as the "gospel". Oh, the guy is infallible, if you listen to him...

I would advise you to read "Uncommon Dissent; Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing". It is a series of essays by a number of scientists and sociologists, edited by William Dembski. Darwinism, as defined today, is not science, but philosophy based on superficial science.

For example, when Stephen Gould asked dramatically, "What good is 5% of an eye", when noting Darwin's awe at the possibility of natural selection forming an eye. Dawkins, that ultra-defender of ultra-Darwinism, replied "vision that is 5% as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparision to no vision at all. And 6% is better than 5.7%, and so on up the gradual, continuous series".

This is a fine example of the carelessness of Dawkins and his ilk. Dawkins assumed that 5% OF an eye would see 5% as well as A eye! That is an assumption with very little evidence (what else is new?)

According to Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea), Dawkins is "almost certainly right" to uphold the incremental view, because "Darwinism is basically on the right track". Philosopher Kim Sterelny, a philosopher, notes "something like Dawkin's stories "have got to be right." After all, Dawkins asserts, natural selection is the only possible explanation of complex adaptation".

What a grand circular argument...

You are misreading me. I am not attempting to belittle you. Just the argument. It is entirely fallacious.

Ditto.

You are wrong about a strategy of “attack attack attackâ€Â. The strategy is science to back up evolution. Also, you are wrong about evolution being atheist domain. I am sure there are many theists on this site who support it as well.

They "support" evolution (realizing it is the only accepted explanation that will not get them laughed out of the community of the status quo) - BUT, they accept an intelligence behind it. Dawkins and Darwin claim that "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" was the driving force behind single cells deciding to form an eyeball. This, you must admit, moves out of the realm of science. Science can only watch results - not dwell in metaphysics. When it does, it is no longer "science", but philosophy.

Are you suggesting that the lawyers twisted the truth in this case? Where is your evidence of that. Certainly you would have some evidence, other than a false comparison, to back that up.

I am only saying that your point proves absolutely nothing about truth. I have been on a Grand Jury before and truth is not necessarily the end result of court cases. Thus, Behe's court case proves nothing about the viability of the truth or false claims he makes. Is that acceptable?

As a scientist, Behe would be expected to:
1. Publish his work in peer reviewed journals
2. Read current papers that are relevant to his theories
3. Review his work and either refute the other papers, or adjust his theories
This is basic science here. He does NONE of this. That’s why he does not qualify as a scientist. Just a propagandist. Same as Hovind.

He has never published in peer review journals? He has not read current papers relevant to his theories? He has not tried to refute others? Oh boy... You are incorrect. I have hear in front of me a book that tells me the opposite. Maybe Dawkins didn't do his homework before he tried to tear down another college in an effort to squelch any attack on the sacred cow.

Its Behe misusing science for personal gain, getting caught in the act, and being embarrassed.

What is Dawkins doing? Is that science? Calling people idiots, stupid, and dangerous because they believe in God - a subject beyond his knowledge and area of expertise? At least Behe is working in his field.

You think it through backwards. Atheist means you do not accept the stated evidence to be such. It is not the responsibility of the unbeliever to disprove the idea, it is the opposite.

Atheism is the belief that there is not a God or supreme being. It is not "I am not sure of the evidence". It is the REFUTATION of the evidence. Atheism doesn't get a free pass in proving itself, since it is also a belief system. Can atheism stand on its own merit, or must it merely destroy any other proposition that another group of believers make? The later is the course of action of an atheist. They KNOW there is no God. NOT, "I doubt there is a God". Atheism is really a philosophy based totally on faith and nothing on evidence. At least an agnostic can say "I don't have enough evidence to believe in God". Atheists CLAIM there is no God. Christianity relies on the witness of men. Atheism relies on the denial of counter claims...

Are you agnostic in regards to Zeus? Or, do you just find the evidence for him incredulous. If so, you are a Zeus atheist. Atheists just take it one step further.

Atheists believe in NO GOD/GODS. I, as a Christian, believe in ONE God. All other "gods", as a result, are null and void by default. Your analogy makes little sense.

It is in the posters hands rather or not to use Hoyle’s Fallacy. She (heh sorry about assuming, its just a bad habit of automatically using the he pronoun when sex is unknown) has seen enough of both sides to make a valid decision.

My puny brain is able to punch holes in the "vaunted" Hoyle's fallacy, so I am sure a more learned person could do even better. However, as I said before, atheism is a religious belief - and trying to convince someone that their religious belief is wrong is really beyond the realm of logical arguments.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The problem is that you are presuming macro evolution is true - and looking for the lizard with wings to "disprove" evolution. Normal science is the other way around. We analyze the data that is observed. Evolution is a series of half truths and presumptions that extrapolate very minute changes in a species and presume that with more time, bigger changes occur. We do not witness that today. If such evolution was true, we would witness it going on before our eyes with transistional creatures that already exist and have supposedly changed to some other higher life form. Where are the monkeys evolving into man? There isn't any. Can you explain why this process is not observable today?

This is a complete misinterpretation of evolution as I have pointed out before. You need to study it some more.

The vast majority of slight genetic changes are corruption or imperfection. We are not becoming more perfect, genetically speaking. That would be an interesting position - that the genes magically know what to do and how to become better. Genes are not aware of "survival of the fittest". Random mutations very rarely produce superior results, and they do not necessarily carry over into the next generation.

Never said that it was magical. I said that the better equipped you are to survive, the more chances you get to reproduce.

That has very little to do with anything, in rational creatures who do not procreate NECESSARILY. As long as your equipment works, you can reproduce. You line will continue. While your genes may get you a better mate, it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to reproduce.

False. The better equipped to survive, the longer I live. The longer I live, the more reproduction can happen.

VaultZero4Me wrote:Thus the act of reproduction screens for changes that make an individual more able to survive. After a very long time these accumulate to cause species to be very different than previously.


Presumptions based on theory. Where is this actually recorded and seen in the real world?

Pure deduction my dear Watson. It follows that if a genetic change makes me more apt to survive and gain more chances to reproduce, those genes that give that edge are more likely to get passed along. Simple reasoning really.

When if the one better suited for the environment are killed off first while fighting a war, while the weak sickly ones remain at home with the women folk? Who is better suited to reproduce now? Unfortunately, evolutionists look at the world through very narrow lenses, not taking into account a number of other factors involved in populating the world

If they are sickly, they live less as long, are less attractive to mates, and offspring have less chance to survive. The warriors who come home are more attractive to the mates more than likely, and if they are male, and outnumbered by the females, than many males are likely to take more than one mate.

You are AGAIN mixing your apples and oranges. We should be able to observe lizards with wings growing out of their sides to show the CONTINUING and ONGOING struggle of the "survival of the fittest" as lizard cells yearn to become birds and move up the chain towards mankind. We don't observe ANY such creatures. The sun's temperature can be measured by direct observation of phenomenom. It is not extrapolation backwards into time with the assumptions that macro evolution makes.

You do realize that the reptiles and the birds that are alive today are believed to have shared a common ancestor, and not assumed to be changing into each other today, right?

I am completely unsure of what you are even saying. It doesn’t even make sense.

I would advise you to read "Uncommon Dissent; Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing". It is a series of essays by a number of scientists and sociologists, edited by William Dembski.

Dembski is intellectually dishonest. I have read papers of his. I find him very unconvincing in form. And to be fair, I found “The God Dellusion†as unconvincing. It was rhetoric. The other two books I mentioned before are not. They are not philosophy but pure science.

For example, when Stephen Gould asked dramatically, "What good is 5% of an eye", when noting Darwin's awe at the possibility of natural selection forming an eye. Dawkins, that ultra-defender of ultra-Darwinism, replied "vision that is 5% as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparision to no vision at all. And 6% is better than 5.7%, and so on up the gradual, continuous series".

This is a fine example of the carelessness of Dawkins and his ilk. Dawkins assumed that 5% OF an eye would see 5% as well as A eye! That is an assumption with very little evidence (what else is new?)

saying 5% of an eye is purely tongue in check. He is talking about having cells that are receptive to light. That would be an advantage to not being able to sense light period. There are numerous documented stages of eyes, and very sound theories on its development. It is not an example of IC.

They "support" evolution (realizing it is the only accepted explanation that will not get them laughed out of the community of the status quo) - BUT, they accept an intelligence behind it. Dawkins and Darwin claim that "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" was the driving force behind single cells deciding to form an eyeball. This, you must admit, moves out of the realm of science. Science can only watch results - not dwell in metaphysics. When it does, it is no longer "science", but philosophy.

“Natural Selection†is not metaphysical. It is a natural theory. Everything except abiogenesis can be explained in a natural sense. There has as of yet been found any insurmountable barrier.

He has never published in peer review journals? He has not read current papers relevant to his theories? He has not tried to refute others? Oh boy... You are incorrect. I have hear in front of me a book that tells me the opposite. Maybe Dawkins didn't do his homework before he tried to tear down another college in an effort to squelch any attack on the sacred cow.

I would like a list of those papers. I would be interested in looking into them.

What is Dawkins doing? Is that science? Calling people idiots, stupid, and dangerous because they believe in God - a subject beyond his knowledge and area of expertise? At least Behe is working in his field.

You are confusing the books I listed with the God delusion. The books I listed are certainly in his field, as he is a well known expert and has a doctorates in that area.

I wont argue that he strayed a bit from his expertise when he made a book on philosophy. That book was not referenced to be read by me.

Atheism is the belief that there is not a God or supreme being. It is not "I am not sure of the evidence". It is the REFUTATION of the evidence. Atheism doesn't get a free pass in proving itself, since it is also a belief system. Can atheism stand on its own merit, or must it merely destroy any other proposition that another group of believers make? The later is the course of action of an atheist. They KNOW there is no God. NOT, "I doubt there is a God". Atheism is really a philosophy based totally on faith and nothing on evidence. At least an agnostic can say "I don't have enough evidence to believe in God". Atheists CLAIM there is no God. Christianity relies on the witness of men. Atheism relies on the denial of counter claims...

False.

I am not sure where you came to that conclusion, but it is commonly accepted vernacular that atheism means believing that the evidence for any deities existence is lacking. Again, some try to give the impression that all atheists fit in one box of the anti-theist, but this is not true.

I do not like to use this example, because some view it as making fun of God, but that is not my intent. You believe that the overwhelming evidence for Santa Clause is lacking, therefore you do not believe in his existence. So you are a Santa Clause atheist.

Now, some people feel that the fact we are here is overwhelming evidence for a deity. Atheists do not agree. The fact we are here is evidence that we are here. Believing that we were created by a deity is based on faith. An atheist lacks faith in said deity.

Atheists believe in NO GOD/GODS. I, as a Christian, believe in ONE God. All other "gods", as a result, are null and void by default. Your analogy makes little sense.

It actually makes perfect sense. Why do you say that all others are null and void by default? You have to believe that there is not enough evidence for Zeus to believe in God over him. You are not forced to believe in God, there fore you are actively making a choice to not believe in Zeus.

My puny brain is able to punch holes in the "vaunted" Hoyle's fallacy, so I am sure a more learned person could do even better. However, as I said before, atheism is a religious belief - and trying to convince someone that their religious belief is wrong is really beyond the realm of logical arguments.

I would refer to the original poster again, and implore you to not hold the stance that atheism is a belief. That will get you no where with an atheist. They will find you sorely misinformed.

 

[A-Christian]

Evolution is a series of half truths and presumptions that extrapolate very minute changes in a species and presume that with more time, bigger changes occur. We do not witness that today. If such evolution was true, we would witness it going on before our eyes with transistional creatures that already exist and have supposedly changed to some other higher life form. Where are the monkeys evolving into man? There isn't any.

You know what? The above statement says it all. The basic premise of evolution means that evolution would never come to a halt. The fact that there does not seem to be any living things that are in the middle of major "change" seems to cut the knees out from under evolutionist.

Having said that, is it conceivable that evolution once existed but was halted at some point, somehow for some reason?

Peace

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Evolution is a series of half truths and presumptions that extrapolate very minute changes in a species and presume that with more time, bigger changes occur. We do not witness that today. If such evolution was true, we would witness it going on before our eyes with transistional creatures that already exist and have supposedly changed to some other higher life form. Where are the monkeys evolving into man? There isn't any.

You know what? The above statement says it all. The basic premise of evolution means that evolution would never come to a halt. The fact that there does not seem to be any living things that are in the middle of major "change" seems to cut the knees out from under evolutionist.

Having said that, is it conceivable that evolution once existed but was halted at some point, somehow for some reason?

Peace

But we are still evolving.....

All animals that exist today are under going changes and are evolving.

Now, if you are looking for a monkey to give birth to a human, than you do not understand evolution. Same goes for a frog sprouting some wings. Those would be miracles and would actually disprove evolution.

Now, there are times when evolution gets a kick start. Typically this is due to some dramatic event, such as a comet impact, or geological disturbances.

If anyone is really interested to see a very interesting area which shows the impact of evolutionary law, do a meta search on Endogenous Retrovirus. Highly interesting.

 

[MarkT]

Actually it is sense that tells me to not let an interpretation of theology blind myself into disbelieving in one of the best backed theories in existence.

Who told you that? We have two creation stories. One was invented by the haters of God. And your sense of it is that evolution is true. And you say you have a theology that allows you to believe their story. Did God not form every beast and man and did he not say, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'? Did God put his spirit into the fish of the sea? Did he make them in his likeness? A fish is not a living being. A man is.

Didn't God tell the people - because they had not seen his form - that they should not make idols for themselves in the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, any winged bird that flies in the air, anything that creeps on the ground, and any fish that is in the water under the earth, and that they should beware 'when you see the sun and the moon and the stars', lest you be drawn to worship them. Deut. 4:17-19

He doesn't want us to think he is a fish or a bird or an animal or anything that was created. We are living beings made in the image of God. Why should we think we were made in the image of any beast?

Didn't the LORD God form man of dust from the ground? Didn't he say, 'The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the air.'

If God created both man and beast, not one only but both, then how can you reconcile your theory with Scripture?

Just because YOU cannot resolve evolution with your theology gives you no right to claim someone is damned because they have no problem resolving the theory with their theology.

Remember, the issue isn't evolution or a change in the frequency of alleles. The issue is common descent by the process of evolution.

When you can back up scriptually that evolution is a sin, you may have a point. You cannot. Until then you walk on dangerous grounds in regards to your claim.

I'm not saying it's a sin. I'm saying it's a lie. We worship God in spirit and truth. God doesn't reveal his knowledge to the godless; he blinds them and he sends a strong delusion upon them to make them believe what is false. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

You walk the same line of the church during the 15th and 16th century in regards to the heliocentric theory. A theory which was ruled as heracy. We see how that one turned out in the end.

That was about the earth going around the sun. We can't make similar observations in this case. It's one thing to imagine how the earth goes around the sun; you can swing a ball on a string around your head. But the common descent hypothesis can't be compared to anything.

 

[francisdesales]

Having said that, is it conceivable that evolution once existed but was halted at some point, somehow for some reason?

Peace

Apparently, natural selection no longer takes place at the macro level - so we must await miracles! How ironically interesting!

LOL! How convenient. From the current data, it does appear that numerous creatures suddenly appeared during a very short period of time. This is unexplainable by the "slow gradual evolution" that we are supposed to believe - or condemned to being called "stupid" and "idiots". The whole thing makes perfect sense if we take into account inferential knowledge and an intelligent force behind this short period of time. Why don't we see creatures evolving at the macro level today? Maybe it never occured? I don't know, but it seems pretty far fetched that a reptile would become a bird - but that can only occur during "special, unobservable times". What is ironic is that such a thing TODAY is called a "miracle" by macro-evolutionists, but billions of years ago, it is "natural selection"... :P

That is merely begging the question. It would be refreshing to hear "WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE, BY SCIENTIFIC DATA ALONE". All of this guessing and presumptions based on superficial examination and led by philosophical a priori presumptions - while condemning any other suggestions as false and heresy - is just poor science.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I am not sure where you came to that conclusion, but it is commonly accepted vernacular that atheism means believing that the evidence for any deities existence is lacking. Again, some try to give the impression that all atheists fit in one box of the anti-theist, but this is not true.

You are confused. That's the definition of an agnostic - which I was for 20 years...

Here is the definition of atheism...

a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.dictionary.com

noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Compare agnostic. (which, according to cambridge = "someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists")

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

As you can see, there is a difference between atheism and YOUR definition. An atheist, technically speaking, is one who believes there is no God. He doesn't "doubt", or is "unsure", or the "evidence is lacking". That is an agnostic. An atheist KNOWS by FAITH that there is no God. This "knowledge" is based on negative proofs and philosophical a priori denial of any argument FOR God's existence. It is a faith-based belief. The only possible positive "proof" of the NON-existence of God is the existence of evil - which is explainable by most monotheists.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Actually it is sense that tells me to not let an interpretation of theology blind myself into disbelieving in one of the best backed theories in existence.

Who told you that? We have two creation stories. One was invented by the haters of God. And your sense of it is that evolution is true. And you say you have a theology that allows you to believe their story. Did God not form every beast and man and did he not say, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'? Did God put his spirit into the fish of the sea? Did he make them in his likeness? A fish is not a living being. A man is.

Didn't God tell the people - because they had not seen his form - that they should not make idols for themselves in the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, any winged bird that flies in the air, anything that creeps on the ground, and any fish that is in the water under the earth, and that they should beware 'when you see the sun and the moon and the stars', lest you be drawn to worship them. Deut. 4:17-19

He doesn't want us to think he is a fish or a bird or an animal or anything that was created. We are living beings made in the image of God. Why should we think we were made in the image of any beast?

Didn't the LORD God form man of dust from the ground? Didn't he say, 'The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the air.'

If God created both man and beast, not one only but both, then how can you reconcile your theory with Scripture?

[quote:fa8f4]Just because YOU cannot resolve evolution with your theology gives you no right to claim someone is damned because they have no problem resolving the theory with their theology.

Remember, the issue isn't evolution or a change in the frequency of alleles. The issue is common descent by the process of evolution.

When you can back up scriptually that evolution is a sin, you may have a point. You cannot. Until then you walk on dangerous grounds in regards to your claim.

I'm not saying it's a sin. I'm saying it's a lie. We worship God in spirit and truth. God doesn't reveal his knowledge to the godless; he blinds them and he sends a strong delusion upon them to make them believe what is false. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

You walk the same line of the church during the 15th and 16th century in regards to the heliocentric theory. A theory which was ruled as heracy. We see how that one turned out in the end.

That was about the earth going around the sun. We can't make similar observations in this case. It's one thing to imagine how the earth goes around the sun; you can swing a ball on a string around your head. But the common descent hypothesis can't be compared to anything.[/quote:fa8f4]

Whatever. You cover your eyes, and go "its a lie. I just know its a lie!" Then you try to wrap the bible around your own belief and damn others with it. Very sad.

Have you ever heard of an Endogenous Retrovirus? As I understand it, these are remnants of past virul infections, and are written into our DNA. I believe they say about 8% of our code relates to ERVs. The mind blowing fact is when they study chimp DNA, we share over a hundred thousand instances with them. That is great evidence for having a common ancestor with chimps, as there is no know alternate reason why we would share that many instances with them. The odds of it being random are extremely low (over a billion to one or something).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You are confused. That's the definition of an agnostic - which I was for 20 years...

Here is the definition of atheism...

a•the•ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.dictionary.com

noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Compare agnostic. (which, according to cambridge = "someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists")

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

As you can see, there is a difference between atheism and YOUR definition. An atheist, technically speaking, is one who believes there is no God. He doesn't "doubt", or is "unsure", or the "evidence is lacking". That is an agnostic. An atheist KNOWS by FAITH that there is no God. This "knowledge" is based on negative proofs and philosophical a priori denial of any argument FOR God's existence. It is a faith-based belief. The only possible positive "proof" of the NON-existence of God is the existence of evil - which is explainable by most monotheists.

Acutally, an agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

To be an atheist, you only have to lean towards stating that the evidence lacks proof of God. In fact, there are different degrees of atheists, until you get to someone who will state that there is absolutely no chance that God exists. Dawkins doesn’t even hold that view.

You know the dictionary game for defining words can become silly, as words are so fluid, you cant really tie them down to one definition. Dictionaries are great to help you understand something about a word, but very poor in defining words. Here, look at these:

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God
• a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Atheist:

American heritage:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:

a person who does not believe in God

None of these support what you are trying to box in. To be an atheist, you do not have to claim that there is a 0% that a deity exists. That, I will agree, is an extraordinary claim.

All you have to claim is that over all, it is very unlikely. The same way you feel about a man living on the dark side of the moon right now. You can’t say there is 0% chance, but you can certainly feel that it is very unlikely.

 

[A-Christian]

Let's not make this harder than it is.
An athiest does not believe in God. An agnostic is not sure way way or another.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Let's not make this harder than it is.
An athiest does not believe in God. An agnostic is not sure way way or another.

Lets not over simplify it either. I would add this constraint:

An atheist does not believe the evidence of God is substantial enough to warrant belief. An agnostic believes it is either provable or unprovable, thus stays neutral.

 

[A-Christian]

A-Christian wrote:
Let's not make this harder than it is.
An athiest does not believe in God. An agnostic is not sure way way or another.

Lets not over simplify it either. I would add this constraint:

An atheist does not believe the evidence of God is substantial enough to warrant belief. An agnostic believes it is either provable or unprovable, thus stays neutral.

And how is that different than what I said? :smt102 :-D

 

[unred typo]

quote by VaultZero4Me
Have you ever heard of an Endogenous Retrovirus? As I understand it, these are remnants of past virul infections, and are written into our DNA. I believe they say about 8% of our code relates to ERVs. The mind blowing fact is when they study chimp DNA, we share over a hundred thousand instances with them. That is great evidence for having a common ancestor with chimps, as there is no know alternate reason why we would share that many instances with them. The odds of it being random are extremely low (over a billion to one or something).

I wrote something about this recently in the science forum but didn’t get a satisfactory answer. I’ll repost it here, if you won’t mind the intrusion:

I just read this:

SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey. Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was found in polio vaccine. More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccine was contaminated with SV40.

In this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30769

And remembered this thread here where there was a question about retroviruses in human DNA that was identical with that of some primates. Here are a couple earlier posts from this thread:

[quote:23a5f]Slevin wrote:
If the impaired genetic code is passed down, then it is inherited along each subsequent generation.

Humans have thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their DNA, and we find 7 of those to be shared with Chimps. The genomes of all those primates listed in that picture share ERV's with shared retroviral sequences. So it's not so incredulous to think that out of thousands from ancestor species, maybe 7 survive all the way down to be shared by chimps and humans.

quote by Cirbryn on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:17 pm
unred typo wrote: “OK. I’m confused. How exactly did this rare event effect all human and primate DNA? Please explain if the virus event occurred in a single primate and it just happened that all primates living from this time on were descended from this particular primate or did the virus effect all primates living at the time and how did this rare event occur?â€Â


Supposing that the same ERV appears in the same place in the genome of all living primates, but in no other animals, we would conclude that the virus infected the sperm or egg of a very early primate, which then went on to form an adult that became the ancestor of all primates living today. This is the only reasonable conclusion. Consider some other possibilities:

1) The ERV was inserted into all living primate species separately by independent viral infections.

Problem: There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, and presumably about that many in the genomes of other primates. If only two separate viral infections were involved, the chances of the ERV getting inserted into the same place each time are about 3 billion to 1. Multiply that by however many other primate species you find the ERV in.

2) The sequence of base pairs that’s being interpreted as an ERV actually came about (either in all the species or in all but one) as a result of random changes to the genome, and not due to viral infection.

Problem: The chances of this are many orders of magnitude lower than for alternative 1 above. ERV sequences are fairly long (several hundred base pairs, I think), and code for recognizable viral proteins (although those codes slowly degrade over time). Such sequences don’t come about randomly, much less in specific places in the genome.

So are there any problems with the accepted interpretation? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the early primate that originally got infected with the ERV “just happened†to be an ancestor of all living primates. Sure it’s reasonable. No one’s saying that ancestor was the only one in his population to be infected, nor is anyone saying that that ancestor was the only common ancestor of all living primates. Assumedly others that got infected either didn’t have any descendants that made it to the present, or else they did and the ERVs they were infected with are also with us.

The thing about ERVs is that, assuming we understand them correctly, they should show patterns of relatedness. The groups that share an ERV (in a specific place in the genome) should be more closely related to each other than they are to groups that don’t share that ERV. As it happens they do show these patterns (as shown graphically by Quath’s post of July 8), and the patterns of relatedness shown by ERVs are generally consistent with each other and with what we know about relatedness from other sources. For instance, we’ve found several ERVs shared by all primates, and several shared only by Humans and Chimps, but we’ve never found any shared only by (say) Humans and macaques.

So this brings me to another possible alternative explanation:

3) God inserted the ERV into the same place in the genome of the various species being tested.

Problem: OK, but why? Why insert such sequences? They don’t do anything for the organisms in which they’re found. They instead match sequences used by viruses that parasitize those organisms. And why insert such sequences into the same places in the genomes of numerous species? And why do so in a manner to consistently indicate the same pattern of relatedness? Assuming God exists, He must either be deliberately trying to fool us, or else deliberately trying to clue us in. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on your own interpretation of God’s nature, which you think it is.

OK. I think I’ll go with alternative explanation #4) The ERV was inserted into some 98 million Americans who received one or more doses of polio or similar vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccines were contaminated with SV40 or some other yet undiscovered monkey/ape/gorilla virus.
:-D[/quote:23a5f]

 

[francisdesales]

Let's not make this harder than it is.
An athiest does not believe in God. An agnostic is not sure way way or another.

Lets not over simplify it either. I would add this constraint:

An atheist does not believe the evidence of God is substantial enough to warrant belief. An agnostic believes it is either provable or unprovable, thus stays neutral.

Amazing...

If the evidence is not substantial enough to believe - that is an agnostic. He withholds belief BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE! You have merely given two defintions of an agnostic. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. They believe there is NO GOD - not that there is not enough evidence and are withholding a decision. I suggest you read the dictionary again more carefully.

IF your definition of atheist was true, WHY would there be a need for "agnostic"? You combine the two into one meaning. Read your last sentence and explain the difference...

Regards

 

[MarkT]

Have you ever heard of an Endogenous Retrovirus? As I understand it, these are remnants of past virul infections, and are written into our DNA. I believe they say about 8% of our code relates to ERVs. The mind blowing fact is when they study chimp DNA, we share over a hundred thousand instances with them. That is great evidence for having a common ancestor with chimps, as there is no know alternate reason why we would share that many instances with them. The odds of it being random are extremely low (over a billion to one or something).

Our understanding of retroviruses and what they mean isn't clear. If something gets inserted into the genome, I would think it would affect appearance, protein production, cell division, etc. Depends. It could be fatal. Then HIV and HIV babies are referenced. From what I know, babies and mothers of babies who are infected do not survive. It goes against the fitness theory that an infected ancestor survives and becomes the progenitor of man. In this case the less fit survive, the uninfected do not. At least from the species that exist, we don't see the offspring of the uninfected animals in the ancient population.

If a virus gets into the germ line, I don't know what effect it will have. I don't know if it's active. Apparently it has no effect except to act as a marker. But then I don't have anything to compare.

Still they call it a virus and they reference HIV. But DNA is just a molecule. Extracellular experiments don't tell me anything about what is happening in the cell. Life is in the blood. That's the important thing to remember.

The Bible tells us to not eat the flesh of any dead animal with its lifeblood still in it. The animal is declared 'unclean' or unsafe to eat.

It's unusual to have to consider one germ line considering the unaffected did not survive and the affected did unless we interpret the affected as being immunized. If two organisms with a similar genomic structure acquire a physical immunity, then almost certainly the marker will be found in the same physical location. It's as likely as the nose is found in the same physical location in the middle of the face in man as in ape. It becomes a physical trait. Ears, eyes - they're all found in the same locations on the body. If you associate the genome with the body, then you can imagine a genomic body where every location on the genome actually locates a physical trait. Genes and appearance are associated.

Let's assume infection begins with eating the flesh of an unclean animal. Both man and apes are flesh eaters. There's a famine. Animals become infected with disease. Both eat the flesh of infected animals. The infection spreads killing most of the population. Some survive. They multiply. Likely the survivors carry the scars of the infection, an ERV. Does the scar confer immunity? I don't know. But it was carried forward in the germ line. That would suggest it. The location of the scar could be nothing more than a sign of immunity. You could say that this location was the only location that conferred immunity or you could say it was because it inserted here, and not somewhere else, that they acquired immunity.

We find a marker, a physical trait, a remnant of the infection. It's located in the genome. But if we consider the marker a trait, is the location of the trait any more significant than the location of the nose on the face? Why should it be in a different place in man and apes if we are so similar genomically speaking?

How is it being in a location unlike a nose being in a location on the face?

Both man and apes are flesh eaters. Old world monkeys are not. If we look at immunity as a 'trait', then we should not find this trait in Old world monkeys. We don't.

 

[unred typo]

quote by MarkT:

Let's assume infection begins with eating the flesh of an unclean animal. Both man and apes are flesh eaters. There's a famine. Animals become infected with disease. Both eat the flesh of infected animals. The infection spreads killing most of the population. Some survive. They multiply. Likely the survivors carry the scars of the infection, an ERV. Does the scar confer immunity? I don't know. But it was carried forward in the germ line. That would suggest it. The location of the scar could be nothing more than a sign of immunity. You could say that this location was the only location that conferred immunity or you could say it was because it inserted here, and not somewhere else, that they acquired immunity.

I agree. And why wouldn’t an inoculation such as the polio vaccine, that had been contaminated by an ape virus and administered from 1955–1963, cause the same results in the 98 million Americans, and untold others worldwide, who were immunized with this same or another contaminated serum? I don’t think scientists know any more about the DNA info they are looking at than a gibbon contemplating a computer keyboard.

It’s certainly sketchy evidence for evolution’s claims and nothing I would want to stake an unbelief in God upon. It is human nature to pile up evidence that supports our view and discard and discount what we don’t want to believe, but that is not a wise habit and can lead to some deep seated errors buried under tons of misinformation and misapplied facts.