Intelligent Design is NOT Science

The argument from intelligent design (ID) is one of the supposed proofs for god’s existence. You’d think if an incredibly powerful and intelligent being did create the earth, it would have left better evidence of its handiwork than a ruthless unsympathetic world that seems to be purposed towards nothing in particular.

You might also expect that the people he selected to laud his creation to the world would be those of deep humility, respect, and scientific knowledge. But they’re not are they? Proponents of ID have a history of spreading misinformation or blatantly lying about science and evolution.

You would also rightly expect that realisation of ID would transcend any worldview or religious leaning. But it doesn’t. Anyone who thinks the world was designed attributes it to their god, their religion. Belief in design is inseparable from belief in religion.

Also, you’d think the experts at studying this world and universe of ours, namely scientists, would be the strongest proponents of design theory. But they’re not. Why? Why are scientists so dismissive of Intelligent Design?

Quite simply, because it’s not scientific.

The argument from design is based on the premise that the universe manifests such high complexity that only purposeful design can explain it. In other words, ‘the universe looks designed, therefore it is’. But this is an opinion, not a fact. Apparent “good” design in nature might indicate design, but apparent “poor” design would indicate the opposite. So at the very least, the way nature appears prima facie hardly proves ID.

Another problem with the argument from design is that it begs the question. It is an exemplar of circular reasoning. It goes like this: ‘all the design in nature proves that there was a designer’. Now, we know that designers design things, and we know that designed things have a designer. Fact. No one is disputing that. To call a car or a watch designed is taken as fact, since we know that cars and watches are designed. But we don’t know that the universe was designed. That is what we’re trying to find out! Therefore, the argument assumes that design exists, and then postulates a designer. It assumes the very conclusion it should be trying to prove; circular reasoning.

Scientific theories must be testable, at least in principle. And since testing anything carries with it the possibility of failure, scientific theories must be disprovable (or falsifiable). For instance, to use Dawkins’ and Haldane’s example, if rabbit fossils were found in the Precambrian era, that would completely disprove evolution. What evidence would creationists accept that ID is erroneous? None. There is no evidence that would convince them that they are wrong. All the evidence in favour of evolution will not prove that fact to them. Also, any evidence against design can be interpreted by the Intelligent Design theory as part of god’s plan. In other words, give god the credit for good design, but pretend the bad design doesn’t exist but is part of an ambiguous higher purpose. Accept fossil evidence and dating when it supports ID, but when it doesn’t, claim that fossils are there to test our faith. By this logic, nothing could ever defeat ID! Creationists cannot accept that their interpretation of scripture might be wrong; that their scripture itself is wrong, or that god cannot exist. This is because ID is a religious metaphysical theory, and not science.

Scientific theories must be natural and empirical. They must be proved by empirical evidence and explained naturally. ID is a supernatural explanation and cannot be proved empirically; there is no test possible to prove that god did or didn’t design the world.

Science doesn’t start out with a dogma that cannot be altered and then seek to prove it. Science has been wrong in the past, and the acceptance of error allows better theories to be made and knowledge to increase. What are creationists doing to better scientific theory? What studies are they doing to enhance the theory of evolution or replace it with an even better theory? None. This is because they start out pretending to already know the fact: “god created everything”. Everything that contradicts that is assumed to be wrong. So yet again, ID cannot be scientific.

We all have metaphysical beliefs. Our foundational worldviews are ultimately metaphysical. This doesn’t make them wrong. What is wrong is trying to pass off a metaphysical belief as a scientific theory in order to give it a place in educational curriculum. This is dishonest and subversive. It is dishonest because Design theory is simply not science, and no more belongs in a science classroom than Shakespeare does. It is subversive because ID is inextricably religious, and is a way to push a religious agenda onto others, particularly children.

This article was not about evolution Vs creation, it was about why creationism is not and cannot be scientific. Even the most ardent creationist, if they are honest with themselves, should have the intellectual honesty to admit this. After all, evolution doesn’t disprove god. And creationism being unscientific doesn’t in itself make it false. But let’s be honest about where the lines are drawn. There are many fundamentalists who seek to obscure those lines and spread falsehoods. Why is that I wonder?

n.b.: (For a complete, honest, and properly scientific review of evolution you can visit Talk Origins or the evolution pages of Ebon Musings.)

About these ads

224 Responses to “Intelligent Design is NOT Science”

  1. D Says:

    When you say, “bad design,” you are giving an opinion. How do you know whether or not design is “bad.” Also, the scriptures (known as the Bible) do not ever use the words, “intelligent design.”

    Creationism is not taught to children.

    When dealing with the beginning of the earth, nothing can be proven scientifically. Things can be disproven logically, but not scientifically.

  2. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    When you say, “bad design,” you are giving an opinion. How do you know whether or not design is “bad.” Also, the scriptures (known as the Bible) do not ever use the words, “intelligent design.”

    Saying design is good or bad is not just an opinion, we can be objective about it. In engineering, design isn’t just a matter of opinion – one engine may be better designed to do its job than another. If we can find an animal and think of a way in which it could have been designed better to do its job, then we can say that, if it has been designed, it’s been designed badly.

    Creationism is not taught to children.

    No, not in schools in America, but not for the want of trying on part of the creationists. It is indoctrinated relentlessly and mercilessly to children at home. I once had an email off a Christian in America, who told me that he homeschools his children specifically so he can teach them creationism, rather than the ‘lie’ of evolution.

    When dealing with the beginning of the earth, nothing can be proven scientifically. Things can be disproven logically, but not scientifically.

    What do you mean ‘logically, but not scientifically’? Even though the events being studied are in the distant pass, we can still make predictions about the future. For example, if we go and dig here, we should expect to find x, y and z. If we then go and dig and find what we expect, it is evidence in favour of the theory. This is a perfect example of a way in which the theory of evolution can be tested, where as the hypothesis of creationism cannot.

  3. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    Sorry, missed a bit.

    Also, the scriptures (known as the Bible) do not ever use the words, “intelligent design.”

    Irrelevant.

  4. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Creationism is not taught to children.

    To the contrary, As Tobe38 noted, many children are taught Creationism. In addition to practically all of the religiously motivated home-schoolers, Parochial (Catholic, mostly) schools teach creationism from Grade 1, even Kindergarten.

    Also, it is taught in every church based Sunday School, so that every child who does not learn it in public school, gets it on Sunday. Also, don’t forget regular Sunday sermons and Bible lessons at service. Finally, most religious people (90% of Americans, roughly) probably teach or at least reinforce the concept in some form or another at home.

    So to assert that we don’t teach Creationism to children is just plain false.

    Which was one reason why I never understood why it was so important to try to hide it in an alleged science lesson in Dover PA. It’s not like kids don’t already know what it is.

  5. D Says:

    @spanish inquisitor

    OF COURSE CREATIONISM IS TAUGHT IN SUNDAY SCHOOL! Sunday school isn’t a gov. owned school or home school, but it is a CHURCH class for the younger kids. Note the word, “church.”
    (no offense)
    Actually, America isn’t as Christian as you think. Most Americans are muslim or atheist, not Christians. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.
    ___________________________________________
    tobe38

    Mabye something doesn’t need to be designed “better.” How do you know what “job” an animal should be doing?

    When I say, “logically,” I mean, “logically.” Logic is different than science. Logic can contradict science. Math, for example, is logic, not science, yet it is trusted.

    Here’s an example of logical reasoning:

    http://www.thegodargument.com/?gclid=CLKWyOei9owCFSCTWAod6iSxEQ

  6. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Actually, America isn’t as Christian as you think. Most Americans are muslim or atheist, not Christians. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America

    Total untrue! From Wikipedia:

    “According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (discussed below), 80% of the U.S. is Christian and 15% do not adhere to a religion.”

    Mabye something doesn’t need to be designed “better.” How do you know what “job” an animal should be doing?

    Tobe has already answered this. We can quite clearly see what a particular part of the anatomy does. If we can think of a way it could have been “designed” better, then we say the design is poor or inadequate.

    You are dangerously close to disproving your own argument here; if we cannot say what is bad in design, then we cannot say what is good in design. Which defeats the whole “complexity = design” idea to begin with!

    Logic can contradict science.

    Give me ONE example where logic contradicts science?

    Maths is the only area where anyone seriously talks about absolute certainty. Science is predicated on the rules of mathematics. Maths is always trusted. Science is not about absolute certainty. It’s about the best explanation for what we can test.

  7. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    OF COURSE CREATIONISM IS TAUGHT IN SUNDAY SCHOOL!

    Which children attend. The Spanish Inquisitor was responding to your sweeping statement that creationism is not taught to children.

    Most Americans are muslim or atheist, not Christians. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

    You’re saying that more than half of American are not Christian?!

    Mabye something doesn’t need to be designed “better.” How do you know what “job” an animal should be doing?

    Here are some examples

    When I say, “logically,” I mean, “logically.” Logic is different than science. Logic can contradict science. Math, for example, is logic, not science, yet it is trusted.

    Refer to Evanescent’s response, with which I concur.

  8. D Says:

    I never said I supported the complexity = design idea.

    An example of logic contradicting science is the Christian belief of the creation. It is the most logical explanation, but it contradicts science.

    I’m not going to explain that right now, but I remain standing by that statement.
    __________________________________________
    “The Spanish Inquisitor was responding to your sweeping statement that creationism is not taught to children.”

    Ok, if you want to get technical with it. I was reffering to public schools. I apologize though, if that sounded offensive.

  9. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    An example of logic contradicting science is the Christian belief of the creation. It is the most logical explanation, but it contradicts science.

    Most logical? So, a perfect god that needs or wants for nothing, decides, for no reason, to create (after a certain amount of infinite team) something. He creates the earth, then light (before he creates the sun), then a vault of water in the sky, and puts the sun, moon and stars in this vault. Then he makes creatures and then man (or man and THEN creatures depending on if you read Genesis 1 or 2). He makes all this in 6 days. Then creates a talking snake to tempt them for something they couldn’t understand was wrong, threatens to kill them and then doesn’t, and curses human kind for all eternity for a sin they didn’t commit.

    He then plants false evidence of evolution and fossils to make us think that creation never happened.

    Yeah, that is extremely logical.

    I think you have a drastic misunderstanding of what logic is.

    Science is based on EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE supports evolution, not creation. Therefore to say that creation is logical but contradicts science is a contradiction. You are saying that you believe in something even though there is no evidence, which is about as illogical as you can possibly get.

  10. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    Ok, if you want to get technical with it. I was reffering to public schools. I apologize though, if that sounded offensive.

    Not offensive, just unclear. I wouldn’t have said anything, but for you to then reply in capital letters and an exclamation mark in a rather patronising tone to someone who responded to a point because of your lack of clarity, I found a bit rich.

  11. D Says:

    @evanescent

    Why wouldn’t an eternal, perfect God decide to create?
    God did create satan, or as you call him, a snake. However, God gave satan free will, and satan chose to do evil. Later, satan tricked Eve, and caused her to sin.
    If God took away the free will He gave to humans and to satan, what kind of Father would He be?
    _______________________________________
    Make up your mind. First you say that science ISN’T absolute certainty. Then you say that science is absolutely true.
    _________________________________________
    Give me an example of evidence of evolution.
    ______________________________________
    I’m sure you know that not everything in the Bible is literal. The period of time it took to create each thing, such as light, could have been simply called a day by the author. A day could just be what the author called it. It doesn’t have to be literal.

    And the perfect God did not curse humans for all eternity. We made a mistake, we had to be punished for it. For things to be otherwise wouldn’t be righteous.

    Where in Genesis 2 does it contradict Genesis 1?

    It seems that you have a closed mind when it comes to Christianity.

  12. D Says:

    I never claimed to have good clarity.

    Also, how would you know what tone I had with that? We’re only using words, which make up only 7 percent of communication.

  13. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    God did create satan, or as you call him, a snake. However, God gave satan free will, and satan chose to do evil. Later, satan tricked Eve, and caused her to sin.

    First of all, god created a talking snake. There is no mention in the text that it is satan. That was imposed on the text later. The serpent is described at the most cunning of all the beasts of the field, and its punishment is to crawl on its belly all its days. It is obviously a literal snake that Genesis is talking about.

    If God was perfect, how could he create something with the ability to do evil? That makes no sense. He should have just created perfect beings that would never choose to do evil (like himself!)

    If Eve was tricked, then why did God hold her responsible? Why didn’t he warn her? She couldn’t have known she was doing wrong, since she didn’t have that knowledge before she ate of the tree anyway.

    If God took away the free will He gave to humans and to satan, what kind of Father would He be?

    Free will does not necessitate evil. He would’ve been a better father if he didn’t allow evil in the first place; didn’t create a tempting snake; didn’t trick his creation into a test they couldn’t win; didn’t punish every human being ever for the crimes of TWO people; didn’t murder thousands in the bible; didn’t approve of rape and genocide; didn’t allow infanticide in the name of prophecy; didn’t hide all evidence of his existence; didn’t threaten eternal torture for those who don’t believe; didn’t allow hundreds of thousands to be butchered in his name; didn’t allow religions to lie and misinform; didn’t allow children to be indoctrinated and brainwashed from young; and the list goes on…

    By the way, before you disagree on any of the above, make sure you know your bible first. It would be incredibly embarrassing if I quoted your own holy book to prove these things to you.

    Make up your mind. First you say that science ISN’T absolute certainty. Then you say that science is absolutely true.

    What?! Where did I say that? Give me the link or quote me exactly.

    Give me an example of evidence of evolution.

    Already did do. Read the original article again.

    I’m sure you know that not everything in the Bible is literal.

    How do you decide which parts are literal and which parts aren’t?

    The period of time it took to create each thing, such as light, could have been simply called a day by the author. A day could just be what the author called it. It doesn’t have to be literal.

    Unfortunately, Genesis explicitly says that there was light and darkness between each interval, “and there came to be morning and evening a 6th day”. Sounds like literal 24 hour periods to me. At least that is what the author thought.

    And the perfect God did not curse humans for all eternity. We made a mistake, we had to be punished for it. For things to be otherwise wouldn’t be righteous.

    WE didn’t make a mistake though. Two people made a MISTAKE that they were TRICKED into. Why should I pay the price for that? Why should anyone?

    For that matter, why did the all-seeing god allow it to happen? If it was my kids, I wouldn’t have.

    Where in Genesis 2 does it contradict Genesis 1?

    Exactly where I said it did: the order of creation of man and animals.

    It seems that you have a closed mind when it comes to Christianity.

    Well, I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and was a believer for over 20 years. I’ve read the bible many times and can quote many passages off by heart. I’ve studied all the arguments for and against Christianity and can see it from both sides. My intelligence and logic couldn’t allow me believing in god or religion anymore.

    So, if my mind is closed now, it’s only because it’s closed to things like the Easter Bunny and tooth fairies too.

  14. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Also, how would you know what tone I had with that? We’re only using words, which make up only 7 percent of communication.

    In an internet discussion though D, words make up about 100% of communication.

  15. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    My article Something is Rotten in the Garden of Eden discusses a lot of what we’ve talked about here.

  16. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    You weren’t brought up Christian – you were brought up a Jehovah’s Witness which is a non christian cult. A polytheistic religion.
    Just thought I would clear up your record.

  17. Geno Says:

    evanscent,
    You have me moderated? Here I vowed myself not to discuss evolution with you anymore and then you moderate me?

    I went over to IIDA and signed up – but they are like the rest of you. Their sign up agreement tells you not to disagree with them.

  18. evanescent Says:

    Geno, you do not get to decide what constitutes Christianity or not. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a polytheistic religion. Christianity can’t even decide itself on the interpretation of the bible, so it’s pretty rich you claiming victory for your sect over another.

    Considering that I was actually one, don’t you think I might have a better idea about what they believe than you?

    Your attempt at trying to “clear up your record” is not only patronising, but pretty embarrassing for you.

    Their sign up agreement tells you not to disagree with them.

    Yeah I’m sure it does. Also, it’s IIDB.

    If you start a new thread there and get a discussion going, let me know and I’ll be happy to join in.

  19. Geno Says:

    evanscent,
    I only bring this topic up because you laid claim to authority (in an above post to “D”) by making this statement. “Well, I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and was a believer for over 20 years.”

    Now I am sure that you would agree that a Christian cannot be a polytheist – (if that can be so, then I am a Jesus believing atheist)

    John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” See how it says that the Word (Jesus) is God?

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their New World Translation revised that verse so that no one would mistaken them for monotheists. They revised it to say “In the beginning the Word was, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” (Take note, it says “a God.”)

    evanscent, do you see my problem? The JW’s are polytheists – if Jesus (the Word) was a god, there must be other gods. Therefore, JWs cannot be Christians and hence, you could not have been a Christian so you cannot use that as an authority card when it comes to discussing the Bible. You can however say that you were an interested party for 20 years.

    Now, I am sure that they are nice people, just not Christians.

  20. evanescent Says:

    Now I am sure that you would agree that a Christian cannot be a polytheist – (if that can be so, then I am a Jesus believing atheist)

    Your logic is flawed. You cannot be an atheist AND believe in Christ; that is a contradiction. However, it is not a contradiction to believe in many gods AND be a Christian, depending on your interpretation of scripture. (Something that Christians themselves cannot agree on.)

    Your analogy above was very bad logic.

    John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” See how it says that the Word (Jesus) is God?

    Yes I’m aware of this passage.

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their New World Translation revised that verse so that no one would mistaken them for monotheists.

    No, they revised it because they believe the passage “the Word WAS god” is erroneous. They dispute the translation.

    They revised it to say “In the beginning the Word was, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” (Take note, it says “a God.”)

    Yes I know. As I say, they dispute the translation. They interpret “a” god to mean godlike, although not God himself. Which, whether you agree this or not, makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous Trinity notion.

    evanscent, do you see my problem? The JW’s are polytheists – if Jesus (the Word) was a god, there must be other gods.

    Wrong, for the reason above. Their beliefs determine their theistic nature, not your interpretation.

    Therefore, JWs cannot be Christians and hence, you could not have been a Christian so you cannot use that as an authority card when it comes to discussing the Bible.

    Wrong. JWs are Christians because they claim to follow the teachers of Jesus. You do not get to decide what is the criteria for “true” Christianity, Geno.

    You can however say that you were an interested party for 20 years.

    Wrong, again.

    Your patronisation is almost as bad as your logic! ;)

    Besides, whether you agree with what I was or wasn’t anyway doesn’t stop me talking with authority on the bible, since I do know what I’m talking about. (An advantage most atheists have over theists).

    Now that we’ve cleared that up, we should stick to discussing the original article.

  21. Geno Says:

    evanscent,
    So, if I cannot be the interpreter of what Christianity is, why do you get to be the one who decides who gets into the atheist club?

    My point is that if you can define a polytheist as a Christian (terms have no meanings to you) then I can define myself (who knows me better than me) as a Christ believing atheist.

    Anyway, I was not being patronizing. You made a claim to authority and I challenged the authority. I was shouted down once by you or tobe for saying that I was like you for the first 32 years of my life. I was a scientist who was without belief. I debated theists on college campuses regularly so I knew from whence I spoke. But since I had become “enlightened” that negated my previous life as an authority and I had no standing in atheist conversation. But you get to keep your authority badge.
    Hmmm! :-)

    One last thing – there is not one other Christian group that accepts JWs as a Christian body. (I just didn’t want you fooling “D” since he was new here.

    Have a good day today. I am taking my 3 grandkids to the county fair today.

  22. tobe38 Says:

    Geno, if I might interject,

    I was shouted down once by you or tobe for saying that I was like you for the first 32 years of my life.

    You didn’t say you were like me, you said you were me. You then went on to say that you were (actually were, not just like) Evanescent. I dindn’t shout you down, I just suggested you might have some sort of identity crisis.

    My point is that if you can define a polytheist as a Christian (terms have no meanings to you) then I can define myself (who knows me better than me) as a Christ believing atheist.

    Evanescent clearly explained that Jehova’s Witnesses are not polytheists (anymore than you are for believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). There is always a certain amount of authority in language. The word atheist simply means someone who does not believe in any gods, nothing more. To say you’re a Christ believing (assuming you mean a divine Christ, not just a historical one) atheist is a logical contradiction, like saying that you’re a beef eating vegetarian.

  23. evanescent Says:

    So, if I cannot be the interpreter of what Christianity is, why do you get to be the one who decides who gets into the atheist club?

    Easy. Atheism has a single definition: one who doesn’t believe in any god. Christianity has many competing definition.

    My point is that if you can define a polytheist as a Christian (terms have no meanings to you) then I can define myself (who knows me better than me) as a Christ believing atheist.

    I’ve already explained this: yours entails a contradiction, mine does not.

    If one believes the scriptures support a few of polytheism, then one COULD be a Christian. It’s a hypothetical scenario. But it’s irrelevant either way because JWs believe that Christ is a godlike being, without being the Almight Father himself. But they’re not polytheists.

    Anyway, I was not being patronizing. You made a claim to authority and I challenged the authority. I was shouted down once by you or tobe for saying that I was like you for the first 32 years of my life.

    Unlike you though Geno, I wasn’t claiming to be ‘just like’ anyone else.

    I was saying that as a former theist, no one could hurl the accusation of ignorance at me, whether it be philosophically, religiously, or biblically.

    But again, there are many atheists who were never believers who also have excellent authority to speak on these matters.

    I was a scientist who was without belief. I debated theists on college campuses regularly so I knew from whence I spoke. But since I had become “enlightened” that negated my previous life as an authority and I had no standing in atheist conversation.

    I wouldn’t say it negates your authority. You have the authority to speak as a non-believer who became a believer.

    Whether people respect your authority or not depends more on how logical and rational you are.

    My opinion of you is that you’re very logical and raional… until it comes to religion, at which point you will not shed your beliefs, so you are bound to them, which compromises your intelligent and reason. In this respect, you are just like any other theist: you sacrifice your thinking ability to faith.

    One last thing – there is not one other Christian group that accepts JWs as a Christian body. (I just didn’t want you fooling “D” since he was new here.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Yeah, and there isn’t a Christian group that thinks Allah is God! What’s your point?!

    And the fact that many (I disagree with your statement of ALL Christians) don’t view JWs in the same light is an Argument from Popularity.

    Accusing me of trying to “fool” anyone is, again, patronising.

    Have a good day today. I am taking my 3 grandkids to the county fair today.

    I’m going to a concert soon myself. Have a good day!

  24. D Says:

    In response to evanescent’s response:

    First of all, God didn’t create a talking snake. It doesn’t say that in the Bible. The serpent’s appearance is introduced, saying that it was more cunning than the other animals. The serpent was possesed by satan, obviously, whom God had previously created with the ability of free will.

    You ask why God created us with the ability of free will in the first place? God is all-knowing, and He knew us before He created us, so He loved us enough to give us free will. If God took away our free will, that would be unjust, and it would not be something a perfect God would do. Mabye you wouldn’t let your kids make desicions, but that’s because you aren’t perfect. God on the other hand, is, and He loves us. So much that He let us make our own desicions.

    God didn’t “murder” people. He killed some, yes, but realize that God only wants the best for us, and if the loss of one is required, then the loss of one would probably be the better choice. In the Bible, it says God weeps for those who don’t accept Him. I’ll give you an example if you ask for it.

    You don’t “decide” what is literal and what isn’t. You should know it just by reading it, and knowing that these are accounts taken by someone who wrote them, and might not always be using literal terms.
    For all I know, it could have been a day. It also could have taken longer than 24 hours for the earth to make a revolution. Either way, it doesn’t matter.

    Yes, Eve was tricked, but she was still the one making the choice. She wasn’t forced to sin. She was probably as smart as you and I are, only without the knowledge of good and evil. It could have taken her years before she ate the food. It doesn’t really matter. Adam ate because Eve was his wife, so it didn’t take as long for him.

    No matter who took Adam and/or Eve’s place, humans would have eventually sinned. There wasn’t any avoiding it.

    From what I’ve seen on this blog is that you never were a Christian. Apparently, you were a Jehovah’s Witness. Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christian; they are a non-Christian cult (at least they’re known as a cult).

    The Easter bunny isn’t a religion. Christianity is different than the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. For instance, the tooth fairy doesn’t have answers that are a matter of eternal life or eternal death.

    You don’t support your answers with logic OR the Bible. If you can find a verse that says, “God created a talking snake…” I might understand your piont of view.

  25. D Says:

    Here are the quotes:

    “Science is not about absolute certainty”

    “Science is based on EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE supports evolution, not creation. Therefore to say that creation is logical but contradicts science is a contradiction. You are saying that you believe in something even though there is no evidence, which is about as illogical as you can possibly get.”

    In the second quote, you’re saying that I have to support my answers with science, in which case, you are saying that science is absolutely certain.

  26. D Says:

    Apparently, I need to emphasize this next sentence, you didn’t get it when I told you.

    THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.

    For one, we can decide for ourselves, and we can think things through. The very fact that we can think things through provides sufficient evidence of God’s existence. If our thoughts are just chemical reactions (or whatever it is you think thoughts are), how can we trust our thoughts? How can you know that you are right if your thoughts are just a bunch of chemical responses? You shouldn’t even be arguing if your thoughts can’t be trusted.

    That was just an example. If you want more examples, I’m happy to provide them.

  27. D Says:

    just a question. I noticed you use the word, “patronize” (and other forms of the word) a lot, and usually in odd ways. Do you know the definition of patronizing, or do you just like the word? (no offense. it’s just a question)

  28. D Says:

    “I was saying that as a former theist, no one could hurl the accusation of ignorance at me, whether it be philosophically, religiously, or biblically.”

    That’s what you said. I disagree, I can easily call you ignorant after your last response to me. Just to prove you wrong (that’s just how I am), I’ll say that you are ignorant. At least towards logic if nothing else.

  29. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    How wrong you are. Just as you claim that there is a definition of atheist, so their is a definition of Christian.
    All Christians by definition believe;
    1.) The atonement of Christ’s death for our sins.
    2.) The virgin birth
    3.) Jesus is God
    4.) Salvation by grace
    5.) The bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead.
    6.) The trinity.
    If you don’t believe those 6 things, you eliminate yourself from being called a Christian.

    Back to polytheism, I don’t care what level of god evanescent wants to put Jesus when he says that JWs believe he is “a god” – that still makes them polytheists – they believe in more than 1 god (high level, low level it doesn’t matter.) The point is (and I don’t expect you to know or understand) but they went out of their way to separate themselves by re translating the bible so that they would not be confused with monotheists or Christians.

    Whenever they come to my door I always greet them with “Oh, you guys are the polytheists.” They jump back an say “no, where did you ever get that idea?” I reply, “from your bible” and I show them the passage. They give the standard denial (just like evanescent) and I tell them the same thing – “senior god, junior gods – all the same, too many gods.” I don’t know why but it always ends the discussion.

    Gotta, go – time for the fair to begin. :-)

  30. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    I leave for a day, and the thread explodes. I love it. :)

    e, I can’t believe you’re getting sucked into an argument with Geno about whether JW’s are mono or poly. Or what a True Christian is. Who cares? I think he likes to get you sidetracked. The issue of this post is whether ID is science. It’s not, and so far, no one has posted anything to contradict that.

    Derek (“D”) seems to want to discuss his interpretations of the Bible. I don’t think any atheist should really get into arguments about mundane interpretations of the Bible, at least not long, drawn out ones, until someone proves to my satisfaction that the Bible is actually an authority for anything. It’s a just a book. Written by ignorant people in ignorant times about matters they didn’t understand. It’s not the Word of God, because God doesn’t exist, until someone proves that to me, the book purporting to be His word has no authority. Why don’t we interpret Hamlet, instead? It will be far more interesting, and probably have more relevance to our daily lives.

  31. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.

    Forgive me if I’m sceptical.

    For one, we can decide for ourselves, and we can think things through. The very fact that we can think things through provides sufficient evidence of God’s existence. If our thoughts are just chemical reactions (or whatever it is you think thoughts are), how can we trust our thoughts? How can you know that you are right if your thoughts are just a bunch of chemical responses? You shouldn’t even be arguing if your thoughts can’t be trusted.

    Your argument, if I may summarise, is basically this:

    P. If we can think, God must exist.
    P. We can think.
    C. Therefore God exists.

    It’s the first premise that I have a bit of a problem with. You said yourself, if our thoughts are just chemical reactions, we shouldn’t trust them. Maybe our thoughts are just chemical reactions, and therefore you shouldn’t trust the thoughts that lead you to conclude that God exists.

    Even if our thoughts are just chemical reactions, why shouldn’t we trust them? You claim yourself that the Devil can possess people, how can you be sure that the Devil has not possessed you, and how could you trust your thoughts then? And what do you mean ‘trust our thoughts’, anyway? You mean trust that they’re true or correct? Maybe they’re not. That’s what we use science for, collecting evidence to objectively find out if they’re correct. Where our thoughts are subjective, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a matter of opinion. It’s our opinion.

    This may do as evidence for you, with a foot-up from your faith, but I need a lot more.

    That was just an example. If you want more examples, I’m happy to provide them.

    Yes please, but please refer to this article before doing so. If your next piece of ‘evidence’ is not from the list, you’ll probably be wasting your time.

  32. tobe38 Says:

    @ Spanish Inquisitor

    Well said.

    @ D

    Let’s get right back to the main point. Evanescent’s article was arguing the point that intelligent design is not scientific. If you think it is, then show how the theory of intelligent design is falsifiable. All scientific theories have to be falsifiable – what would it take to convince you that creationism is wrong?

  33. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    P. If we can think, God must exist.
    P. We can think.
    C. Therefore God exists.

    I know there’s a fallacy in there somewhere. I just know it! Where, oh where, is it?
    ;)

  34. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    I will tell you what will make creationism falsifiable. Show me something that was created out of nothing – or that you could show me that it is even possible that something can be created out of nothing. Show me today with all of your knowledge and technology something created out of absolute nothingness. Since you can’t, I must ask that you hand over your sword.

    The whole theory of creationism is based on the FACT that creation takes a creator – a big bang requires a BIG BANGER. (and for my point, I don’t even need to describe or name who this creator / banger is)

    The absolute terror on the part of today’s atheist about Intelligent Design is what has created the vicious “New Atheists” 21st century edition that has gone from the Paul Kurtz and Gordon Stein version to attack dogs like Dawkins, Harris etc. Bark is all they can do as atheism flushes down the toilet.

  35. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    …a big bang requires a BIG BANGER.

    A BIG BANGER! LOL. I’m keeping this for future reference.

    God is just a Big Banger! I wonder if there’s a bumper sticker out there with that?

    Bark is all they can do as atheism flushes down the toilet.

    I think this is where Richard Dawkins came up with the Delusion part of “The God Delusion”.

  36. tobe38 Says:

    I will tell you what will make creationism falsifiable. Show me something that was created out of nothing – or that you could show me that it is even possible that something can be created out of nothing. Show me today with all of your knowledge and technology something created out of absolute nothingness. Since you can’t, I must ask that you hand over your sword.

    We can’t demonstrate that something came to exist out of nothing. You say as much yourself, which means you haven’t given an example of how creationism can be falsified. For it to be scientific, there has to be a way, in theory, that it could actually be proven wrong, with evidence that we really could find. So, intelligent design still not looking very scientific from here.

    Even if we could show that something came into existence out of nothing, how would that disprove creationism? Wouldn’t you argue that it was created from nothing by God?

    By the way, don’t get confused between the evolution of life, and the origin of life. The general theory of evolution has nothing to say about the latter.

    The whole theory of creationism is based on the FACT that creation takes a creator – a big bang requires a BIG BANGER. (and for my point, I don’t even need to describe or name who this creator / banger is)

    I’m gonna stab in the dark and say God? And God came from . . . where? If the universe had to have a beginning, then so did God. If not, your committing a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.

    The absolute terror on the part of today’s atheist about Intelligent Design is what has created the vicious “New Atheists” 21st century edition that has gone from the Paul Kurtz and Gordon Stein version to attack dogs like Dawkins, Harris etc. Bark is all they can do as atheism flushes down the toilet.

    Blah blah blah. That’s all I hear when I read your rants about Dawkins and the ‘new’ atheists. Instead of moaning about how mean and nasty they are, why don’t you actually deal with their arguments?

  37. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    I think I found that fallacy. It’s in here somewhere.

  38. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    I have dealt several times in the past with Dawkin’s argument that it is better to molest your children than to take them to Sunday School (page 317 of The god Delusion.) You haven’t had the guts to denounce the revered one.

    I have no problem with the evolution of life. Human beings have evolved. It’s just that they have always been human beings. Just like a 1917 Ford does not resemble a 2007 Ford, they have always been Fords and they have always been automobiles – but they have evolved to the better.

    I read the blogs – today’s atheist is terrified.

  39. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    I have dealt several times in the past with Dawkin’s argument that it is better to molest your children than to take them to Sunday School (page 317 of The god Delusion.) You haven’t had the guts to denounce the revered one.

    I’ll do it. Your characterization of Dawkins’s writing is nothing less than disingenuous.

    First, he does not say, “…that it is better to molest your children than to take them to Sunday School…”

    What he does do is give an example of a woman who was psychologically traumatized by the teaching of her church that a very dear friend of hers went to hell “because she was a Protestant”. She had also been fondled as a child, and opined that the fondling, compared to the horror of living with the fact that her friend was in hell, was relatively insignificant.

    Dawkins used that story, and the letter from the now 40 year old woman, to illustrate the point that “…it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical.” (p. 318)

    Are you sure you read the book?

    It is not better to be molested than go to Sunday School. But there could be cases where the long term damage of abuse could be far outweighed by the long term damage of belief in nonsense told to a child at an impressionable age.

    I have no problem with the evolution of life. Human beings have evolved. It’s just that they have always been human beings. Just like a 1917 Ford does not resemble a 2007 Ford, they have always been Fords and they have always been automobiles – but they have evolved to the better.

    That’s just stupid.

  40. tobe38 Says:

    @ Geno,

    I have dealt several times in the past with Dawkin’s argument that it is better to molest your children than to take them to Sunday School (page 317 of The god Delusion.) You haven’t had the guts to denounce the revered one.

    No, Geno, you tried to bring this up on the comments of an article of mine where it had absolutely no relevance at all. Evanescent has already responded to your comments without further reply from you, but ok, here it is.

    You quoted Dawkins likening child abuse to “an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience”. What you failed to mention is that Dawkins was referring to his own experience. Quite misleading on your part to leave that out. Dawkins is entitled to interpret his own experiences in any way he chooses, and if you didn’t agree with that, you would not have tried to conceal that rather important detail.

    You also fail to address Dawkins account of the girl who was molested and bereaved within the space of a few months, the friend she lost, she was told, had gone to hell. Learning that her friend was burning in hell for all eternity was by far the more traumatic and harrowing event for her.

    This is not necessarily always the case, but it makes an important point. It is patronising to tell a child that because they have been molested their life is now over. Many people who were molested as children grow up to be confident, fully rounded people with happy lives and healthy relationships. Many people who are indoctrinated with religious dogma as children grow up with extreme psychological damage and emotional baggage. There are exceptions either way in both cases, but I agree with Dawkins that they are not dissimilar, and they are comparable. Personally, I don’t agree with him that religious indoctrination is worse than molestation per se, but I think it can be, depending on which cases you examine.

    For you to just write Dawkins off as someone without moral values, or “advocating” sexual abuse is completely irrational. Just because you say one thing is worse than another, doesn’t mean you’re advocating the other. Murder is worse than theft, but I’m not advocating theft.

    You haven’t actually engaged with what Dawkins really said at all.

    I have no problem with the evolution of life. Human beings have evolved. It’s just that they have always been human beings. Just like a 1917 Ford does not resemble a 2007 Ford, they have always been Fords and they have always been automobiles – but they have evolved to the better.

    Are you saying you believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution?

    I read the blogs – today’s atheist is terrified.

    You’re right Geno, I am terrified. I fear for my life, and I mean that literally. I was in London only 5 days before the bombings on July 7th 2005. I travelled on the underground on one of the lines that was bombed – I still have my ticket.

    I’m scared of someone with faith in Allah blowing me up. I’m scared of someone with faith in Jesus Christ trying to take away the freedoms my country grant me, and I’m scared of the same Christians earning the right to teach children fairytales as science.

    What I’m not scared of, is the truth. I’m not scared to question my beliefs, to submit them to scrutiny and discard them if they don’t survive. Can you say the same?

    By the way, it would be just swell and dandy if you could actually respond to my points in my last comment about creationism not being falsifiable, and you’re argument for the existence of God committing the ‘special pleading’ fallacy.

  41. Geno Says:

    tobe my friend, (and I do mean that in a sincere fashion)
    You are a tough nut to deal with. First you ask about creationism (which deals with how things came into being) by asking this question; “what would it take to convince you that creationism is wrong?”

    Then, when I give you a pretty detailed reply, you make it seem that I replied to an irrelevant question – you said; “By the way, don’t get confused between the evolution of life, and the origin of life. The general theory of evolution has nothing to say about the latter.”

    So, do you want to talk about evolution or the creation of things? You can try to jump back and forth, but I will continue to nail you to the ground until you stay on subject.

    Yes, and I will use your terms, I believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution.

    But let me tell you a fear of mine. I take leave every spring quarter (for the past 15 years)from my teaching duties and I travel to several universities to discuss how science and faith work together. I travel with an astronomer and a biologist. Every visit we make, someone has made a threat before we arrive or something gets thrown at us while we make our presentation. Why are atheists so hostile?

  42. Geno Says:

    Spanish Inquisitor,
    Here was the quote I referred to.
    Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion – Page 317
    “Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up a child Catholic in the first place.”
    (Hence my paraphrase “it is better to molest children than to take them to Sunday School”)

    Here is a man who was brought up with strong Anglican parents, in the Anglican church and went to Anglican schools. He seems to have turned out OK hasn’t he (wrong on the issues but seems to be quite well adjusted)? By the testimony of his own life, he seems to have benefited from his religious upbringing. I wonder if he thinks his parents were terrible people? I doubt it!

  43. tobe38 Says:

    @ Geno

    You are a tough nut to deal with. First you ask about creationism (which deals with how things came into being) by asking this question; “what would it take to convince you that creationism is wrong?”

    Then, when I give you a pretty detailed reply, you make it seem that I replied to an irrelevant question – you said; “By the way, don’t get confused between the evolution of life, and the origin of life. The general theory of evolution has nothing to say about the latter.”

    So, do you want to talk about evolution or the creation of things? You can try to jump back and forth, but I will continue to nail you to the ground until you stay on subject.

    I think you know what I meant Geno and this is another attempt to dodge the issue, but ok, let me clarify. You believe everything was created, so that’s what you’re going to refer to, but don’t criticise evolution for not explaining how life began, because it isn’t a theory of how life began, only of how it developed once it had started. I was trying to preempt a misunderstanding.

    You still haven’t given an example of how creationism really could be falsified. That doesn’t make it false, but it does make it unscientific.

    Yes, and I will use your terms, I believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution.

    They are the same thing. Macro evolution just takes longer. If you accept that positive mutations can take place, that natural selection can guide evolution and that evolution has had billions of life to develop the nested hierarchy we see around us, I don’t see what problem you can have with the general theory of evolution – that all life evolved from one ancestor.

    But let me tell you a fear of mine. I take leave every spring quarter (for the past 15 years)from my teaching duties and I travel to several universities to discuss how science and faith work together. I travel with an astronomer and a biologist. Every visit we make, someone has made a threat before we arrive or something gets thrown at us while we make our presentation. Why are atheists so hostile?

    You are, of course, generalising widely. I don’t know what you do on your talks, but if you don’t answer people’s questions like you don’t answer mind, that can get them pretty riled up.

    You still haven’t responded to my point about ‘special pleading’.

    (Hence my paraphrase “it is better to molest children than to take them to Sunday School”)

    You paraphrased it in a misleading way that benefited your argument. You made it sound like Dawkins was saying that it’s better, on any one given Sunday, to molest a child than to take that child to Sunday school, which is ludicrous. He’s comparing an prolonged cases of sexual abuse and relentless religious indoctrination. Very different – I agree with the Spanish Inquisitor’s view that your analysis was disingenious.

    Here is a man who was brought up with strong Anglican parents, in the Anglican church and went to Anglican schools. He seems to have turned out OK hasn’t he (wrong on the issues but seems to be quite well adjusted)? By the testimony of his own life, he seems to have benefited from his religious upbringing. I wonder if he thinks his parents were terrible people? I doubt it!

    Actually, his religious upbringing was pretty relaxed, as it tends to be in the Anglican church – they’re not big on fire and brimstone. You’ve changed your tone on Dawkins now that you have a different point to make, earlier he was a disgusting example of someone without values. I’m sure he doesn’t think his parents were terrible people, as he generally doesn’t think most people are terrible – because, as he argues in the book, most religious people don’t take their morality from their religion.

  44. evanescent Says:

    Wow. Quite an impressive thread now. Too much to comment on all in one go, and Tobe and Spanish Inquisitor have done a pretty good job addressing everything. Two things to pick out that made me chuckle:

    D said:

    You don’t support your answers with logic OR the Bible. If you can find a verse that says, “God created a talking snake…” I might understand your piont of view.

    Seriously, did you even think this one through before you read it, or did you just hope I would gloss over it and not call you on it? You must have cringed when you read this back to yourself…

    As for logic, read what I said about problems with the creation account. You can either explain them or renounce your faith.

    Tell me Derek, did God create all the animals or not?? Now, the bible says the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts of the field. And later it is cursed to crawl on its belly. If the serpent was Satan, the passage MAKES NO SENSE. It is referring to a literal snake. It’s pretty obvious.

    But then, I already explained the above to you so all I could do is just repeat myself.

    (And yes I do know what ‘patronising’ means. The reason I use it so often is because when debating with Geno I find myself needing to!) Which brings me to:

    Geno said:

    You can try to jump back and forth, but I will continue to nail you to the ground until you stay on subject.

    My…..irony…..meter……just….exploded….!

    Anyway, back to the topic…

  45. D Says:

    God didn’t make animals that could talk, otherwise, they would have named themselves, not Adam. Something had to have made the serpent talk, and that something couldn’t be God or anyone who followed God, considering it decieved Eve and tricked her to sin. I’ve explained the rest of this to you, so I won’t repeat myself.

    I don’t really care if that was on topic. I was just responding.

  46. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    God created everything! Including the devil and including the snake. If he was all powerful and all knowing, then he would have known EVERYTHING that would ever happen, and it could only have been made exactly how he wanted it to be. He WANTED the talking snake to deceive Eve and trick her, because if he didn’t, then something happened that he either didn’t foresee, or couldn’t control. If that was the case, then he couldn’t be perfect.

  47. D Says:

    @tobe

    As you should have noticed, I’m using logic, not science. This means that I don’t believe that our thoughts are chemical reactions. I also know that if satan possesed me, I wouldn’t be talking against him, and I know that because I’m a Christian, satan can’t possess me, or anyone around me. I would normally quote that Bible verse, but I doubt that I need to.

    I didn’t say that because we think, God is. Although I was indirectly saying that, I was trying to support the fact that humans are much too complex to be formed out of nothing without help. As a matter of fact, anything is too complex to be formed out of nothing without any help.
    _______________________________________________
    @spanish inquisitor

    I’ll explain why I think God exists.
    The theories of how the earth came around are illogical. Here are 2 main theories:

    1. big bang
    2. the universe is eternal

    The big bang theory contradicts science itself, since scientists STILL don’t know how singularity came to be. Something can’t come from nothing. Basically, that’s all there is to say about that.
    _____________________________________________
    The universe can’t be eternal. I probably can’t explain this as well as the author of “The God Argument,” so here’s a quote:

    “you can only have a finite succession of events. For example the earth could only have spun a finite number of times. It could continue spinning on forever, but at any point in the future, the number of times it had spun would always be a finite number. If the universe were eternal, it would have no past or future like we know them, but rather it would exist in a moment of eternity where time never flows.”
    ________________________________________________

    After the big bang, most ask, “Well then where did God come from?” He didn’t come from anything. He doesn’t have a beginning because He is the beginning. He can’t have an end because He is eternal. God is also outside of time, therefore not subject to it.

    hope that helped

  48. D Says:

    True, that the devil was created by God. Don’t forget that God is also defined as having never-ending love. This means He created Adam, Eve, and satan, all with free will. That’s how much God loves His creation. If He took away everyone’s free will, He would be much of a Father, now, would He? A perfect God doesn’t take away His creations’ free will.

  49. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    3 points.
    1.) If Dawkins had to decide between a child being brought up in a long term bad church relationship or being molested, which would he choose for the child? I do believe that he stated clearly that molestation is better.

    2.) “that all life evolved from one ancestor.” Who is that ancestor? I will make it simple on you – who is the common ancestor for man and apes (you pick which kind)? I am not asking you to go back to the beginning, just one up the chain from us. Isn’t it odd to make a claim and not have an answer?

    3.) “that natural selection can guide evolution and that evolution has had billions of life to develop” – I just calculated that I have been alive for 21,352 days. Each one of those days has been the 10 billionth anniversary of some time – I am still waiting to see some kind of cross species transformation – see all of the changes stay within the species. Why did it happen in the past but we don’t see it today? Why hasn’t man branched out into a new higher species? Like I said, I personally have celebrated over 21,000 anniversay dates and no changes (I guess now you need more than 10 billion years ;) )

  50. D Says:

    I read a lot of these comments (you guys write a lot in one day), and I noticed this from Spanish Inquisitor:

    ” But there could be cases where the long term damage of abuse could be far outweighed by the long term damage of belief in nonsense told to a child at an impressionable age.”

    You’re saying that Christianity scars children for life? Atheists believe that once you die, you simply cease to exist, right? It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me, if you live, die, then cease to exist. Why would you worry about a religion that supposedly causes “long term damage”?

    Face it. If I’m right, you atheists are walking yourselfs into eternal torment. If you’re right, you have nothing to worry about, after all, what does it matter if you change someone’s mind on subjects such as these? They’re just going to cease to exist after they die anyway. In atheism, nothing really matters.

  51. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    One other thing. I am glad to see that you are one of those enlightened atheist who think that it is OK to make death threats or attempt bodily harm because someone makes statements with which you disagree.

    You said “I don’t know what you do on your talks, but if you don’t answer people’s questions like you don’t answer mind, that can get them pretty riled up.”

    I have answered all of your questions. The fact that you don’t like the answers does not in the least impress me.

    You asked about creation and then switched to evolution when I gave you an answer.

    You asked if I believed in micro evolution instead of macro evolution – when I gave you my answer you didn’t think it was sufficient and somehow made the 2 by definition the exact same just to serve your purpose.

  52. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    God didn’t make animals that could talk, otherwise, they would have named themselves, not Adam. Something had to have made the serpent talk, and that something couldn’t be God or anyone who followed God, considering it decieved Eve and tricked her to sin. I’ve explained the rest of this to you, so I won’t repeat myself.

    You are superimposing later Christian beliefs onto a Jewish creation myth. You assume an explanation that is in keeping with your beliefs, but this is circular reasoning. Yours is just one interpretation of the bible. There is no way to know who is right or not, but since it’s just a myth anyway, it doesn’t matter.

    Besides, Tobe’s already replied to you on this.

    As you should have noticed, I’m using logic, not science.

    Which I’ve already said, is illogical. Science is based on evidence, something that you apparently don’t care for, which makes you illogical.

    This means that I don’t believe that our thoughts are chemical reactions.

    Then you don’t know anything about neurology or biology.

    I also know that if satan possesed me, I wouldn’t be talking against him, and I know that because I’m a Christian, satan can’t possess me, or anyone around me. I would normally quote that Bible verse, but I doubt that I need to.

    Superstition and magical charms.

    You still assume the validity of your senses in order to prove them, something you accuse atheists of doing. You beg the question.

    I was trying to support the fact that humans are much too complex to be formed out of nothing without help.

    Humans didn’t come from nothing. They came from less complex humans, and so on etc etc further back. We had help: natural selection.

    The big bang theory contradicts science itself, since scientists STILL don’t know how singularity came to be. Something can’t come from nothing. Basically, that’s all there is to say about that.

    Wrong. How does scientists being sketchy on the big bang make it unscientific?? This is just nonsense. The Big Bang doesn’t contradict science, it’s actually the BEST explanation for the start of the universe. We might never know why it happened, but that doesn’t mean your fairy tale is an answer.

    After the big bang, most ask, “Well then where did God come from?” He didn’t come from anything. He doesn’t have a beginning because He is the beginning. He can’t have an end because He is eternal. God is also outside of time, therefore not subject to it.

    Tobe has already called you on this. It’s a fallacy called special pleading. You define your god so as to have the power to do whatever you want him to do. Circular reasoning. I could just invent my own god who can beat yours. See how easy?!

    You have not addressed the god-creator problem because it’s unaddressable.

    True, that the devil was created by God. Don’t forget that God is also defined as having never-ending love. This means He created Adam, Eve, and satan, all with free will. That’s how much God loves His creation. If He took away everyone’s free will, He would be much of a Father, now, would He? A perfect God doesn’t take away His creations’ free will.

    I’ve already refuted your apology of the free will defence. How did you miss it?? Go back and read what I wrote.

    Geno said:

    I just calculated that I have been alive for 21,352 days. Each one of those days has been the 10 billionth anniversary of some time – I am still waiting to see some kind of cross species transformation – see all of the changes stay within the species. Why did it happen in the past but we don’t see it today? Why hasn’t man branched out into a new higher species? Like I said, I personally have celebrated over 21,000 anniversay dates and no changes (I guess now you need more than 10 billion years

    Geno, this is just awful. Absolutely pathetic. You have no understanding of evolution and you show no interest in learning. You have no interest in facts or truth otherwise you wouldn’t keep spouting this rubbish. If I was Tobe, I wouldn’t bother replying to you on this. This is schoolyard stuff; not worth my time to refute (again).

    D said:

    You’re saying that Christianity scars children for life? Atheists believe that once you die, you simply cease to exist, right? It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me, if you live, die, then cease to exist. Why would you worry about a religion that supposedly causes “long term damage”?

    That is the worst non-sequitor I’ve ever seen. We will die one day, but we’re not dying today! I still care about harm and damage if I die in ten years or fifty! Don’t you??

    Face it. If I’m right, you atheists are walking yourselfs into eternal torment.

    Fallacy: appeal to force. Your threat means nothing because your beliefs are just myths.

    If you’re right, you have nothing to worry about, after all, what does it matter if you change someone’s mind on subjects such as these? They’re just going to cease to exist after they die anyway. In atheism, nothing really matters.

    That’s your extremely perverse opinion. It’s not mine. If you think life is worthless without your “god” D, then please go on believing if it makes you happy (I think you’ve just revealed something here!) but I’m adult enough to face the facts of life and still enjoy it!

    Geno said:

    One other thing. I am glad to see that you are one of those enlightened atheist who think that it is OK to make death threats or attempt bodily harm because someone makes statements with which you disagree.

    What gives you the right as a theist to say that to people?! We all know quite well the horror religion has caused and still causes; did that fact escape you as you posted this??

    Tobe wasn’t excusing threats or violence, he was just saying people get angry; no matter what they believe. It’s generally only the religious who like to kill those who disagree though.

    You asked if I believed in micro evolution instead of macro evolution – when I gave you my answer you didn’t think it was sufficient and somehow made the 2 by definition the exact same just to serve your purpose.

    This is getting ridiculous now. Tobe explained the simple fact of how evolution works. Something you should already now if you are to even debate with atheists. But you know nothing of evolution, and every time we try to explain it, you take nothing in and pretend it’s never happened. It seems that if YOU don’t like the real answer (assuming you understand it) you pretend one of us is lying or twisting words!

    The only difference between macro and micro evolution is TIME! It’s the SAME PROCESS! To pretend they are different is a theistic LIE, spread by those who don’t understand, or those who don’t want others to know the truth.

    Seriously guys, this is pretty awful stuff. Nothing personal to you D or Geno, but if you’re going to debate you should know even basic philosophy, basic logical fallacies, and the position of your opponents.

    We waste time explaining basic logic and science instead of actually addressing the real issues…

  53. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    That is your out – your very own “god of the gaps” that you accuse us of using. – TIME – given enough time. Well I gave you 21,000 10 billion year time periods and time has evidenced nothing new in my lifetime. Even in chemistry we can recreate and even recombine elements by force.

    Look, you say we evolved from other creatures. When we ask for evidence happening today, your guys at Talking Origins (and probably the revered Ebon) point only to bacterial samples etc.

    But if we have already had the big macros in the past (you say you dig them up out of the dirt and have evidenced a common ancestor) why do we only use microscopic substances as evidence today? Why can’t we point to something big with hair and alive today and say that came from this and completed it’s 10 billion year evolution in the past 100 years? This should be troubling to you. You say that it happened in the past and it will happen in the future but not now. Sounds to me like your own “spaghetti monster” of science.

  54. tobe38 Says:

    D said:

    Something can’t come from nothing. Basically, that’s all there is to say about that.

    Then that has to apply to God too. As we’ve said, this is special pleading – you can’t have it both ways. If you can say that God is eternal, we can say the universe is eternal. It’s more logical, because we know the universe exists, but we don’t know that God exists.

    Your logic is backwards. You start with your conclusio – that God exists – and then try to work back to the evidence.

    rue, that the devil was created by God. Don’t forget that God is also defined as having never-ending love. This means He created Adam, Eve, and satan, all with free will. That’s how much God loves His creation. If He took away everyone’s free will, He would be much of a Father, now, would He? A perfect God doesn’t take away His creations’ free will.

    D, if God is all seeing and all knowing, than he knew absolutely every single decision you would ever make, and every action you would every carry out, and every word you would ever say, long before you ever existed. He created the universe so that you would make all the decisions, carry out all the actions and say all of the things that he wanted you to say. If God is perfect, than he couldn’t make the universe any way other than how he wanted it to be. To argue otherwise is to argue outside of logic, like saying that God can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it.

    So, if God created the universe knowing every decision you would ever make, then he made those decisions for you. You’re not making a free choice at all, you’re just doing everything that God created you to do, and acting out the script that he wrote for you. Bearing that in mind, how exactly have you got free will?! You’re not making free choices at all, God made them for you. If you are making free choices, that means that the outcome is unknown by anyone until you make the decision, which would mean God would not know either, which would mean he didn’t know something and was not, therefore, perfect. An omnimax God is not compatible with free will, it is an argument of determinism.

    As it is, we don’t have completely free will. We are bound by the laws of physics, for example. I can’t just will myself to fly, like superman. If you’re saying God created us with free will, then he has clearly imposed restrictions on that free will. Why couldn’t he just impose further restrictions to prevent us being evil?

    @ Geno,

    3 points.
    1.) If Dawkins had to decide between a child being brought up in a long term bad church relationship or being molested, which would he choose for the child? I do believe that he stated clearly that molestation is better.

    And? That’s his opinion, so what? Deal with what I said about this, like you neglecting to mention that he was talking about his own experience, and the girl who was more traumatised by Hell than being molested.

    2.) “that all life evolved from one ancestor.” Who is that ancestor? I will make it simple on you – who is the common ancestor for man and apes (you pick which kind)? I am not asking you to go back to the beginning, just one up the chain from us. Isn’t it odd to make a claim and not have an answer?

    There’s that amnesia again.

    3.) “that natural selection can guide evolution and that evolution has had billions of life to develop” – I just calculated that I have been alive for 21,352 days. Each one of those days has been the 10 billionth anniversary of some time – I am still waiting to see some kind of cross species transformation – see all of the changes stay within the species. Why did it happen in the past but we don’t see it today? Why hasn’t man branched out into a new higher species? Like I said, I personally have celebrated over 21,000 anniversay dates and no changes (I guess now you need more than 10 billion years ;) )

    Geno, this is poor, even by your standards! Evolution doesn’t happen on “anniversaries”, it’s gradual, all the time. It doesn’t get stored up for years and then suddenly manifest itself in one day. It’s just gradual changes all the time. Those mutations which you accept have happened to the human species, right? Well, exactly the same as those, they’ve just been happening for billions of years. That’s plenty of time to have provided the diversity we see in life today.

    One other thing. I am glad to see that you are one of those enlightened atheist who think that it is OK to make death threats or attempt bodily harm because someone makes statements with which you disagree.

    You said “I don’t know what you do on your talks, but if you don’t answer people’s questions like you don’t answer mind, that can get them pretty riled up.”

    Geno, you’ve actually quoted me. How does what I actually said support your claim that I think it’s ok to make death threats or attempt bodily harm?! You asked me a question: why are atheists so hostile? I was offering a suggestion why the ones you encounter (including, sometimes, this one) might be, that you don’t answer people’s questions. I illustrated this by pointing out that you hadn’t responded to my point about special pleading, and lo and behold! You still haven’t.

    I have answered all of your questions. The fact that you don’t like the answers does not in the least impress me.

    First of all, you haven’t answered them all – there’s still special pleading to deal with. Secondly, you have written responses to some of my points, but that’s not the same as answering them. Saying “I’m right, because I just am!” is a response, but it doesn’t really answer anything.

    You asked about creation and then switched to evolution when I gave you an answer.

    No, I asked you to show me how creationism is falsifiable. You tried, but as I demonstrated, you failed. You then misunderstood me about the difference between the evolution of life and the origin of life, and I explained myself. I’m still waiting to be told how creationism is falsifiable.

    You asked if I believed in micro evolution instead of macro evolution – when I gave you my answer you didn’t think it was sufficient and somehow made the 2 by definition the exact same just to serve your purpose.

    I paraphrased your statement to understand it better, and then DEMONSTRATED how it was wrong.

    Every discussion I have with you leads to a growing backlog of points you haven’t addressed. So, for the last time, you said

    The whole theory of creationism is based on the FACT that creation takes a creator – a big bang requires a BIG BANGER. (and for my point, I don’t even need to describe or name who this creator / banger is)

    and I said in response,

    I’m gonna stab in the dark and say God? And God came from . . . where? If the universe had to have a beginning, then so did God. If not, your committing a logical fallacy called ’special pleading’.

    This is still outstanding. Either argue the point or concede it. Until you do one or the other, I’m not dealing with any new points you raise.

  55. tobe38 Says:

    Ok, just this one, while I’m waiting.

    That is your out – your very own “god of the gaps” that you accuse us of using. – TIME – given enough time. Well I gave you 21,000 10 billion year time periods and time has evidenced nothing new in my lifetime. Even in chemistry we can recreate and even recombine elements by force.

    Look, you say we evolved from other creatures. When we ask for evidence happening today, your guys at Talking Origins (and probably the revered Ebon) point only to bacterial samples etc.

    But if we have already had the big macros in the past (you say you dig them up out of the dirt and have evidenced a common ancestor) why do we only use microscopic substances as evidence today? Why can’t we point to something big with hair and alive today and say that came from this and completed it’s 10 billion year evolution in the past 100 years? This should be troubling to you. You say that it happened in the past and it will happen in the future but not now. Sounds to me like your own “spaghetti monster” of science.

    Geno, this is like looking at a new born baby for about 5 minutes, and then saying “well, why hasn’t he grown? His hair hasn’t gone any longer, he’s no bigger, why isn’t he growning?!”

    In geological, or evolutionary time, even hundres of thousands of years are like the blink of an eye.

  56. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    That is your out – your very own “god of the gaps” that you accuse us of using. – TIME – given enough time. Well I gave you 21,000 10 billion year time periods and time has evidenced nothing new in my lifetime. Even in chemistry we can recreate and even recombine elements by force.

    This means nothing.

    Natural selection + mutation + time = variety and evolution.

    Simple as.

    Look, you say we evolved from other creatures. When we ask for evidence happening today, your guys at Talking Origins (and probably the revered Ebon) point only to bacterial samples etc.

    Then you haven’t done your research well enough. No more links from me; do your own studying.

    But if we have already had the big macros in the past (you say you dig them up out of the dirt and have evidenced a common ancestor) why do we only use microscopic substances as evidence today?

    Isn’t it obvious?? Because macro evolution takes so long to occur. Speciation doesn’t occur within the lifetime of a human to observe. But continents don’t drift apart in the human lifespan either, yet it would be absurd to deny that they DO move, however slowly. But continental drift and earthquakes and volcanoes etc are all explained by the Theory of Plate Tectonics. When you understand the theory, you understand how geology works.

    It’s the same with evolution. Accepting micro evolution but denying macro is like saying you accept where volcanoes come from, but not mountains.

    Why can’t we point to something big with hair and alive today and say that came from this and completed it’s 10 billion year evolution in the past 100 years?

    Completed?? There is no ‘completed’ Geno. There is only what we see at any point. A human isn’t “completed” in any sense. Humans have evolved slightly many times over hundreds of years, but we haven’t speciated (yet) because we can all still interbreed with each other.

    German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers are both dogs. They came from wolves in just 2000 years! Neither is “completed”, anymore than the wolf itself was incomplete!

    This should be troubling to you. You say that it happened in the past and it will happen in the future but not now. Sounds to me like your own “spaghetti monster” of science.

    This is just junk, as my explanations above show.

    Seriously Geno, is it so hard for you to go to Wikipedia, type in Evolution, and study it for yourself?

  57. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    My last word for today. Our difference is that I am in the science field while you are a reader. I never use Wikipedia as a source.
    If I went into Wikipedia and edited the article would you still reference it or recommend it for others?
    But now I better understand how you come to your point of view.

    A quick point about Intelligent Design (the original topic). I went to the fair yesterday with the grandkids. You wouldn’t believe how everything there was done by design. All of the rides were engineered to perfection. The lighting and music just had a creator’s touch. The only things I saw there that were created by time and chance were the spilled sodas and dropped ice cream cones. :-)
    Have a good day

  58. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    If you want to believe stuff that cannot show evidence for a billion years, go right ahead. I guess given enough time, we could prove the “spaghetti monster” also – so don’t count it out!

  59. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    My last word for today. Our difference is that I am in the science field while you are a reader.

    Ad hominem fallacy.

    Geno, I would go as far as to say that specialist subjects aside, I have a better grasp of science than you. Your understanding of logic, falsifiability, evolution, and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (!) is terrible.

    I never use Wikipedia as a source.
    If I went into Wikipedia and edited the article would you still reference it or recommend it for others?
    But now I better understand how you come to your point of view.

    Blah blah. So because you don’t like Wikipedia, that’s your excuse for not researching anything properly? Excellent explanation.

    A quick point about Intelligent Design (the original topic). I went to the fair yesterday with the grandkids. You wouldn’t believe how everything there was done by design. All of the rides were engineered to perfection. The lighting and music just had a creator’s touch. The only things I saw there that were created by time and chance were the spilled sodas and dropped ice cream cones.

    Total and utter rubbish. If you even read the ORIGINAL article above that this discussion is based on, you wouldn’t have said that.

    I’m not debating with you anymore Geno. After all this time and all these posts, you come out with the above which is basically a rehashed Argument from Design ala Paley’s watch, which is what I destroyed in my initial article! You obviously have no interest in reading what I write or having an honest debate so why should I try to?

  60. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    This was a joke;
    “A quick point about Intelligent Design (the original topic). I went to the fair yesterday with the grandkids. You wouldn’t believe how everything there was done by design. All of the rides were engineered to perfection. The lighting and music just had a creator’s touch. The only things I saw there that were created by time and chance were the spilled sodas and dropped ice cream cones.”

    You are wound to tightly – relax a bit ;)

  61. evanescent Says:

    If you were just joking, then I apologise! Perhaps I overreacted…

    But, if you were just joking, does that mean you accept that the argument from design is flawed?? ;)

  62. Darren Says:

    Geno said:

    “…I am in the science field …”

    I’m having a hard time believing this. Care to elaborate?

  63. Geno Says:

    Darren,
    You must be lagging behind. I am a professor of chemistry at a fairly large state university in the western US. PhD at 26 and have been at the same university for 32 years.

    Dissent in the scientific community is not uncommon. You guys live in a bubble and have no idea what the real discussions involve.

    BTW, my name, as with many others is not on this list.

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    http://www.pssiinternational.com/

  64. evanescent Says:

    Dissent in the scientific community is not uncommon.

    Of course it’s not. Argumentation and debate keeps science healthy and on its toes.

    You guys live in a bubble and have no idea what the real discussions involve.

    How many times have one of us “guys” had to explain logical fallacies, cogent argumentation, and scientific methodology to you…

  65. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    You know, Geno, I’ve never quite understood the point of those lists. Whether someone has an opinion about the theories of Darwin is somewhat irrelevant to whether Darwin was correct. Opinions are worthless. Let’s the see the evidence. Let’s see the science. We’ve seen all the science that supports Evolution, and it is quite overwhelming. Where is the Creationist science? What experiments are being performed to test the Creationist theory? What predictions has it made?

    All those so called scientists have every opportunity, as much as the next man, to put their money where their mouth is, and prove their theory. Do they do that? I haven’t seen it yet. Have you?

    I will make a bet. Scratch every one of those signators, and you’ll find a person with deeply held religious beliefs, most likely Christian, but not necessarily so.

    You will find very few atheists, if any, on the list, because if you come to the question with predetermined beliefs opposing it, you are not an un-biased commentator.

  66. Geno Says:

    Spanish Inquisitor,

    “Where is the creationist science?” What makes you think that creationism is the only alternative? Most people on that list probably do not hold biblical views but just reject evolution as not the correct answer.

    As I said previously, I am not a young earth creationist and I do believe that species have evolved – just not into each other.

    As to who is unbiased, I wish to disagree. I see it all the time in the university system. Whenever I present to my associates a view that in anyway opposes today’s version of evolution and ask why they won’t consider another opinion – the first answer is always “I cannot allow a god into my worldview.” or “It may affect my funding.” It is never the science that is first in their response. So who is unbiased?

  67. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    Because something falls into one of you “fallacy” categories does not make the statement incorrect. All it does is keep you from confronting the issue.

  68. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    Because something falls into one of you “fallacy” categories does not make the statement incorrect.

    Ha ha. This is gold! Pure gold. Gotta love you Geno, you sure do make me smile at times!

    If something falls into a “fallacy category” that DOES actually, BY DEFINITION, make it incorrect!

    All it does is keep you from confronting the issue.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    You’ve never said anything that has ever caused me even the slightest trouble replying to.

  69. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    Let’s put you to the test. You have made this statement to show that evolution is a true science (you know, not fake like creationism that is not as you would say falsifiable);
    “scientific theories must be disprovable (or falsifiable). For instance, to use Dawkins’ and Haldane’s example, if rabbit fossils were found in the Precambrian era, that would completely disprove evolution.”

    Well, I hate to destroy you with facts, but Richard Dawkins makes the exact opposite case. He says that rabbit fossils in the Pre Cambrian era would not falsify evolution. In fact he says that he can’t think of anything that would disprove evolution. To show that this is all about hating God and not about science, he even says that he would switch his view to aliens having caused evolution. “God hate” can cause some of the greatest and most powerful delusions that we can observe.

    So, who is lying here to protect their view, you or Dawkins – watch the video. The topic comes up at 25:35 min

  70. D Says:

    evanescent,

    Please just listen, for once. God does not make us do things His way. He gives us free will. God wouldn’t create humans just to do whatever He wants. He created us, already knowing us, and He created us to love Him and to be loved by Him.
    At this point, you’re desperately trying to prove me wrong, but the problem with that is, you can’t. If you could, you would have by now, but all you’ve accomplished is repeating the same argument.

    Let me explain why design is now “flawed.” As I said before, humans sinned, therefore bringing sin into the world because God created us with the ability of free will. It would be unjust for God to take away our free will. If God prevented us from doing evil, we wouldn’t have free will, now, would we? Realize that having free will means having the ability to make our own desicions, and therefore having the ability to do evil.

    When humans brought sin into the world, we brought the consequences along with it. The consequences: suffering and imperfection. When you live in a world of sin, you probably will end up having flaws…duh.

    Just because God knows what we will do doesn’t mean He makes us do it. For example, if I see someone jump of a cliff, I know that they will fall to their death, but I didn’t CAUSE them to fall to their death, all I can do is hope for the better. Knowing something doesn’t make it happen, even though it will happen.

    Don’t even think about asking that dumb question, “Can God make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it?” I won’t answer that question, because whoever is asking it isn’t looking for an answer.

  71. Geno Says:

    Also, you guys need to respect my views with greater esteem. ;)
    When I gave the analysis of Dawkin’s view “It’s better to molest kids than it is to send them to Sunday School” You all howled with dissent and said that I was misrepresenting Dawkins with my comment. I will even venture to say that some of you even though I was slandering the poor man. Well blow me down! Dawkins comments on the whole child abuse issue on the same video (starting at 19 min) and acknowledges that he was wrong for those comments and EVEN states that not all religious training is bad. At least he is willing to listen to me if you are not.

    watch the video comments.

  72. evanescent Says:

    @ D

    Your free will defence has already been refuted. I addressed it earlier in my comments and so did Tobe. You can’t just repeat yourself as if our replies never happened. You should probably go back and re-read what we both said about free will, and why the Free Will apologetic is illogical.

    At this point, you’re desperately trying to prove me wrong, but the problem with that is, you can’t. If you could, you would have by now, but all you’ve accomplished is repeating the same argument.

    If you want to be taken seriously D, you need to understand the issues about which you are talking.

    Everything you have said proves that you did not understand the main article “Intelligent Design is not Science”. You can talk about free will and god etc all you like, but you’re talking supernatural magic and that is not science.

    This topic is about why Evolution is a proper scientific explanation for life and creationism is not. You have not even addressed this.

    @ Geno

    You DID misrepresent Dawkins, Geno. And it took three people constantly pointing this out to you to get you to stop repeating yourself and drop the issue. (Until next time).

    IF Dawkins concedes anything like what you say, then it is SHEER LUCK for you, because you did misquote and misrepresent him. Care to provide a link to the Dawkins video?

  73. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Geno said three things:

    “Where is the creationist science?” What makes you think that creationism is the only alternative? Most people on that list probably do not hold biblical views but just reject evolution as not the correct answer.

    OK. Where is the alternative science? I don’t really care what it is, where is the science that contradicts evolution?

    Well, I hate to destroy you with facts, but Richard Dawkins makes the exact opposite case. He says that rabbit fossils in the Pre Cambrian era would not falsify evolution. In fact he says that he can’t think of anything that would disprove evolution. To show that this is all about hating God and not about science, he even says that he would switch his view to aliens having caused evolution. “God hate” can cause some of the greatest and most powerful delusions that we can observe.

    If there’s any hating going on here, it would appear to be Dawkins hating, on your part. You continue to misrepresent him. You did it earlier with your reading of the “The God Delusion”, and now with your viewing of this video. Did he insult you sometime in the past?

    He does not say that under no circumstances would he not accept rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian as an evolution killer. What he says is that he would not automatically conclude evolution was false if they were found. He would look for more natural explanations, (he mentioned a hoax, then pan-spermia) and then he would look for more widespread evidence. One rabbit, or many, isn’t going to do it, becuase in his opinion there is too much evidence going the other way. There would have to be an natural explantion for that one rabbitt, or even many rabbits.

    You confuse informed incredulity with god hating.

    You’ll note that he also concluded that even if it did disprove evolution, it wouldn’t prove that God was responsible. It wouldn’t, would it?

    So, who is lying here to protect their view,

    You know what I think…

  74. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    If the rabbits in the pre cambrian isn’t going to be the falsifyer, then he should not make the initial claim that it is so.
    Dawkins has Evanescent convinced that it is. He said in his article “that would completely disprove evolution.”

    Look, I don’t make this stuff up, I just take the man at his word. Are you denying in the video that he said that he could not imagine anything that would disprove evolution? Those were his words and by your own definition if it’s not falsifiable then it is junk science.

    You said, “it would appear to be Dawkins hating, on your (my) part.” I think I would rather use your other quote “informed incredulity.”

  75. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    Dawkins has Evanescent convinced that it is. He said in his article “that would completely disprove evolution.”

    You’re right I did say that, although I paraphrased slightly. I took the quote from here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy#Falsifiability

    I have used the quote myself as hyberbole. Yes the rabbit fossil thing would be evidence against evolution. It shows that evolution CAN be wrong.

    But of course, if you saw a ball floating in midair, you wouldn’t immediately reject gravity altogether on a whim. You’d remember hundreds of years of explanation and proof behind it, and all the vast evidence that SUPPORTS gravity. You’d probably seek to find out why the ball floats! Perhaps you’d improve the theory or ultimately reject it. That’s what Dawkins is saying.

    But either way, you’d explain things naturally. That is what science does. But then, you knew that anyway didn’t you?

  76. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    So you too are saying that it (rabbits) wouldn’t falsify evolution? So, am I right, you are in the same position as the “creationist” – you can’t give an example of what would disprove evolution? Which means (as your article stated), you are in the realm of pseudoscience.
    It’s called talking out both sides of your mouth.

    Also, as I said yesterday, that’s why I don’t use wikipedia for scientific research – it leaves you hanging out to dry everytime.

  77. evanescent Says:

    Unbelievable. Do you even read what I write??

    Did I say that I can’t give an example of what would disprove evolution? Or, did I say, no less than 5 minutes ago:

    “I have used the quote myself as hyberbole. Yes the rabbit fossil thing would be evidence against evolution. It shows that evolution CAN be wrong.”

    Notice that last sentence. Am I saying evolution CAN be wrong, or am I saying it CAN’T be wrong? Hmm.

    Since you seem to be having trouble with your eyesight, I’ll repost the rest of my previous comment which explains the position:

    “But of course, if you saw a ball floating in midair, you wouldn’t immediately reject gravity altogether on a whim. You’d remember hundreds of years of explanation and proof behind it, and all the vast evidence that SUPPORTS gravity. You’d probably seek to find out why the ball floats! Perhaps you’d improve the theory or ultimately reject it. That’s what Dawkins is saying.

    But either way, you’d explain things naturally. That is what science does. But then, you knew that anyway didn’t you?”

  78. Geno Says:

    you are right and I apologize. I mis read what you had written. I thought you were equivocating when you brought the floating ball up.

    Dawkins however, will not give an example of falsifying evolution. Remember, if the rabbit were proven, he said that he would not give up evolution – so the rabbit either does not disprove and destroy evolution or Richard Dawkins is willing to believe the fairytale. Just as a creationist can’t think of what would disprove creation. So, we are back to square one – a standoff.

    Back to the video, at 27:15 he states that he finds it almost impossible to think of anything that would prove evolution wrong.

  79. evanescent Says:

    What’s your point? Can YOU think of anything that would prove gravity wrong?

    Finding it difficult to think of something to disprove a theory as excellent and powerful as evolution isn’t easy! That’s what Dawkins is saying. I’m surprised you didn’t realise that.

    That is nothing like saying evolution is impossible to falsify though. That is exactly what makes it good science. Evolution may never be falsified, (simply because it’s true!) BUT, it could in principle be replaced, because all scientific theories can. As a scientist, you should know this though.

  80. Geno Says:

    You guys are hilarious. You pound and pound away at creationists and say that if they cannot offer up anything that would falsify creation then they are dealing in the realm of pseudo science or junk science.

    When held to the same standard you offer up something by Dawkins that he denies.

    So the creationist says the same thing to you “Finding it difficult to think of something to disprove a theory as excellent and powerful as CREATION isn’t easy!”

    “As a scientist, you should know this though.” – No, what I should know as a scientist is that if you are going to test something to show which is true, you use the same method on both – which you refuse to do.

    Why can’t anyone just admit that Dawkins either misspeaks or makes errors or just doesn’t know? I think you guys are better followers of Dawkins than I am of Jesus.

  81. Geno Says:

    Hey,
    Let’s be sure to keep the discussion on a friendly level and not carry it the point of these 2 guys!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_us/internet_feud;_ylt=AhjIym5ig_HQYtuUtagBBa9vzwcF

  82. evanescent Says:

    Geno, you just don’t get it do you?

    All I can do is just repeat myself about falsifiability. I can’t see why you find it so hard to understand. It’s all been said in the original article.

    The original articles explains why evolution is science and creationism isn’t.

    You seem to pick up on one apparent lose thread, misunderstand it, misrepresent, and use that to launch an attack instead of confronting the real issues.

  83. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Geno
    You seem to pick and choose your little arguments the same way all theists do. You take one statement, out of context, and interpret the hell out of it, so that it says what you want it to say. Then you deride us for defending him, implying we are his disciples.

    If you think that Dawkins is saying that there is nothing that would change his mind, then I suggest you stop reading his books, or listening to his interviews. They are not for you. There’s really nothing more to discuss. He can defend himself.

    Rather than arguing with us, what you should be doing is looking for rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, because until you do that, what you say is just talk.

  84. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Hey Geno. Where IS your trailer located? ;)

  85. Geno Says:

    I wouldn’t call it a loose thread when evolution’s most vocal spokesperson worldwide, denies his previous statements.

    Look, this was on his web site recording comments he made to what he thought was a safe audience. But even they were keen enough to questioned him on the 2 topics (child abuse and disproving evolution.)

    Dawkins is not a loose thread – he is a loose cannon!

    I noticed another trick of his. If you watch the 1st video you will notice when he mentions people with whom he agrees or who support his position, he always mentions them by name and gives full recognition to their scholarship. However, whenever he mentions someone who has an opposing point of view, they are always describes as “a critic” or “someone who asked a question” or “someone who wrote an article.”

    He never once mentions a person by name or academic background. It is his method to show that scholars agree with him and the “unwashed” are his critics.

    Here is part one.

  86. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    “Then you deride us for defending him, implying we are his disciples.”

    Look at the people in the video – they paid (I would guess) about $6,000 per person to go to the Galapagos to listen to Dawkins read the preface to the paperback. So yes, disciples.
    (for that kind of dough, I would have asked him to read the whole darn book!) ;)

  87. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    Not only are you guys lemmings (oops, I meant disciples) but you now have your own uniforms. I’ll bet you sleep in yours

    http://richarddawkins.net/store/

    I think Dawkins’ infomercials are next :-)

  88. breakerslion Says:

    Arguing with these insane parrots is a waste of life. They all seem to twist, evade, and shovel the same tired talking points in exactly the same way. If they are not all the same person, their shamans are all on the same page as to what programming they are to receive. In addition, they have no ability to admit they have been refuted, or to retain new information from one argument to the next. It’s as artistically futile as writing a thesis on an Etch-A-Sketch. I truly believe that their purpose is to burn you out, and/or to tie you up with endless commentary to the detriment of your ability to post new subjects. This, I believe, is how they have decided they can best serve their Masters. They, of course, believe that they have only one. That is some of the very best smoke that’s been blown up their respective asses.

  89. Darren Says:

    Geno, thank you. I am indeed lagging behind, because I can only spend a small amount of time reading blogs (life has this irritating habit of getting in the way). I still have a hard time believing your credentials.

    I’m not really sure why you posted those lists. A small number of scientists are skeptical about evolution, but offer no alternative, as far as I can see, although the fact that the list is published by the Discovery Institute seems telling.

    So the list seems to be that of scientists who cannot bring themselves to break out of their almost-certainly religious upbringing. A fine example of intellectual compartmentalisation.

    Incidentally, the analogy to gravity is not very good. Gravity is not a theory, it’s demonstrably true. The theory of gravity is to answer the question “why/how”, not “whether”. Likewise, evolution can be seen to occur in the micro scale, and strongly implied by historical evidence in the macro scale. The theory seeks to answer how it occurs, not whether it occurs.

    Creationist attempts to offer an alternative do not even reach the level of Theory, it is a mere hypothesis that is silly and irrelevant.

    A rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian would pose some intersting questions about our understanding of rabbits and mammalian history, but would not disprove evolution.

    (“D”, merely repeating the Original Sin silliness does not make it true. You need to examine your arguments more closely.)

  90. evanescent Says:

    Darren said:

    Incidentally, the analogy to gravity is not very good. Gravity is not a theory, it’s demonstrably true. The theory of gravity is to answer the question “why/how”, not “whether”. Likewise, evolution can be seen to occur in the micro scale, and strongly implied by historical evidence in the macro scale. The theory seeks to answer how it occurs, not whether it occurs.

    Hi Darren! I disagree with you:

    Fact: two objects in the universe attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

    That’s gravity. That’s a fact. That will always happen whether we use the Theory of Heavy Fairies or the Theory of Gravity. Therefore, the word ‘gravity’ can therefore to a fact or a scientific theory. It’s the same with evolution.

    I think the analogy to gravity is actually very good because both are just as certain, and clearly demonstratable, whilst the explanations for both (physics and life) have varied over time. In my opinion gravity theory has had modified far more extensively than evolution, and we understood the workings of evolution better than gravity.

    You are right that a creation hypothesis is silly and irrelevant, but even if it wasn’t it still wouldn’t be science, because creationism is a supernatural metaphysical theory that (as long as it is self-consistent) is unfalsifiable.

    Geno said:

    Not only are you guys lemmings (oops, I meant disciples) but you now have your own uniforms

    Yeah that’s right Geno, because fans of a particular person, club, band etc, never wear objects of fandom do they? Hmmm. At least the objects of fandom such as people like Dawkins ACTUALLY EXIST!

    Your cognitive dissonance is staggering; how many Christians wear idols (isn’t that wrong??) of a dead crucified carpenter around their neck who impregnanted a virgin with himself, to kill himself, to appease himself, so he could forgive mankind. Ah Christianity – a constant source of amusement!

  91. Darren Says:

    Hi Evanescent.

    Oops. I should have deleted the first sentence from that paragraph (hey, it was about 5am when I hit submit). Actually, I think we agree. When I started the thought, I was trying to say that gravity is a fact, as you say, and the Theory seeks to explain the how and why. I was going to then follow up with “evolution is not yet proven fact”, but I changed my mind, so the end of that paragraph doesn’t agree with the beginning. :)

    Here’s another way of what I’m trying to say: Hypothesis, Theory and Fact are different towns along the Knowledge Highway. Gravity is a permanent resident of Fact; evolution is somewhere along the route between Theory and Fact, I would say. Creationism, meanwhile, is still stuck out of State in the village of Wild Guess, wondering which way to hold the map…

  92. Geno Says:

    Darren & evanescent,
    Why is it that when religious people disagree it’s because we can’t get our stories straight and we are idiots, but when you 2 disagree (as above) over “proven fact” you guys are noble? I think it is rank hypocrisy on your part and you guys are just daze and confused while you make it up as you go.

    Darren,
    Your initial comment yesterday ““…I am in the science field …” I’m having a hard time believing this. Care to elaborate?”

    I assumed that you had problems with my comment because you find it hard to believe that anyone could have a dissenting opinion and not get kicked out of the club. I posted the list just to show that not everyone walks in lock step to the evolution masters and not everyone worries for their funding – some of us do some independent thinking.

  93. evanescent Says:

    Hi Darren.

    Again, I would have to disagree with you, as would most evolutionists.

    There is absolutely no doubt that species are commonly descended. Common descent is a fact. That species arise from other species is also a fact.

    How that exactly works is what the theory is all about. The Theory of Evolution will never be a fact, because scientific theories never become facts. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Just as the current theory of gravity explains the fact of gravitational attraction.

  94. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    The uniform thing was a joke. It was meant for Spanish as a reply to one of his comments. I saw it on his web site and thought, this guy is quite the capitalist – he gets $20 out of you so you can walk around and advertise his web site.

  95. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    Why is it that when religious people disagree it’s because we can’t get our stories straight and we are idiots, but when you 2 disagree (as above) over “proven fact” you guys are noble?

    Simple. Because when religious people disagree they fight and kill each other.

    When religious people disagree there is no objective way to know who is right. They ALL think they’re right and will not be proven wrong.

    I might be wrong. Darren might be wrong. If I proved Darren wrong (as above) he would say “oh yes you’re right evanescent, I see where you’re coming from now”. And I would gladly do the same in reverse.

    Proper scientists and rationalists are glad to be proven wrong. All we ask for is evidence.

    The difference with science arguments is that THERE IS a way to decide! We can look at evidence and facts to come to a conclusion. One of us wins and one of us admits defeat. But with religion, there are no facts to prove anything, and the facts against religion are just ignored!

    Religion doesn’t work like science. Disagreement in science promotes better thought. Disagreement in religion results in violence and death.

    (Of course, if you knew as much about science as you claim, you wouldn’t need me to explain that to you. ;) )

  96. Geno Says:

    Darren & evanescent,
    darren said “A rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian would pose some intersting questions about our understanding of rabbits and mammalian history, but would not disprove evolution.”

    evanescent said (on Monday) – “if rabbit fossils were found in the Precambrian era, that would completely disprove evolution.”

    I am trying to learn here – which is it?

    Like I argued yesterday, Dawkins says both.

  97. evanescent Says:

    You’re right, the text is confusing. In my original article I should have been more clear, although the point has already been explained since then so you should still have understood by now! ;)

    The point I was making is that evolution can be proven wrong. There could be evidence against it, e.g.: rabbit fossils in the wrong places. Also, I should clarify, Dawkins didn’t use the words that it ‘would completely disprove evolution’. He quoted Haldane whose exact words were “would blow evolution out of the water.” It is hyperbole to prove a point; I did the same in my article.

    It is clear like I explained, that one piece of evidence against evolution does not compare to all the thousands of pieces in favour of it. That is what Dawkins is saying. So he wouldn’t totally reject it based on one piece of evidence, but he would seek a natural explanation. That explanation might be a change to the theory, or a new theory… but it must be scientific.

    You’re correct though the language has been confusing. What I probably should have said: “..that would be evidence against evolution”. Although in my defence, I was quoting someone else’s opinion, who was probably exaggerating.

    It was good of you to bring this point up. You were logical, concise, and backed up your points with quotations. Very good.

    I hoped I’ve cleared up the issue now so there is no more confusion.

  98. D Says:

    I’ve already refuted YOUR anti-free will argument. Let’s break this down into smaller, simpler, easier-to-understand-peices.

    1. God is all-powerful

    2. God is all-knowing

    Through this you think that God should have made humans mindless zombies that did whatever God wanted. Ok, we’ve cleared up your side of the argument, now let me explain mine.

    3. God is all-loving (that means God loves us unconditionally)

    Because God is all-loving, He created us with the ability to create our own decisions. If He took it away, or never gave it to us, He probably would be capable of unconditional love, which contradicts, since He is all-powerful. If He was capable of unconditional love, but didn’t create humans with the ability of free will, He wouldn’t love us unconditionally. He might love something else unconditionally. Humans happened to be the ones whom He loved unconditionally, therefore we received the ability of free will.
    Your idea of a perfect God is a God who creates humans without the ability of free will. This means you think God should have made humans a bunch of mindless zombies who couldn’t decide for themselves. Some idea of a perfect God you’ve got there.

    “If you want to be taken seriously D, you need to understand the issues about which you are talking.”

    As do you. I do, you, on the other hand…

    Science?! Now science is absolute truth?! I thought you said that science isn’t absolutely true; that it’s just the best explanation we can come up with through testing.
    You do realize that logic is different than science, not only that, but logic can prove things that science can’t. Some numbers can’t be tested. In the same way, some events can’t be tested, such as the origin of the earth. I can give many examples where logic can prove things that science can’t, but what’s the use if you won’t answer them validly?

    I’m sorry to say this, but science isn’t the only way to prove something. There are alternatives. One being logic. Have you read C.S. Lewis’s book, “Mere Christianity”? You should read it, then tell me that science proves everything.

    Just so you know — and I know what your reaction will be to this — I’m praying for you.

  99. ianheath653 Says:

    Good post. I’ve lived most of my life not far from now-infamous Dover, Pennsylvania, where the former school board tried to foist intelligent design upon its district’s science classes. If you ever wanted some long, but good reading of a legal opinion on the subject, I’d suggest checking out the federal judge’s decision in the case. The tone of it gets pretty harsh towards the ID people. I think there’s still a PDF of it at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

  100. evanescent Says:

    @ D:

    I’m sorry Derek but you’re not saying anything new.

    You can try and twist it all you want but at the end of the day, god is all knowing and god is all-powerful, which means nothing happens without his approval. If god knows our future actions with absolute certainty then free will does not exist. This is basic philosophy. There’s nothing more to be said on this.

    Science isn’t absolute truth. I’ve already said this to you. Science is the best method for discovering facts in the world. Science is based on evidence and facts. Faith isn’t. Science is predicated on logic. Faith isn’t. If you have some special kind of logic that is beyond science then present it at a science conference: perhaps a Noble Prize awaits!

    What you need to understand is that dogma and belief is not proof. Proof is evidence and facts. You have no proof and evidence of your belief, so until you do, you can’t expect anyone to respect your god more than the Loch Ness monster.

    As for praying for me, I said things like that to people before when I used to be a Christian, and I didn’t realise how incredibly ignorant and patronising it was. I just thought I’d let you know…

    @ Ianheath:

    Cheers for the comment and the link! :)

  101. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    The uniform thing was a joke. It was meant for Spanish as a reply to one of his comments. I saw it on his web site and thought, this guy is quite the capitalist – he gets $20 out of you so you can walk around and advertise his web site.

    What? Are you against capitalism too?

    What’s your point vis a vis the topic? You keep spending time attacking the messenger, and not the message. Who cares what Dawkins is selling?

    You have proof that contradicts evolution? Put up or shut up.

  102. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Ian

    I live near you, and attended one day of the Dover trial.

    Judge Jones’ opinion was quite good, I agree.

    If you’re interested, read Monkey Girl. It has a very good explanation of the conflict between science and religion in the context of evolution, and the trial also. It’s well written to boot.

  103. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    You know that by your ground rules it is impossible to prove evolution wrong. By the statements here and Dawkins himself, if the evidence were presented, it would be labeled a hoax and/or you would switch your views to alien created evolution (to quote Dawkins.)

    Rabbits in the pre cambrian both prove and disprove evolution – how can I offer anything when nothing is accepted.

    I have said it before, show me our common ancestor that everyone here keeps touting – that should be simple (not all the way back to the single cell, just the one we share with, let’s just use our ape cousins.) – there, I gave you an easy one.

  104. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    I’ll try one more time, then that’s it.

    Let’s say that I was going to ask you an arbitrary question with a choice of answers, for example a number between 1 and 10 (not that, but something like that). Now, you don’t know what your decision is going to be yet, because you don’t know what the choices are. I don’t know your decision either, because I have no way of knowing the future i.e. which of the arbitrary options you will choose, once I’ve asked you the question.

    Now, let me ask you: does God know what your choice will be? There are only two possible answers.

    1. “No”. Then he’s not omniscient, and therefore not perfect.

    2. “Yes”. Then your decision has been predetermined by God. If God knows the answer that you’re going to give to a question that you haven’t even been asked yet, then how can you possibly be making a free choice? You didn’t exist at the start of the universe. If God created everything knowing every decision you would ever make, then he has predertermined your decisions for you, and you don’t have free will.

    Short of translating it into another language, I don’t know how else to put it. Please, PLEASE, don’t just repeat your drivel again. Actually refute what I’ve said.

  105. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    I would like to take a shot at this;
    “2. “Yes”. Then your decision has been predetermined by God. If God knows the answer that you’re going to give to a question that you haven’t even been asked yet, then how can you possibly be making a free choice? You didn’t exist at the start of the universe. If God created everything knowing every decision you would ever make, then he has predetermined your decisions for you, and you don’t have free will.”

    God is outside of time. God created time. With that having been said, God knows by foreknowledge rather than determination.
    Look at it like this – say that human history is like watching a parade. We, finite people sit and watch. What is in front of us is the present, what has already gone by is the past and the tail end of the parade is the future. So, we see in past, present and future.

    God however (remember, this is only an analogy) is watching the parade from a helicopter. He sees the whole parade – there is no past present or future. God see it before we do therefore he knows but did not necessarily cause.

    I can tell that you don’t have kids. There are plenty of times that they would come running into the room and I yell out “you’re going to knock over the lamp!” and they do. Did I know by foreknowledge (because I could see it happen) or did I cause them to knock over the lamp?

    So, now you know how God can know everything but not cause it.
    Ask me about middle knowledge – that will really blow your mind! ;)

  106. tobe38 Says:

    @ Geno

    God is outside of time. God created time. With that having been said, God knows by foreknowledge rather than determination.

    This is exactly what I meant about starting with the conclusion and working back to the evidence. You’re defining God the way it suits you to try and account for problems like the one that I’ve presented. “Foreknowledge rather than determination”, what does that even mean? Whether God is inside or outside of time, we are inside it – and if someone knows, for an absolute fact what decision you are going to make about something you haven’t even been asked yet, then you do not have a free choice. It doesn’t matter where God is, if someone knows the future before it’s happened, then it has been predetermined. That’s logic, and you haven’t dealt with it.

    Look at it like this – say that human history is like watching a parade. We, finite people sit and watch. What is in front of us is the present, what has already gone by is the past and the tail end of the parade is the future. So, we see in past, present and future.

    God however (remember, this is only an analogy) is watching the parade from a helicopter. He sees the whole parade – there is no past present or future. God see it before we do therefore he knows but did not necessarily cause.

    I don’t find this analogy helpful. A birdseye view is just another view of the parade in terms of space, not time – you would still have to stay there for a period of time in order to watch the ‘whole’ parade.

    Also, God would have caused everything to happen, because he made the universe knowing everything that would happen, which can only mean that he made it so that everything would happen the way he wanted it to. If anything happened that he didn’t want to happen, he wouldn’t be perfect – there would be a way of improving the universe from his point of view. It doesn’t matter where God ‘watches’ it from, it’s all playing out the way knew it would – the way he created it.

    Even if the analogy worked, it doesn’t prove anything. You have a habit of trying to make arguments out of analogies, and that’s a fallacy. Analogies are for explaining, not arguing.

    I can tell that you don’t have kids. There are plenty of times that they would come running into the room and I yell out “you’re going to knock over the lamp!” and they do. Did I know by foreknowledge (because I could see it happen) or did I cause them to knock over the lamp?

    You didn’t know that they would knock over the lamp at all, you just thought you did and when it happened it reinforced your feeling that you know. If you’d have said “you’re going to knock over the lamp” and then they didn’t, you would just forget about it. Read about confirmation bias.

    So, now you know how God can know everything but not cause it.

    No, I don’t. Neither do you. You’ve obfuscated like crazy but not actually dealt with what I’ve said – something you’ve grown fond of accusing other people of doing lately.

    Ask me about middle knowledge – that will really blow your mind! ;)

    I’m sure it will – seeing how creative Christians can be to keep their beliefs in tact always blows my mind ;)

  107. evanescent Says:

    Geno, once again you’ve seriously disappointed me. I explained to you the disparity between the opinions on rabbit fossils. But, because you’ve got your teeth into something you think is right, you won’t let it go. Well, it’s been explained to you. But, as per usual, you ignore the refutation, then pretend nothings ever been said, only to repeat the same old rubbish to the next person. It’s tiresome, and it’s a sign of serious mental compartmentalism. If you were this out of touch with reality in any other setting, you would be referred to a psychologist.

    As for free will and foreknowledge, Tobe’s explained this, (quite comprehensively and eloquently) twice now, and I did earlier. Theists: if you have nothing new to say it’s probably better off not saying anything.

    I recommend reading some basic philosophy.

    I intend to post a new article on free will soon – comments about forethought can be made there. This article is about ‘ID is not science’. Let’s restrict our comments to that subject.

  108. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    I wasn’t addressing you. I was attempting to get Spanish to answer a question.
    He lays out a challenge, sets up his false “proof” criteria then sits back and using his best scientific terminology says Ha! Ha!.

    But I still wonder why none of you will answer my question. If no one knows who the common ancestor is, just say I don’t know!. If you do know give me the name of this creature. There is no middle ground.

    I am proposing that with no answer, that is the way you guys use your own “God of the gaps.”

    That is also the origination that evolutionist make up the stories about our commonality with chimps in DNA and chromosomes. (you know the story 98% match in our genome and “hey we are close 46 to 48 chromosomes”.)

  109. evanescent Says:

    I wasn’t addressing you. I was attempting to get Spanish to answer a question.
    He lays out a challenge, sets up his false “proof” criteria then sits back and using his best scientific terminology says Ha! Ha!.

    It doesn’t matter who you were addressing. I very politely explained the matter to you because you seemed genuinely puzzled and seeking answers. You then ignored my response and replied to Span Inq as if I’d said nothing. (A tactic you use often).

    Humans DNA does match 98.4% of chimp DNA. What’s your point?

    As for the rest of your comment, it is irrelevant to a discussion of ID not being science.

  110. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Geno

    You know that by your ground rules it is impossible to prove evolution wrong.

    I did not ask you to disprove evolution. I simply asked for your evidence that contradicts it. Just one piece of evidence. For instance, that rabbit. IS there one in the pre-Cambrian? (The Answer, so far,is NO)

    I’m not setting up any ground rules. We are using science. 150 years of science has provided reams and reams of evidence that support evolution. That evidence overwhelmingly explains the origins of species. No other evidence has been presented to contradict it. None. I asked you for one simple example of evidence to the contrary. One. That’s all. How hard is that? If you have it, let us know. If not, say there is none.

    It’s really that simple.

    But I still wonder why none of you will answer my question. If no one knows who the common ancestor is, just say I don’t know!. If you do know give me the name of this creature. There is no middle ground.

    I’ll answer it because I know. His name was Fred. He was married to Wilma, they had a daughter named Pebbles. His best friend was Barney. Now, disprove me.

    My answer is purposely facetious, because your inquiry is purposely facetious. We do know that there was a common ancestor, because the DNA evidence points to it. We do know that she lived approximately 6-7 million years ago. We even know what continent she lived on.

    Actually, as I understand it, there is no one common ancestor. There is a population of common ancestors that evolved separate from another related population, with the two populations ultimately evolving into chimps and humans respectively. (That’s simply put – it’s a little more complex than that). As you know, natural selection works on populations, not individuals.

    So asking who our common ancestor is, is as facetious a question as my answer.

  111. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    My response to Spanish was based on his challenge – “You have proof that contradicts evolution? Put up or shut up.”
    My argument to the question is that evolution is no more science than ID. Therefore, my whole discussion is all about ID.

    The ONLY difference between ID and what you call “real science” is that you say the man descended from other creatures. When I refute back that you have no more evidence for a common ancestor than I do for the questions you ask about ID, we are at a standoff. At best we are both at the stage of making assertions and that is it.

    As to the DNA matches, let me just state that the figure is totally bogus. Can you site for me the study when the chimp genome was mapped out as was the human genome? If it has not been done (which it hasn’t) then how was the comparison done?
    In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man’s, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

    This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee.
    However there are about 100,000 genes, and therefore 100,000 proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

    So, for right now you can say that the similarity is less than 98% of 1% – not much to extrapolate to common ancestry.

    As far as the studies on chromosomes, let’s see, humans have 46, the ape types have 48 and the potato has 48. Perhaps man was created as a man and the apes developed from the potato ;)

  112. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    “I’ll answer it because I know. His name was Fred. He was married to Wilma, they had a daughter named Pebbles. His best friend was Barney. Now, disprove me.”

    I saw the documentary “Flintsones The Movie” they were fully formed human beings! :-)

  113. evanescent Says:

    Geno, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: do your own research. Your knowledge of evolution is terrible. You have no excuse by now, how many times have people taken their time to explain it to you? (The entire genome doesn’t have to be mapped to compare DNA!! Forensic science was around long before the human genome project was completed! Your knowledge of science is awful. Why I am explaining science to a professor??. What university did you graduate from again..)

    No evidence for common descent? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent) Hahahahahaha!! This just PROVES that you don’t read what I write, and you’ve never ever researched it. Seriously Geno, why do you even bother commenting on my blog since you never read it?

    If you disagree with the genetic findings of top biologists, go to a conference and point out their mistake to them. Let me know how you get on…

  114. Darren Says:

    Geno said:
    “Why is it that when religious people disagree it’s because we can’t get our stories straight and we are idiots, but when you 2 disagree (as above) over “proven fact” you guys are noble? I think it is rank hypocrisy on your part and you guys are just daze and confused while you make it up as you go.”

    Simple. Religious people and ID proponents insist on presenting their dogmatic views as fact and twist their evidence, or lack thereof, to fit the initial assumption. Exactly the opposite of changing the conclusion to fit the evidence. The irony of your hypocrisy comment has probably not even occurred to you, has it?

    Evanescent said:
    “How that exactly works is what the theory is all about. The Theory of Evolution will never be a fact, because scientific theories never become facts. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Just as the current theory of gravity explains the fact of gravitational attraction.”

    Fair point. I went away and looked for some evidence of speciation events (this is where I was unclear in my own mind and led to some of the incomplete thoughts above), and I’m satisfied that evolution can be considered factual. For the record, evolution absolutely makes sense to me. I was never denying it.

  115. evanescent Says:

    What Darren said above is a perfect example of how science, and honest rational minds, should operate. Kudos.

  116. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    As far as the studies on chromosomes, let’s see, humans have 46, the ape types have 48 and the potato has 48. Perhaps man was created as a man and the apes developed from the potato

    You are aware that it has recently been discovered why we have 23 sets of chromosome, and chimps have 24, aren’t you? The answer was predicted by the theory of evolution, and the prediction has been born out. I’m presuming that you know about it, and as usual are assuming we don’t. If you honestly don’t, let me know, and I’ll dig out a cite for you.

  117. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    No, tell me about it!
    Of course I know we have 2 sets of 23 chromosomes. Watch this – 2 x 23 = 46

    So let’s see, we have the defective mutation of the 2nd chromosome (according to some) and we are the one’s who put men on the moon, discover cures for intense diseases, write poetry, while our “ancestor” with the perfect chromosomes, live in the forest trying to not get captured or eaten or they sit in zoos throwing their feces at one another. Again, it sounds to me that they are more like their chromosome sharing potato friends.

    But humans with “defective” chromosomes are lesser like Down Syndrome. Why didn’t they evolve up with their defectiveness?

    You guys are so caught up in your philosophy of scientism that you can’t see straight. Darren gets kudos for saying “For the record, evolution absolutely makes sense to me.” Since when is truth determined by “makes sense to me?”

  118. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    Just a quick answer to one of your questions – “What university did you graduate from again..)”
    I did my doctoral studies and my thesis in you neck of the woods – Durham in the mid 70s. Back when British universities were still respected. ;)

  119. D Says:

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has to approve of all that happens. If we didn’t have free will, He would, but we have free will, therefore He doesn’t.

    I guess I have to explain Creation all over again.

    (you really like the word “patronize” don’t you?)

    Of course you don’t like it when others tell you tthey’re praying for you. That’s the reaction I told you I expected.

    At least tobe offers a challenging argument

    never mind…

    Just because I know something will happen, doesn’t mean I have to approve of it. He’s a Father who allows His children to make their own decisions, and He hardly ever directly intervenes.

    Please don’t start repeating the same questions. Just give me a valid answer. That’s all you need to do. You obviously need to take your time and explain things, because you aren’t explaining enough. I STILL have the same answer as before.

  120. D Says:

    Let me set things straight; I’ve had about enough of this.

    YOUR ARGUMENT:

    “If God knows what’s going to happen, He’s predetermined it for us, which means He’s not perfect, which means you’re idiots because you’re wrong because God doesn’t exist.”

    MY ARGUMENT:

    God is all powerful therefore He can know everything, and He does know everything, including what our choices will be, even though we could do anything, leaving things unpredictable. God is all-powerful, so He can predict the unpredictable, but that doesn’t mean He chooses our choices for us. God can do the impossible, does the impossible, and that’s why we can’t explain this subject.

    _____________________________________________

    Now that I’ve cleared that up, would you like me to logically prove your scientific theories wrong?

  121. evanescent Says:

    Hi Derek,

    before you do what every theist has failed to do since people of intelligence stopped worshiping your make-believe god and burning people at the stake, or sending out crusades to convert heathens, or stifling advancement and progress for centuries, or coming up with the same old flawed illogical “proofs” for his existence that no one with a rudimentary understanding of logic and science actually accepts…and actually prove a scientific theory wrong, may I recommend a course in basic philosophy?

    You fail to understand free will and causality. If god can know with 100% certainty what our choices can be, that means our choices, although we may THINK we are choosing them, can never be anything else than what they are. In other words, free will is an illusion, and we live in a strictly deterministic universe in which the future is just a necessary consequence of the past. Therefore free will doesn’t exist, and your bronze age mythology is relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs.

  122. evanescent Says:

    @ Geno:

    No, Darren gets kudos for doing his research and admitting he was mistaken. If Darren proved me wrong, I’d happily accept it and admit my mistake.

    The point is, he went away and studied it for himself, then came back and admitted he was mistaken. Spot on. I admire that.

    So Geno, when you get back from your excavation and find rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian and disprove evolution, I’ll happily admit evolution is flawed and needs work, or just plain false.

    I don’t want to delay you any more with your research. Let me know how you get on with those rabbit fossils!

  123. tobe38 Says:

    Derek,

    Whatever you want to call your argument, don’t call it logic. You’re saying that God can defy logic, by doing the impossible. Do you mean impossible for us, or impossible for him? If Got can make us, make our decision, but then also let us make our decisions, then he’s working outside of logic. If you stick to your guns on this, then you have no right to dismiss arguments where God makes rocks so heavy he can’t lift them.

  124. D Says:

    evanescent:

    As I told escapedmentalpatient: You aren’t going to draw anyone into atheism with that attitude.

    How could you possibly prove free will is an illusion? You have nothing to back that up. Now you’re just creating a whole new religion, saying something else determines our fate for us.

  125. D Says:

    I didn’t say God makes our decisions. I said the opposite. I said He doesn’t make our decisions, He just knows what they will be, which is impossible with free will.

  126. D Says:

    If there wasn’t free will, we wouldn’t disagree. Whatever controlled us would control us to its benefits.

  127. evanescent Says:

    Derek said:

    How could you possibly prove free will is an illusion? You have nothing to back that up. Now you’re just creating a whole new religion, saying something else determines our fate for us.

    I’m not necessarily trying to draw anyone to atheism, D. Your first problem is that you live in a fantasy world. I can’t possibly help you until you leave it. Once that’s done, we can talk about whether there’s any gods or not.

    I am NOT saying that something else determines our fate. That is a separate debate. Free will may or may not exist, but it is a very complicated subject and too detailed to go into here. You are the one who believes in an omniscient being who knows the future with total certainty, and basic philosophy would tell you that this means free choices are an illusion. I suggest you read Wikipedia’s article on Free Will.

    You equate free will with control, which is a common misunderstanding with those who haven’t done their research, no offence.

    It’s not about control. If I KNOW with 100% certainty that D will choose spades over clubs, your “free” choice of either is an illusion. You may THINK your choice is free, but it isn’t really, since my foreknowledge cannot be wrong. It’s the same with god.

    Fortunately, since your god doesn’t exist, I am free to believe in free will!

  128. D Says:

    I already explained free will, I’m not doing it again. Just reread my comments with an OPEN MIND.

    Not true. If you KNOW with 100% certainty that I will choose spades, you aren’t forcing me, and if you are, that isn’t free will. In God’s case, free will can’t be an illusion, because He doesn’t control our actions, and nothing else can, because God created us so that we have free will, not so that something else takes us over and controls our actions.

  129. evanescent Says:

    Not true. If you KNOW with 100% certainty that I will choose spades, you aren’t forcing me, and if you are, that isn’t free will.

    Re-read what I said. Lack of free will isn’t about “control” in this case.

    In God’s case, free will can’t be an illusion, because He doesn’t control our actions, and nothing else can, because God created us so that we have free will

    Circular reasoning.

    not so that something else takes us over and controls our actions.

    You don’t have to be controlled. Free will is about having more than one choice. If your actions are known with certainty beforehand, then you have no REAL choice; no REAL free will, although you may THINK you do. Again, this is basic philosophy.

  130. D Says:

    If we don’t have free will, then we can’ t make our own decisions, and since we’re animated, and we’re doing things, if we don’t have free will, something has to be making us do the things we do.

    “Circular reasoning” That’s a really popular phrase now, and you just wanted to use it. Explain why it’s “circular reasoning.”

    We have free will, and our actions are unpredictable, but God predicts them, therefore He is doing the impossible.
    If we didn’t have free will, we wouldn’t be unpredictable. Assuming God exists (I believe He does), our fate is predetermined if we use your “philosophy.” If we take God out of the picture, we have free will, by your philosophy. This means that you think that if we know something 100%, that we have no free will.

    Just to give a scenario, let’s say that God sends me into the past. I now have the ability to change the events that previously happened. If this is so, free will must exist, because if two different things could happen, and both of them did, that means that either choice could have been made, making humans unpredictable, therefore proving that free will exists. Not to mention that while I’m in the past, I can know 100% what will happen, yet I can change what happens. Once again, I would be proving the existance of free will.

  131. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Spanish,
    No, tell me about it!
    Of course I know we have 2 sets of 23 chromosomes. Watch this – 2 x 23 = 46

    Typical Geno. {sigh}

    I know you knew that. I ask if you knew WHY?

    Do you?

  132. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Looks like we’re getting away from the topic again. E, you need to exercise some control as the owner of this blog. :)

    Free will? What does that have to do with Intelligent design and Evolution?

    That argument is a non-starter, for any proposition, Derrick. Who cares? Of course we have free will. I move my hands across this keyboard, it’s my will that chooses the keys. There is no sky daddy who already knows what I’m about to type. This whole “god is outside time” is a bunch of crap, if you ask me. It’s an esoteric, abstract concept used to somehow bolster your belief in that sky daddy. Nothing more. Besides, time is just a unit of measurement. Nothing can be “outside time”, not even your precious. Units of time were created by man to measure the passing of days and years. They are simply fractions of the time it take the earth to rotate on its axis, and the time it take
    the earth to revolve around the sun. The units will be different in other solar systems and galaxies.

    @Geno

    Still waiting for your evidence that contradicts evolution. {tap,tap,tap}. If you need some time, let me know.

  133. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    I told you the reason why you think we have 23 chromosomes and the chimps 24. I thought I stated it clearly – now tell the truth, did I use big words?
    “So let’s see, we have the defective mutation of the 2nd chromosome (according to some)”

  134. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    Why would I contradict evolution? I have stated many times I believe in evolution within species. My disagreement is about your relative evolving into mine.

    As I stated above, the fact that the chimp genome has not been mapped, it is impossible to compare more than the 1% available. So the 98% argument is bogus (in other words your fairy tail. Can you name me another study where you know everything about one subject you are testing and only 1% of the other? What kind of control is that.
    If I did that in a chem lab, we would probably have an explosion.

    I will subscribe to ID and you can hold on to your biological magic.

  135. evanescent Says:

    As I stated above, the fact that the chimp genome has not been mapped, it is impossible to compare more than the 1% available. So the 98% argument is bogus

    What’s this?? Geno raising the same flawed arguments with another person after it’s already been explained to him. What’s that medical term for forgetting all the time?…
    Perhaps you forgot when I said:

    The entire genome doesn’t have to be mapped to compare DNA!! Forensic science was around long before the human genome project was completed!

    That an entire genome has to be mapped to compare DNA is total and utter rubbish. Where is your scientific basis for that claim, or did you just make it up?

    My problem Geno, is that I took you at your word that you’d done some research and so uncritically accepted what you said. I know better now! For instance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

    Also, go to Google and type this in the search engine: “human chimp dna comparison”.

    You know how long that took me? 5 seconds. This R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H thing, you should definitely try it to avoid embarrassment. Anyway, I realise the DNA % thing was just a red herring to get us off track, but I couldn’t let your blatant misinformation go unanswered.

    As for debating “macro” evolution and not “micro”, you again demonstrate lack of understanding, which is exactly why I wrote this article the other day:

    http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/

    Maybe you should R-E-A-D it.

    Anyway, an evolutionary debate belongs in the article I linked to above.

    We’re all still waiting for proof that ID is science, or empirical evidence that supports creationism, or ANY evidence that contradicts evolution…

  136. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    told you the reason why you think we have 23 chromosomes and the chimps 24. I thought I stated it clearly – now tell the truth, did I use big words?
    “So let’s see, we have the defective mutation of the 2nd chromosome (according to some)”

    It’s much more than that. Your comment was an aside, not an answer to my question, but apparently you do have some knowledge of it. Don’t know what you mean by “According to some”, but apparently the ToE predicted that there had to be an explanation for the fact that humans had 23 and chimps 24 sets of chromosomes. If there was no explanation, then ultimately, it would be a major blow to the theory that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, because if we did, we also should have 24 chromosomes.

    Apparently, sometime after the split, our ancestors had two sets of chromosome fuse to each other. It was found that the markers that would ordinarily be found at the ends of the chromosome, were actually found in the middle, proving that we originally had 24 sets. Here is a more technical explanation (which I don’t even pretend to understand).

    It seems, Geno, that we have all this evidence in favor of it, and none against, yet people like you refuse to acknowledge it, instead relying on the fact that our knowledge isn’t 100% complete. Until we have 100% knowledge, you’ll stick with your religious beliefs, right? Be honest.

    I’ve asked this elsewhere. What is your response to the following statement:

    “My main objection to the Theory of Evolution is that it conflicts with my religious beliefs.”

    Agree or disagree?

  137. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    “My main objection to the Theory of Evolution is that it conflicts with my religious beliefs.”
    No, how about after studying the issue, it just does not make sense. I know that you find that hard to believe, but many do disagree.

    Now, your question can be turned around. When I ask (and I do speak at universities all over the US) people in science departments, “what is you first objection to intelligent design?” the response is rarely “it isn’t real science.” By far, the majority answer is “I cannot let God into my worldview.”

    So what’s the difference? My argument, all these many days is that we both operate on the basis of worldview to interpret our “so called science.” You can be a worldview denier if you wish, but you know it is true.

  138. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    No, how about after studying the issue, it just does not make sense.

    Fair enough. In what way does it not make sense? And why does the evidence for evolution not make sense to you?

  139. Geno Says:

    Spanish,
    I have company coming over for the afternoon. I will get back to you on you inquiry.

    No comment on the powerful place of worldviews?

  140. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    No comment on the powerful place of worldviews?

    I agree with you that if you interpret science on the basis of your worlview, then you are being just a bit disingenupous, and in fact, dishonest. Science is science. It stands or falls on the evidence regardless of how you interpret it. In fact, if your interpretation involves anything but an evaluation of the merits of the evidence for or against, then you are not doing science.

    Which is my main beef with people who reject scienctific evidence becuase it conflicts with what the Bible says.

    And I don’t reject ID because “I can’t let God into my worldview”. I don’t know any atheist that does. Rejection of the God hypothesis is based on the lack of evidence, not the other way around. In other words. ID is rejected because there is no evidence in it’s favor, not because it posits god as the designer.

    I still suspect that evolution doesn’t make sense to you because of your preconceived notions of the place of god in the equation. Take him out. Does evolution make sense then? If not, why not?

  141. D Says:

    Span.

    Time isn’t a unit of measurement. Time is a “nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.”

    Please, my name is spelled out for you, there’s no reason to misspell it.

    I wasn’t talking to you when I talked about free will. I never said we didn’t have free will. I said we HAVE free will.

    ___________________________________________
    Everyone except Geno-

    What’s your hypothesis on how the earth came around? I don’t care if you have to make another post, just answer the question, please. I left Geno out because I already know Geno’s answer.

  142. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Sorry Derek, on the spelling thing. I was typing from memory, which is not perfect, unlike god’s. :)

    On the time thing, you seem to agree with people that think time is something like a container. If it’s like a container in which events occur, then you believe God can be outside that container, looking in, right? If that’s the case he can see the past, present and future, all at the same time, as in your parade metaphor. To him, it’s all the like the present is to us, because he can see it now.

    If that’s the case, then as far as he’s concerned, the future is fixed. And if it’s fixed, it can’t be changed, or else he’s looking at multiple, maybe infinite, variations on the future of everything. If that’s the case, it’s so mind boggling that it’s simply put, impossible. Impossible, because it would require God to spend all of his time (which of course he’s outside of, whatever the hell that means) constantly monitoring an infinite number of possible future scenarios for ch and every human. Including those that have not even been born yet.

    But if we have free will, then we will take one action, and only one, in any future scenario. And if that’s the case, and god knows what it is in advance, and will not change our free will, then it is, for all practical purposes, the same as if it was pre-determined. It has already happened in the future. God won’t or can’t change it. In effect, it negates free will, in a vicious little cycle of logic.

    Don’t you find this all to be a really complex form of rationalizing something that is, in fact, far simpler to understand? As I said, it’s just esoteric, abstract nonsense. Pure rationalization of something that cannot be explained any other way. It has no bearing on the lives of humans. I’d go with Occam on this one, and use his Razor. There is no need to have a god. His presence in the scenario just overly complicates reality.

    We have free will to do as we please. End of story. You want to believe that nonsense, go at it. Just keep me out of it.

  143. D Says:

    It isn’t the same as predetermination, Spanish. Remember my back-in-time example? I explained how there are infinite possibilities of what actions humans can take. If things were predetermined, and assuming God exists, you wouldn’t be against Christianity. Everyone would be pointed toward the same purpose, not headed in different directions. As I said before: Yes, I believe in free will. No, I don’t believe that having an all-powerful God contradicts that. I’ve also backed that up with logic. By the way, I didn’t bring you into the subject, you jumped in yourself.
    _____________________________________________

    To: everyone except Geno

    God’s presence simplifies reality. It is the only good explanation of how the earth came around, and we can’t come up with a scientific answer for where Singularity came from because it is scientifically impossible. If something can’t come from nothing, then science itself contradicts. Where did science come from if something can’t come from nothing? When it comes down to it, everything had to come from something that didn’t come from anything. To say that would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement, but to say science itself exists would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement. If the answer to where everything (or anything at all) came from must be un-scientific, then we have to quit relying on science for everything.
    It’s scientifically proven that we exist, but we can’t scientifically prove where we came from.
    This is why I’m just going to stick to using logic.

  144. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    It isn’t the same as predetermination, Spanish.

    Yes, it is. Saying it doesn’t make it so!

    I explained how there are infinite possibilities of what actions humans can take.

    But if God knows what action we will take, and he cannot be wrong, there is only ever ONE action a human can take.

    As I said before: Yes, I believe in free will. No, I don’t believe that having an all-powerful God contradicts that.

    And you can believe in square circles if you want, but believing it doesn’t make it true.

    I’ve also backed that up with logic.

    Really? Then you’re about to make philosophical history.

    God’s presence simplifies reality. It is the only good explanation of how the earth came around.

    Incorrect. It doesn’t explain anything and creates more mysteries. ‘Simple’ is not the same as simple-minded.

    and we can’t come up with a scientific answer for where Singularity came from because it is scientifically impossible.

    Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps reasoning.

    If something can’t come from nothing, then science itself contradicts.

    Where did god come from?

    Where did science come from if something can’t come from nothing?

    Where did god come from?

    When it comes down to it, everything had to come from something that didn’t come from anything.

    So god came from nothing?

    To say that would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement, but to say science itself exists would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement. If the answer to where everything (or anything at all) came from must be un-scientific, then we have to quit relying on science for everything.

    Non Sequitor and False Dichotomy.

    It’s scientifically proven that we exist, but we can’t scientifically prove where we came from.

    Incorrect. We have scientifically proven where humans came from. How life got started is a problem we’re still working on. We might never solve the problem, true. But that doesn’t mean that Fairies made the earth, any more than it means your Bronze Age God of Wars who hates foreskins and women got it started.

    This is why I’m just going to stick to using logic.

    Anytime you’d like to start would be good.

  145. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Derek

    and assuming God exists

    and

    This is why I’m just going to stick to using logic.

    These are two diametrically opposing thoughts. How do you accomplish that?

    You cannot assume the existence of god. You must prove it, or you are not, I repeat, NOT, using logic. You cannot assume the existence of god to prove a supernatural explanation for anything. Otherwise, you’ve assumed the explanation you’re trying to illustrate. First you need to prove the supernatural entity or force, or whatever, actually exists.

    In your statement above, existence would not be predetermined unless there WAS a supernatural entity. If there wasn’t, who would do the predetermining?

    By the way, I didn’t bring you into the subject, you jumped in yourself.

    This is the second time you’ve implied that I shouldn’t be commenting on this. I was under the impression that this was an open comment thread. I think it’s up to evanescent to moderate, if that’s even necessary, not you.

  146. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    {Jeez! I did it again. These frigging blockquotes. You ca tell I’m not HTML proficient. There’s gotta be an easier way. :)
    E, delete the last comment again. Sorry}

    Derek

    and assuming God exists

    and

    This is why I’m just going to stick to using logic.

    These are two diametrically opposing thoughts. How do you accomplish that?

    You cannot assume the existence of god. You must prove it, or you are not, I repeat, NOT, using logic. You cannot assume the existence of god to prove a supernatural explanation for anything. Otherwise, you’ve assumed the explanation you’re trying to illustrate. First you need to prove the supernatural entity or force, or whatever, actually exists.

    In your statement above, existence would not be predetermined unless there WAS a supernatural entity. If there wasn’t, who would do the predetermining?

    By the way, I didn’t bring you into the subject, you jumped in yourself.

    This is the second time you’ve implied that I shouldn’t be commenting on this. I was under the impression that this was an open comment thread. I think it’s up to evanescent to moderate, if that’s even necessary, not you.

  147. D Says:

    evanescent,

    Of course there is only ONE action we will take, but infinite actions we CAN take, and God knows them all, and knows which one we will take, even though He doesn’t decide our decisions, He KNOWS them. As I said, humans are unpredictable, but that’s where God’s ALL-POWERFUL part comes in.

    It doesn’t matter that you believe the opposite of what I believe, that doesn’t make your idea true either. I’ve explained my side of the argument as well as you, only better, in my opinion.

    ok, having a God creates more mysteries. It doesn’t create more mysteries about how the universe came to be. Creationism makes less mysteries than any “scientific” theories I’ve heard.

    “Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps reasoning.”

    Well, if you have an answer for that one, please tell me. You can’t call someone an idiot for saying one thing, but then have no proof (logical or scientific) for your own.

    God didn’t HAVE to come from anything. Note the word, “eternal.” That means He has no beginning, and has no end, and because there is nothing else that is eternal, He IS the beginning and the end. Something that is eternal requires no beginning. When I say, “came from nothing,” I mean either came from nothing, or didn’t come from anything.

    What? Nothing to back up your stupid claims? Hate for women? Where did that come from. The Bible specifically mentions that women are equal with men. If you’re going to accuse someone of something, you need to do your research first.

    ______________________________________________

    Spanish,

    Have you never heard the phrase, “assuming…”? What I was saying is, “If we put God into the picture, what would that change?” Really, is it okay to say, “if God didn’t exist…,” but not okay to say, “If God exists…”?

    I did not imply that you shouldn’t comment on this. You said that I brought you into it, and I told you that you were wrong, and why. Don’t take that the wrong way. Where is the first implication?
    _____________________________________________
    evanescent,

    Stop using this as your argument: “You’re wrong.”
    So far, that has been your argument, and don’t say other wise. Let me give you some examples:

    “Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps reasoning.”

    “And you can believe in square circles if you want, but believing it doesn’t make it true.”

    “Non Sequitor and False Dichotomy.”

    Those are your arguments. All on the same comment. Referring to the second one I mentioned, were you even reading my comments? I explained it all pretty well. Referring to the third one: I don’t know what those words mean, not because I’m stupid, but because I don’t think I’m ever going to need to use them, and besides, it sounds like the same argument you’ve been giving me: “No. You’re wrong. Everything you say is false, and based off of a fairy tale…etc.”

    Please provide a better argument.

  148. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Of course there is only ONE action we will take, but infinite actions we CAN take, and God knows them all, and knows which one we will take, even though He doesn’t decide our decisions, He KNOWS them. As I said, humans are unpredictable, but that’s where God’s ALL-POWERFUL part comes in.

    Humans aren’t unpredictable though if god can predict with certainty in advance!

    There are not infinite actions we can take because there can only be one.

    I’m going to say this one more time: It’s not about control or god deciding our actions. IF we live in a universe where our actions are KNOWABLE with 100% CERTAINTY beforehand, our free will is an illusion. Since god’s foreknowledge cannot be mistaken, our actions must necessarily be a certain way.

    This is basic philosophy. I can’t just keep repeating myself. I know you really really don’t want it to be true, but it is. But that’s your problem because your god contradicts free will. It’s not my problem because I don’t believe in it! Did you read the article on Free Will I suggested on Wikipedia??

    It doesn’t matter that you believe the opposite of what I believe, that doesn’t make your idea true either.

    Very true. What does make me right is that logic and evidence are on my side.

    I’ve explained my side of the argument as well as you, only better, in my opinion.

    Repeating the same flawed arguments after they’ve been defeated is not better.

    ok, having a God creates more mysteries. It doesn’t create more mysteries about how the universe came to be. Creationism makes less mysteries than any “scientific” theories I’ve heard.

    Really? Where did AIDS come from? Human tailbones? Appendices? Whale hind legs? The blind spot in the human eye? A 16 billion year old universe MADE JUST FOR humans. A planet made for humans when we can’t live in 80% on it.

    Creationism is the child’s answer to difficult questions. It pretends to explain all yet understands nothing. “god did it” might just as well be “santa did it”.

    And if you don’t think science answers questions correctly, maybe you just don’t understand science. There’s nothing I can do about that.

    “Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps reasoning.”

    Well, if you have an answer for that one, please tell me. You can’t call someone an idiot for saying one thing, but then have no proof (logical or scientific) for your own.

    I didn’t call you an idiot. I’m saying that your reasoning is riddled with logical fallacies.

    God didn’t HAVE to come from anything. Note the word, “eternal.” That means He has no beginning, and has no end, and because there is nothing else that is eternal, He IS the beginning and the end. Something that is eternal requires no beginning. When I say, “came from nothing,” I mean either came from nothing, or didn’t come from anything.

    Ok here goes: my god is called Evan. Evan is true and is the only god, which means all other gods must be false. That’s logic isn’t it? If Evan is the ONLY god, that means your god cannot exist! Evan has no beginning. He has always existed and always will.

    See what I did there? I defined a god into existence, which by definition, means yours doesn’t exist. Of course, Evan doesn’t exist. But then, neither does yours. You can’t just define god as you see fit and use that as an argument.

    Your causality argument is self-contradictory. If the complexity of the universe requires a creator, then the incredibly complex creator requires one too. You can’t escape this.

    What? Nothing to back up your stupid claims? Hate for women? Where did that come from. The Bible specifically mentions that women are equal with men. If you’re going to accuse someone of something, you need to do your research first.

    Haha. Ok, before I go any further Derek and use your own bible to disprove you I want you to be categorical now: you are saying that the bible says women are equal with men?? I’ll give you a chance to do your own research and retract this statement before I reply, how’s that?

    Stop using this as your argument: “You’re wrong.”

    It’s not an argument, it’s a statement.

    So far, that has been your argument, and don’t say other wise. Let me give you some examples:

    “Argument from Ignorance and God of the Gaps reasoning.”

    “And you can believe in square circles if you want, but believing it doesn’t make it true.”

    “Non Sequitor and False Dichotomy.”

    Those are your arguments. All on the same comment.

    They aren’t arguments. I am picking out the fallacies in your reasoning.

    Referring to the second one I mentioned, were you even reading my comments? I explained it all pretty well.

    You may have explained yourself well, but that doesn’t make you right. You need to learn Derek that you just might be wrong! I always read everything you write and take it all in, but your reasoning is full of errors. I’m sorry if you don’t like it when I point them out.

    Referring to the third one: I don’t know what those words mean, not because I’m stupid, but because I don’t think I’m ever going to need to use them, and besides, it sounds like the same argument you’ve been giving me: “No. You’re wrong. Everything you say is false, and based off of a fairy tale…etc.”

    Please provide a better argument.

    Derek, you say you want to use logic in your arguments, but you have no knowledge of logical fallacies? How can you value logic so highly, yet not understand a properly structured argument?

    In the nicest possible way, in the spirit of good will, I suggest you go to Wikipedia, and type in “logical fallacies” and learn some of them.

    If you are going to debate with atheists online seriously, you will come across these expressions all the time; no one wants to explain an entire fallacy every time they come across it! So we use the names of them when they are encountered. It’s assumed that debaters will know what they mean. I apologise if you don’t, but that should inspire you to learn them, so when I use expressions like:

    Begging the question
    Affirming the consequent
    The regressive fallacy
    Post hoc reasoning

    Etc, you will know they mean.

  149. D Says:

    Why do you think that I pointed out ALL-POWERFUL? I’ll explain it a little better. Humans are unpredictable except to God who is all-powerful. That’s where the all-powerful part comes in.

    Don’t make me go through that whole back-in-time thing again, this is getting a little ridiculous, now you’re just repeating yourself. I’ve already explained free will. Don’t make me write a whole post on it.

    I would appreciate it if you actually started using the logic you supposedly have on your side.

    I’m going to have to quote myself if this goes any further, because you haven’t pointed out any flaws in my argument, nor are there any. Please reread my arguments before I have to put them all together, and then explain everything all at once.

    yeah, I’m definitely just going to have to give you a collection of posts I’ve made in the past. I’ll try to get them to you in the next comment, as for now…

    Just so you know, as you obviously don’t, Christianity doesn’t base on its beliefs solely on the fact that there is a God. Christians only care if you believe in God, believe He sent His son to die for us, and then accept Him. Christianity is the only religion to do that. As long as you believe that, it doesn’t matter if you call God Evan or not.

    But you HAVEN’T pointed out my errors, and if you have, you haven’t explained if and/or why they were wrong. How is someone supposed to know if they are wrong if no one tells them if and/or why?

    “You can’t escape this.” Actually, I already told you the eternal thing, there’s no other way. I’ve gone into deep thought with this, and there’s no way to explain how the earth got here scientifically. Everything points to there being something that isn’t subject to time, therefore there must be something outside of time that provided the needs for the universe. I can’t think of any other way, and neither has/will anyone else. Science in itself contradicts.

    Yes, God created women equally. I already know many verses you will take out of context and use, so don’t think I haven’t already figured that one out. It isn’t ignorance within my own beliefs, I’ve looked at the subject before.

    Most of the time, as I’ve learned with you, a hindu, and several other atheists, fallacies need explanation. I’ve had to repeat myself several times here.

    I’m out of time, now, but I’ll get a collection of links together as soon as possible.

  150. evanescent Says:

    Why do you think that I pointed out ALL-POWERFUL? I’ll explain it a little better. Humans are unpredictable except to God who is all-powerful. That’s where the all-powerful part comes in.

    Exactly. So god can predict human actions with 100% certainty, so let’s say you have options A, B, and C in the future. God predicts that you will choose C, because he knows you that well. Therefore the odds of you choosing each option are:
    A: 0%
    B: 0%
    C: 100%
    Is it becoming clear now?

    Don’t make me go through that whole back-in-time thing again, this is getting a little ridiculous, now you’re just repeating yourself. I’ve already explained free will. Don’t make me write a whole post on it.

    On the contrary Derek, you are the one who won’t accept you’re wrong, so all that’s left for me to do is repeat my refutations to you. See the analogy above.
    Just so you know: no theist has EVER reconciled free will with god’s omniscience, so you’re either a genius or are making the same old mistakes other theists have made. Guess which one I think is the case?

    I would appreciate it if you actually started using the logic you supposedly have on your side.

    I’m not actually presenting an argument Derek, I’m just pointing out the problems with yours. I have no burden of proof.

    I’m going to have to quote myself if this goes any further, because you haven’t pointed out any flaws in my argument, nor are there any. Please reread my arguments before I have to put them all together, and then explain everything all at once.

    I’ve already pointed out the logical fallacies in your arguments. I even gave you the proper termsso you could look up the fallacy yourself. If you can’t be bothered doing research that’s not my problem.

    yeah, I’m definitely just going to have to give you a collection of posts I’ve made in the past. I’ll try to get them to you in the next comment, as for now…

    I’d be more than happy to go through everything again, but don’t be surprised if I just keep pointing out more fallacies.

    Just so you know, as you obviously don’t, Christianity doesn’t base on its beliefs solely on the fact that there is a God. Christians only care if you believe in God, believe He sent His son to die for us, and then accept Him. Christianity is the only religion to do that. As long as you believe that, it doesn’t matter if you call God Evan or not.

    It’s hardly surprising that Christianity is the only religion that teaches Christian doctrine! Most Christians can’t agree on an interpretation of the bible, which speaks volumes about the book.
    The point, which obviously passed you by, is that you can’t define god into existence how it suits you.

    But you HAVEN’T pointed out my errors, and if you have, you haven’t explained if and/or why they were wrong. How is someone supposed to know if they are wrong if no one tells them if and/or why?

    I’ve pointed out your errors, you just ignore me. For example: ‘everything needs a cause, except god’ is self-contradictory special pleading. This is just one of your fallacies. Look up “self-contradictory” and “special pleading” on Wikipedia.org before you reply.

    “You can’t escape this.” Actually, I already told you the eternal thing, there’s no other way. I’ve gone into deep thought with this, and there’s no way to explain how the earth got here scientifically.

    Yes there is. Look up “big bang” and “nebular theory” in Wikipedia. Then look up “abiogenesis”. Then look up “Human evolution”. We understand some of these better than others. But you point at the question marks and squeeze god as the answer. This is called “god of the gaps” reasoning. Look that up too.

    Everything points to there being something that isn’t subject to time, therefore there must be something outside of time that provided the needs for the universe. I can’t think of any other way, and neither has/will anyone else. Science in itself contradicts.

    No it doesn’t. How can something be “out of time”? What does that even mean? Are you just defining god the way you want again?
    Your phrase: “I can’t think of any other way, and neither has/will anyone else”… is an Argument from Incredulity. Look that up at Wikipedia too.

    Yes, God created women equally. I already know many verses you will take out of context and use, so don’t think I haven’t already figured that one out. It isn’t ignorance within my own beliefs, I’ve looked at the subject before.

    Ok. I intend to post an article on this soon. Just to get you started: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
    Maybe you can explain why women slaves are always worth twice as much as men in the Old Testament?

    Most of the time, as I’ve learned with you, a hindu, and several other atheists, fallacies need explanation. I’ve had to repeat myself several times here.

    I know. But the simple truth is Derek we both know that you are a believer and will always be a believer. You have no interest in the truth or facts. Nothing I say could ever change your mind, so even if you accepted all the fallacies I point out to you, you’d STILL believe. In other words, you will never admit you’re wrong.

  151. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Give it up, E. He’s not listening.

  152. D Says:

    I’m listening, you just can’t seem to grasp the point I’m getting at.

    You have options A, B, or C. You can choose any of them. You choose C. If you were to go back in time, and changed the answer to B, you would be scientifically proving that humans are unpredictable, except to God. You’re looking at this differently than I. Try to think, if humans have free will, but something all-powerful can predict it, what then? Well, that’s just an example of God doing the impossible, literally. It’s kinda complicated, but a scientific person like you should be able to grasp it, just have an open mind for a second.

    You said yourself, “What does make me right is that logic and evidence are on my side.” and then you said, “I’m not actually presenting an argument Derek, I’m just pointing out the problems with yours. I have no burden of proof.”
    Now I may be mistaken, but that looks like a contradiction that could very well confuse someone.

    So I take it you don’t believe the Bible says that God is eternal?

    Amazingly, so far, all of the terms you have explained to me are ones that are pretty self-explanitory…never mind. I looked up one of them.

    Look, you and I both believe that the other is wrong, and that the other refuses to look at the facts. Obviously, the only way for us to reach an understanding is to outline our beliefs and the back up we provide for them side by side. Then, it might be possible to understand what the other is saying, why the other is saying it, and what facts and logic we have to back up our claims. Neither of us, as far as I can see, is willing to budge from our beliefs, nor will we easily accept it if either of us is wrong. Mabye we could each make a post, giving all of our beliefs on the origin of the universe or whatever. Then, we could both try to point out every flaw, if any, in the other’s argument. That was just a suggestion; we could try something else, or we could just leave each other alone in hope that someone else might be able to change the other’s mind.

    I’m going to collect my posts on the subjects that we’ve discussed. I don’t have a post for free will, but I’ll make one soon, and when I do, I’ll give the link to you.

  153. D Says:

    I thought that with all your knoweldge of phrases that you would understand what “outside of time” means. God isn’t subject to time, and with Him, there is no time flow, because He is outside of time. This is how I believe God to be, and the Bible doesn’t contradict that, rather it explains it differently. By differently, I mean indirectly. God created time, and He isn’t subject to anything. The authors figured that humans would be smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.

    Christians don’t change the definition of God to fit with everything. God is explained all throughout the Bible, and we use these to define our God. Just thought I’d let you know.

  154. D Says:

    “To say that would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement, but to say science itself exists would be to make a scientifically incorrect statement. If the answer to where everything (or anything at all) came from must be un-scientific, then we have to quit relying on science for everything.”

    Looked up “non sequitor.” Problem is, I can’t see how that’s a non sequitor.

    Looked up “false dichotomy.” What other options are there?

  155. Darren Says:

    Hey, D, listen. Either something is unpredictable, or it isn’t. The moment you say “unpredictable, except…” it becomes predictable, see?

    On this “outside of time” story: isn’t something for which time does not pass, by definition, static and therefore dead?

  156. evanescent Says:

    Hi D,

    I don’t think we’re getting anywhere and are just going around in circles.

    I’m breaking off debate at this point since, as you’ve not presented anything new, I can’t reply with anything new.

    Christians don’t change the definition of God to fit with everything. God is explained all throughout the Bible, and we use these to define our God.

    Then why is YOUR definition right and all other Christian sects’ wrong? Why can’t anyone agree on what the bible means and why?

    You don’t have to answer this, just thought I’d give you something to think about.

    Also, Darren succinctly explained your “unpredictable” problem for you in the comment above.

  157. D Says:

    I believe in a God who does things that are impossible for us. One example is that God predicts the unpredictable. Just let that sink in before going any further.

    Yes, Christians have differences when it comes to theological beliefs. I honestly don’t care if a Christian thinks differently than I do, just as long as Christians are all concentrating on reaching out to others, and as long as they know good apologetics so that they’ll be ready when someone questions their beliefs.

    All I really want for non-Christians to understand Christianity without any misconceptions of Christianity, the Bible, Chrisitians themselves, etc.

    Anyway, I’m happy to end this “debate.” I obviously can’t explain my point well enough. That or no one is actually listening to my point well enough. This discussion won’t likely go anywhere anyway. I’m still going to get those links together, didn’t have time yesterday.

  158. D Says:

    There’s a few link for you. Not all of them are from my blog. There’s one more I need to get to you:

    http://www.thegodargument.com/?gclid=CLKWyOei9owCFSCTWAod6iSxEQ

  159. Darren Says:

    Sigh. I really can’t help myself. I know I should leave it alone, but:

    Nothing can predict the unpredictable. Once it’s been predicted, it’s no longer unpredictable.

    Similarly, nothing can achieve the impossible. Once it’s achieved, it becomes possible.

    Whether it’s a god or a human doing it is completely irrelevant. Use the correct terms!

    D, you really need to stop using words that start with un- and the like, because you just end up contradicting yourself and looking foolish.

  160. tobe38 Says:

    Ok, I really was going to leave it, but now that Darren’s jumped in again.

    @ D

    Try to think, if humans have free will, but something all-powerful can predict it, what then? Well, that’s just an example of God doing the impossible, literally.

    As Darren said, the impossible would then become possible. But that’s not the point. The point is, that you’re not making an argument. It’s like saying, “if God could draw a square circle, he would be doing the impossible”. Well, yes, he would, but there’s no evidence that he exists, or that he can draw a square circle. You are simply making assertions based on the assumption that God exists. We do not need God to explain free will.

    As Evanescent has already repeatedly pointed out, you are trying to just define your God into existence, and you are continually begging the question.

  161. D Says:

    I may look foolish, but who doesn’t? And that doesn’t necassarily mean that I AM foolish.

    Ok, if God is all-powerful, He must be able to do anything. If He can do anything, He can do something humans can’t really understand. Just “knowing” something, doesn’t predetermine it. Even though it is possible for humans to take any of a certain amount of choices, God predicts it. Still, humans are unpredictable. This is God doing the impossible. Also, since God doesn’t choose our fate, what does? Nothing else has that power, so nothing is predetermining our fate. Fate can’t be predetermined. Fate can be predicted. Before you say anything, predicting and predetermining have different meanings.

    Ok, predicting something is possible. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “unpredictable.” Oh well, I make mistakes too.

    Yes, I am making assertions based on the assumption that God exists, but I wasn’t arguing “if” God is real. I was giving the scenario that God exists. In other words, this was my argument, “If God exists…”
    Is it a bad thing to put God into the picture, and see what happens?

    Fine, if you want a Creation argument, then don’t argue about free will.

    Your argument: “God and free will CAN’T exist simultaneously.”

    My Argument: “God and free will CAN exist simultaneously.”

    If you didn’t want me putting God into the picture, you shouldn’t have put God into the picture in the first place. If you want a Creation vs. Big bang argument, I’m happy to oblige.

  162. evanescent Says:

    I may look foolish, but who doesn’t? And that doesn’t necassarily mean that I AM foolish.

    Of course.

    Ok, if God is all-powerful, He must be able to do anything. If He can do anything, He can do something humans can’t really understand.

    I can accept that.

    Just “knowing” something, doesn’t predetermine it.

    I think you’re still missing the point. If something is known with 100% certainty in advance, then it WILL happen. It has already being determined. It’s not that knowledge predetermines actions, it’s that actions MUST be predetermined in order to have 100% foreknowledge of them!

    Even though it is possible for humans to take any of a certain amount of choices, God predicts it. Still, humans are unpredictable. This is God doing the impossible.

    If you’re going to talk about god doing the logically impossible, then we may as well end the debate now, since logic has no meaning. Logic is the very basis for any argument and rationale, so to talk of something beyond logic is to abandon the very basis for knowledge, and is therefore self-refuting.

    Also, since God doesn’t choose our fate, what does? Nothing else has that power, so nothing is predetermining our fate. Fate can’t be predetermined. Fate can be predicted. Before you say anything, predicting and predetermining have different meanings.

    Obviously. But god doesn’t “predict” our actions, he KNOWS them. This is the difference between prediction and knowledge: certainty.

    Ok, predicting something is possible. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “unpredictable.” Oh well, I make mistakes too. Yes, I am making assertions based on the assumption that God exists, but I wasn’t arguing “if” God is real. I was giving the scenario that God exists. In other words, this was my argument, “If God exists…”
    Is it a bad thing to put God into the picture, and see what happens?

    No. There’s nothing wrong with assuming god exists in this context because it’s a philosophical discussion. I sometimes say “god can’t do this”, even though I don’t believe in him. It’s a hypothetical scenario.

    Fine, if you want a Creation argument, then don’t argue about free will.

    You brought free will up!

    Your argument: “God and free will CAN’T exist simultaneously.”

    My argument is more like: if god can know our actions with 100% certainty before they occur, we only ever have one choice before us, although the act of making the decision appears free, it is illusionary.

    My Argument: “God and free will CAN exist simultaneously.”

    That’s an assertion.

    If you didn’t want me putting God into the picture, you shouldn’t have put God into the picture in the first place. If you want a Creation vs. Big bang argument, I’m happy to oblige.

    I didn’t bring god up, you did. This was an article explaining why ID isn’t science.
    As for Creation vs Big Bang, this is a false dichotomy: there is no contradiction between believing in a god who created the universe with the big bang. And there is no contradiction between god using evolution to bring forth life.
    What evolution and the Big Bang do however is make god an unnecessary hypothesis. Occam’s razor quite neatly eliminates it.

  163. D Says:

    You have to choose a number between one and ten. If I know for certain that you will choose the number 4, then you will pick the number 4. Does this mean it was predetermined? No. I didn’t choose the number for you. I just knew what number you would choose. Predicting is different than predetermining.

    “But god doesn’t “predict” our actions, he KNOWS them. This is the difference between prediction and knowledge: certainty.”

    Ok, I’ll be specific, then. He accurately predicts. Are you satisfied now?

    If it’s a hypothetical scenario, then why are you all yelling at me for using it?

    Actually, YOU brought up free will. Here’s where it was started:

    “He makes all this in 6 days. Then creates a talking snake to tempt them for something they couldn’t understand was wrong, threatens to kill them and then doesn’t, and curses human kind for all eternity for a sin they didn’t commit.”

    Anyway, you said:
    “That’s an assertion.”

    An “assertion”? I was just telling you what my argument was after telling you what yours was.

    The big bang does everything BUT make God unnecassary. Unless you can prove to me that the big bang happened without the aid of God, you are making an un-scientific assertion, yourself.

  164. tobe38 Says:

    D

    You have to choose a number between one and ten. If I know for certain that you will choose the number 4, then you will pick the number 4. Does this mean it was predetermined? No.

    Actually, yes, it does. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you. If you are ‘certain’, then it’s a ‘fact’ that I’ll pick number 4. I may stand there thinking “3 or 4, de dum de dum de dum, 3 or 4? 3! No 4, no, er 1″ but however much I do this, I will pick 4. I might feel like I’m making a decision, but if it’s a fact that I’ll pick 4 before I even pick it, then I’m not choosing it at all.

    I didn’t choose the number for you. I just knew what number you would choose. Predicting is different than predetermining.

    Yes, it is. If God is just omniscient, then he is just predicting, but the fact that he actually ‘knows’ what choice you will make still means that you’re not making a choice. If he omnipitent as well, then he has also predetermined it.

    Ok, I’ll be specific, then. He accurately predicts. Are you satisfied now?

    It doesn’t change anything. If he knows for a fact what will happen in the future, and isn’t just making a carefully reasoned estimate like a human would do, then the future has been predetermined.

    If it’s a hypothetical scenario, then why are you all yelling at me for using it?

    Even accounting for the fact that none of us can hear each other, nobody is yelling at you, Derek. If we seem frustrated, it’s because we are. No offence, but you’re repeating the same arguments again and again, after we’ve shown you how they’re logically flawed. Nobody’s having a go at you though, we’re just trying to get a point across. And we’re not annoyed about you using a hypothetical scenario, only that it isn’t logically coherent.

    Actually, YOU brought up free will. Here’s where it was started:

    He makes all this in 6 days. Then creates a talking snake to tempt them for something they couldn’t understand was wrong, threatens to kill them and then doesn’t, and curses human kind for all eternity for a sin they didn’t commit.

    This isn’t where free will was brought up. This is the point that caused you to bring it up.

    Anyway, you said:
    “That’s an assertion.”

    An “assertion”? I was just telling you what my argument was after telling you what yours was.

    Neither of the summarys you offered were arguments. One sentence on its own can never be an argument, only an assertion. An argument is a series of statements that logically progress towards a conclusion. This is where your lack of background in reasoning and logic really shows.

    The big bang does everything BUT make God unnecassary. Unless you can prove to me that the big bang happened without the aid of God, you are making an un-scientific assertion, yourself.

    And that’s where your lack of reading about scientific method shows.

  165. D Says:

    If you predetermine something, you are deciding in advanced what an outcome will be. Knowing something doesn’t cause it. Even though you have a choice, you’re going to pick four anyway. That’s just something that is known. If a rock is falling down a cliff, I know that it will hit the bottom, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I caused it to hit the bottom, which is what you’re trying to impose.

    Regardless of your thoughts on using a hypothetical scenario, I still am using one, so there’s no need to worry about it.

    Technically, he never used the words, “free will,” but that doesn’t mean he didn’t bring it up. Through the quote I gave earlier, I showed that he was implying a falsely made accusation directed toward Christians and their beliefs. I simply responded.

    I’ll comprimise with you. They were summarized arguments. That in no way shows a lack of background in logic and reasoning and logical reasoning. It shows my lack of background using the right words, but that hardly affects anything. The only problem with that is that I can easily confuse someone that way, but oh well, that can be helped over time.

    “And that’s where your lack of reading about scientific method shows.”

    So it’s a bad thing to ask for proof? Or is this “scientific theory” now a hypothesis?

  166. evanescent Says:

    D, it’s not about you causing the rock to do anything. If you drop a rock, we know that because of gravity it is 99.99% certain to hit the ground. This is a prediction, but it’s so certain we might as well call it foreknowledge.

    Now, our foreknowledge of the rock doesn’t CAUSE it to hit the ground, but the inescapable determination that IT WILL DEFINITELY hit the ground allows us to foreknow it, no matter who drops it or why.

    Therefore, if human knowledge is predictable with 100% certainty (read: known) then there can be no real choice which humans will make, although it might appear so.

    By this reasoning, human chooses are no more free to vary than a rock is free NOT to fall. The difference is: humans can reason but a rock cannot, which is where the ILLUSION of choice comes in.

    I’m not sure how many times this has to be explained before it sinks in. I know you cannot possibly accept it, because it means there is a problem with your theology, but perhaps that just means your theology is wrong?

  167. D Says:

    Humans can make choices, but it is also possible for those choices to be known at the same time.

    You’re giving a rather pessimistic view of things. You’re saying that nothing can be avoided, and that humans don’t have a choice in the matter. We have a choice in the matter, there’s just no chance of doing something that we won’t do. Having foreknowledge doesn’t affect our desicion.

    Here’s a post about this kind of thing. It has a different view of this, but it should still help explain what I believe a little.

    http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/predestination/

  168. D Says:

    I would just like to point out that my theology isn’t wrong.

  169. thecrazypastor Says:

    All I know is we should stop immediately in our search for intelligent life on other planets. After all, there is no way to find any sign of intelligent life! Any design or pattern or a non-random complexity would indicate nothing right?

    Intelligent Design is the same science used every day by CSI squads in law enforcement agencies everywhere and by those who investigate plane crashes. You look at the evidence and develop a theory as to how it got that way. The difference is evolutionists refuse to consider an intelligence acting on anything we see, and a crime scene investigator or a crash investigator includes the possibility that an intelligent being may have acted on the evidence at one time or another.

    In other words, evolutionists assume God does not exist, and didn’t touch anything. That’s fine. But if God does exist…

    you’ll never figure it out.

  170. evanescent Says:

    Crazy Pastor said:

    All I know is we should stop immediately in our search for intelligent life on other planets. After all, there is no way to find any sign of intelligent life! Any design or pattern or a non-random complexity would indicate nothing right

    No. Non-random complexity can occur with or without design. If we could detect electromagnetic radiation similar to the kind emitted in abundance from earth, that might be evidence (for example) that an artifical presence was producing it.

    Complexity and rarity by themselves prove nothing.

    Looking at something in nature and saying “wow that looks complex, so it LOOKS designed” is begging the question. We know that complex life can arise from less complex life. Design is an assumption, not an argument.

    Intelligent Design is the same science used every day by CSI squads in law enforcement agencies everywhere and by those who investigate plane crashes. You look at the evidence and develop a theory as to how it got that way.

    Yes you’re right: evolution is the scientific theory used to explain where life comes from.

    Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory so you cannot compare it to PROPER science like CSI.

    ID is NOT science for the reasons stated in the original article, I will not repeat them here. If you disagree with the reasons provided above, explain why.

    The difference is evolutionists refuse to consider an intelligence acting on anything we see, and a crime scene investigator or a crash investigator includes the possibility that an intelligent being may have acted on the evidence at one time or another.

    Your analogy begs the question, it assumes design in order to prove it. I suggest you read my article on logical fallacies here:

    http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/my-debating-advice-mon-6th-aug-07/

    Evolution doesn’t say god does or doesn’t exist; a common mistake made by those who don’t understand it, which is why I wrote this article too:

    http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/

    In other words, evolutionists assume God does not exist, and didn’t touch anything. That’s fine.

    Evolutionists don’t assume anything either way. What individual people believe is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence, and the evidence overwhelmingly proves evolution. There is no evidence of design.

    The evidence for evolution is there no matter what you believe. Science is open to theists and atheists alike.

    But if God does exist…

    you’ll never figure it out.

    Whether god does or doesn’t exist doesn’t stop evolution being a fact, no more than a god is necessary for gravity to maintain or for light to travel at 186,000 miles a second.

    The only reason you dispute evolution and not gravity, or wave-particle duality, is because evolution clashes with your personal interpretation of scripture – something that religious people historically have a consistent record of being wrong on.

  171. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    You’re giving a rather pessimistic view of things. You’re saying that nothing can be avoided, and that humans don’t have a choice in the matter. We have a choice in the matter, there’s just no chance of doing something that we won’t do. Having foreknowledge doesn’t affect our desicion.

    Hi Derek, no offence, but you should really read what I write better.

    I don’t have a pessimistic view of things at all! What you’ve said above is the viewpoint I offered IF your god exists!

    Since I don’t believe in your god or a strictly deterministic universe, I am free to believe in free will.

    The problem of fate and inescapable consequences is only a problem for someone who believes in an omniscient and omnipotent being.

  172. Darren Says:

    Personally, I’m still undecided on the free will issue. Determinism does seem to follow on logically from evolution, but I’m hanging my hopes on the Uncertainty Principle allowing me to have free will.

    Of course, for practical purposes we do have free will, and we must assume so or none of us could ever be held accountable for anything!

  173. Darren Says:

    D said:

    “I would just like to point out that my theology isn’t wrong.”

    As a pursuit of understanding and providing seemingly reasoned discourse on a fundamentally imaginary and unreasonable topic, theology can never be “right”. It’s just making up arguments for a weak hypothesis with no evidence. As such, I do think your theology is wrong, even if it is internally consistent.

  174. tobe38 Says:

    Pat Condell summed up theology nicely: “Expertise in the unknowable”.

  175. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Or the philosophy of superstition.

  176. thecrazypastor Says:

    *******No. Non-random complexity can occur with or without design.*****

    Sure. But not at great quantities in comparison to the overall quantity. ie… 13.6 billion years old means it is statistically impossible for the universe to form in the present state by chance. What you’ve said above is true, but not when considering all the factors.

    ******If we could detect electromagnetic radiation similar to the kind emitted in abundance from earth, that might be evidence (for example) that an artifical presence was producing it.*********

    Again, sure. But if you found a coded message being transmitted, you would not conclude it was random electromagnetic radiation would you? Of course not because the chances of a coded message or language eminating from an inanimate object are ridiculous, yet… much higher chance of that that the universe we see today forming by chance.

    ****Complexity and rarity by themselves prove nothing.******

    You are absolutely correct.

    ****Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory so you cannot compare it to PROPER science like CSI.******

    Research into intelligent design was published in a respected Scientific Journal. The above article demonstrated that you really aren’t getting what intelligence design is. The article above presents many cliches about ID, but it is not an accurate understanding of it.

    *****The only reason you dispute evolution and not gravity, or wave-particle duality, is because evolution clashes with your personal interpretation of scripture – something that religious people historically have a consistent record of being wrong on.******

    lol… thank you for making judgments about my character. And please prove evolution is possible in 13.6 billion years. The biggest reason I dispute evolution is because of the science.

  177. Darren Says:

    thecrazypastor said:

    “13.6 billion years old means it is statistically impossible for the universe to form in the present state by chance. ”

    There’s no such thing as statistically impossible. I think you mean improbable, and improbability does not mean impossibility. Just because you can’t comprehend it, doesn’t mean it’s not so.

    Evolution is clearly possible in 13.6 billion years (do you know how much time that actually is? It’s a long, long time), because we see it with us today.

    “The biggest reason I dispute evolution is because of the science.”

    Which part of the science do you disagree with? Or is it just incomprehensible and therefore wrong? Do you deny the assertion that you are uncomfortable with the idea of evolution contradicting scripture?

  178. evanescent Says:

    Crazy Pastor said:

    Sure. But not at great quantities in comparison to the overall quantity. ie… 13.6 billion years old means it is statistically impossible for the universe to form in the present state by chance. What you’ve said above is true, but not when considering all the factors.

    This is meaningless. What do you base your assertion that it is statistically impossible for the universe to form in 13.6 billion years? I’d love to see your scientific and mathematically research to back that up!

    As I always say to theists who think they’re right and 99% of the scientific community is wrong: present your evidence and win a Noble Prize!

    Again, sure. But if you found a coded message being transmitted, you would not conclude it was random electromagnetic radiation would you? Of course not because the chances of a coded message or language eminating from an inanimate object are ridiculous, yet… much higher chance of that that the universe we see today forming by chance.

    The universe didn’t form by “chance”, it formed according to the laws of physics which are self-regulating. You equate undesigned and unpurposed with a random fluke. This is a common attack made by theists, but it is a strawman.

    Research into intelligent design was published in a respected Scientific Journal. The above article demonstrated that you really aren’t getting what intelligence design is. The article above presents many cliches about ID, but it is not an accurate understanding of it.

    That’s a nice ad hominem, but you haven’t touched the article at all. WHAT SPECIFICALLY in the article above am I wrong on ID about?

    On the contrary, I think I understand ID quite well; I did used to believe it after all! ID is the metaphysical theory that the complexity in the universe proves design. Am I wrong?

    As for it being published in a respected scientific journal, fine. Although it’d be nice to see a link if you’ve got one? This is hardly surprising though, since creation “scientists” have been trying to have ID accepted as science for decades. They won’t succeed, because of the reasons explained in the article above: intelligent design cannot be empirically tested, is not falsifiable, and is a religious dogma that assumes its own authenticity – even if it were true, it wouldn’t be science.

    Can you think of a proponent of ID who doesn’t have a religious agenda?? Why is that I wonder.

    lol… thank you for making judgments about my character. And please prove evolution is possible in 13.6 billion years. The biggest reason I dispute evolution is because of the science.

    I didn’t make a judgement about your character. Why do you dispute evolution and not wave-particle duality? Why evolution and not nebula theory? Why evolution and not the Theory of Special Relativity? Do you even know anything about those things? Well, it doesn’t matter if you do or don’t really: the point I’m making is that they don’t clash with your beliefs, so you ignore them. But like I said in my last comment: every single time theological beliefs have clashed with science, science has always won. Always. Has that fact escaped you?

    I’m assuming you didn’t read the links I gave you previously so I’ll give some again:

    http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

    Evolution has been observed in the lab and in real life. It is one of the most powerful explanatory models ever devised, to explain the fact that organisms adapt to their environment, adaptations which eventually lead to speciation. It would be impossible to understand biology and life without evolution. It has an incredible track record of prediction.

    If you knew the science behind it you wouldn’t have a problem with it. But then, you do have a solution: provide evidence that evolution is false. Submit your results to the scientific community and go down in history.

  179. D Says:

    @ Darren

    “There’s no such thing as statistically impossible. I think you mean improbable, and improbability does not mean impossibility. Just because you can’t comprehend it, doesn’t mean it’s not so.

    Evolution is clearly possible in 13.6 billion years (do you know how much time that actually is? It’s a long, long time), because we see it with us today.”

    You’re kinda missing the point here, Darren.

    “As a pursuit of understanding and providing seemingly reasoned discourse on a fundamentally imaginary and unreasonable topic, theology can never be “right”. It’s just making up arguments for a weak hypothesis with no evidence.”

    Would you care to explain what “weak hypothesis” theology provides? Would you care to explain why there is “no evidence”?

    ________________________________________________

    evanescent,

    “I don’t have a pessimistic view of things at all! What you’ve said above is the viewpoint I offered IF your god exists!”

    That much I knew.

    “Since I don’t believe in your god or a strictly deterministic universe, I am free to believe in free will.

    The problem of fate and inescapable consequences is only a problem for someone who believes in an omniscient and omnipotent being.”

    Just so you know, as you should by now, God CAN exist simultaneously along with free will. I’m not gonna explain, because we’ll just be going around in circles again. Instead, I would like you to actually read and try to understand what I wrote.

    ________________________________________
    still evanescent,

    “This is meaningless. What do you base your assertion that it is statistically impossible for the universe to form in 13.6 billion years? I’d love to see your scientific and mathematically research to back that up!”

    lol. Crazy Pastor got his info from scientists that you claim Crazy Pastor claims are 99% of the time wrong. I’d like to see you back up something.

    “It has an incredible track record of prediction.”

    Wouldn’t that mean that you caused it? After all, if it’s accurately predicted, you must have caused it (yes, that was sarcasm).

    “every single time theological beliefs have clashed with science, science has always won.”

    That’s a very sweeping assertion, and a poorly backed up one at that. Why am I not allowed to make assertions when you are?

    I have no need to be here, and this argument is just going in circles. See ya.

  180. thecrazypastor Says:

    There have been a great many studies to show conclusively that it is ridiculously impossible for evolution to occur to our present state in a mere 13.6 billion years.

    Which is why theories like String Theory have arisen.

    Here’s the problem: What process was used to create the first organism from mere matter?

    was it electrical processes?
    was it wind currents?
    was it gravity?
    was it the electro-magnetic force?

    what random factors contributed to the formation of the first organism?

  181. tobe38 Says:

    @ The Crazy Pastor

    There have been a great many studies to show conclusively that it is ridiculously impossible for evolution to occur to our present state in a mere 13.6 billion years.

    Sources, please?

  182. thecrazypastor Says:

    Tobe38 and everyone else…

    I truthfully apologize for not being more specific. I’ve just moved and cannot the books I would quote, nor do I have the time at the moment to listen to a friend of mine from Los Alamos lecture again.

    But I much of what I would say would be found in “Dismantling Evolution” by Ralph Muncaster.

    Besides that, much of thinking simply takes the rate of evolutionary change and extrapolates it to see how long it would take, and/or figuring the probilities of electrical forces causing the formation of the building blocks of life or etc…

    the conditions required are difficult to explain, and the statistical improbabilities of many of the ingredients for life forming by chance are enormous to the point of being very hard to imagine.

    Nevertheless we are here. Thus, other theories are popping up such as Intelligent Design, OR theories that keep God out of the equation which explain that perhaps the universe has expanded and contracted endlessly (because given enough time -more than 13.6 billion- anything IS possible) or that we are just one of an infinite number of universes etc…

    Those alternate theories have as much backing them as ID. Which is nothing conclusive, just trying to explain the impossible.

  183. thecrazypastor Says:

    The link for the scientific journal which pubished ID research is here:

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

    this study as well, is a source making the case that evolutionary theory (currently) cannot sufficiently account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms.

  184. thecrazypastor Says:

    But like I said in my last comment: every single time theological beliefs have clashed with science, science has always won. Always. Has that fact escaped you?

    *********************************************

    lol, that’s just patently untrue. Especially historically.

    Every time?

    Like when science declared there were only 1199 stars in the universe while the Bible said there were too many to count?

    Like when science said disease is in the blood so lets use leeches, while the Bible says the opposite: that life is in the blood?

    Like when science said water could not exist below the oceans, while the Bible said it did. And today we know there is 10 times more below than above.

    Like when archaeology said the Hittites didn’t exist until they found a whole city of them?

    C’mon… I’m not too worried about the current disagreements just yet.

  185. thecrazypastor Says:

    Evolution accepted by 99% of the scientific community? -according to one of your links?

    Not true. It’s 95% and 40% of those believe in Theistic evolution.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

  186. tobe38 Says:

    @ The Crazy Pastor

    Not true. It’s 95% and 40% of those believe in Theistic evolution.

    I’d be interested to know if they included scientists who earned their degrees at uncredited, uncertified creationist colleges that don’t even release PhD’s for publication.

    How many of them believe in ‘theistic’ evolution is irrelevant. Evolution does not say that God doesn’t exist, if people want to believe that God guides it, that’s up to them.

    95% is still pretty overwhelming. This wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that everyone (scientist or not) who rejects evolution has a religious motive for doing so.

    Here’s a challenge for you: Show me a scientist, who earned their credentials at an established, acredited college/university, who

    a) completely rejects evolution and
    b) believes in intelligent design but
    c) does not subscribe to any the Genesis creation account, or any other religious creation myth.

    So basically, this scientist has to hold the view that the evidence does not support the theory of evolution, that the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is that it was spontaneously created exactly as it was, but does not know who that creator was. It has to be a scientist who thinks we were created by a deity, but one that is not known to us through any religion. Not the Judeo Christian god, not Allah, nor Zeus, Thor or Vishnu.

    If you can find me this scientist, I’d love to hear what he has to say. Of course, if no such scientist exists, that neither proves evolution nor disproves intelligent design. However, it really does make one wonder…

  187. evanescent Says:

    The link for the scientific journal which pubished ID research is here:

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

    this study as well, is a source making the case that evolutionary theory (currently) cannot sufficiently account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms.

    I checked out the link and scanned the information. I don’t have a PhD, but the claims made by Meyer and co are assertions, not argument. The facts are: speciation has been observed in real life and the lab. We see evolution at work all the time, from beak forms changing on the Galapagos Islands to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    At most, scientists might grant that the Theory of Evolution (mutation filtered by natural selection) is not unassailable, but then it’s no different to any scientific theory. But common descent of all life-forms is still fact, however you explain it. However, the ‘lack of information’ hypothesis is an assertion, and there is absolutely no reason to accept it. Why are the world’s leading biologists not falling over themselves to disprove Meyer? For that matter, why isn’t Meyer off looking for rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian, or other such empirical research that would disprove evolution?

    Tobe38 has addressed the rest of your comments. But I thought I’d handle this:

    Every time?
    Like when science declared there were only 1199 stars in the universe while the Bible said there were too many to count?

    Where is your proof that science said there were only 1199 stars in the universe? On a clear night it is possible to observe approx 5000 alone!

    Either way, I’ll save you the trouble of searching for a link because of this:
    Let’s say you’re right. Who proved scientific “knowledge” at the time wrong? Was it religious people, or was it other better scientists??

    Like when science said disease is in the blood so lets use leeches, while the Bible says the opposite: that life is in the blood?

    The biblical view of blood is primitive and superstitious: hence the ridiculous commands on bloodguilt, sacrifice, and aversion to consuming it in any form.
    Actually, the practice of using leeches was an attempt at science. It failed, because the understanding of disease was incomplete. But who provided that better understanding? Was it religious people, or was it other better scientists?

    The comparison above is absurd.

    Like when science said water could not exist below the oceans, while the Bible said it did. And today we know there is 10 times more below than above.

    Prove that science held this view as a fact, and then show me the exact verse in the bible that explains the sub-ocean water structure of the earth. Note: not some random passage that can be interpreted however you like.

    But, if you’re right and science was wrong, like it has been in the past, who came up with more complete knowledge? Was it religious people with a bible in their hands, or was it other better scientists?

    Like when archaeology said the Hittites didn’t exist until they found a whole city of them?

    Since the bible is a historical document, I would expect it to reference civilisations that might not yet have been discovered.

    What does this prove? Let me ask you: who proved that the Hittites existed? Was it religious people, or was it archaeologists themselves who did proper research and empirical study and proved their colleagues wrong?

    More than likely, ‘archaeology’ said it hadn’t found them yet, rather than they “didn’t exist”.

    I never said science wasn’t wrong. I am saying that when science is proven wrong, it is proven wrong by other scientists! So a better scientific theory comes along, which explains the natural world with empirical facts.

    But, since you wanted to use the bible in an attempt to make it appear compatible with science, perhaps you could tell me how modern science would view the following:

    Earth created before light and before the sun.

    Entire planet created in 6 days, several thousand years ago.

    A vault of water in the sky with windows, to hold rain. The sun and moon and stars placed in this vault.

    Incorrect order of appearance of life. Man created after animals, or animals created after man (depending on whether you take Genesis 1 or 2.)

    Talking snakes.

    Global (impossible) flood. An ark holding every known animal/insect form.

    Every animal on the planet descended out from Mt Ararat in Turkey just a few thousand years ago.

  188. D Says:

    At first I was going to simply leave, but then I thought, “might as well.”

    “Earth created before light and before the sun.

    Entire planet created in 6 days, several thousand years ago.

    A vault of water in the sky with windows, to hold rain. The sun and moon and stars placed in this vault…”

    Those are just issues that reside in “does God exist?”

    “Incorrect order of appearance of life. Man created after animals, or animals created after man (depending on whether you take Genesis 1 or 2.)”

    Please, give me a quote or something on that. So far, you haven’t. I can’t know if you’ve even looked at Genesis at all until you give me a quote or two.

    “Every animal on the planet descended out from Mt Ararat in Turkey just a few thousand years ago.”

    Not every animal. Just two of some, seven of some, and the fish were left alone.

  189. evanescent Says:

    Ok D, before we go any further, I just want to clarify: when I show you a link that proves that animals were created before man in Genesis 1, and AFTER man in Genesis 2, what will you do?

    To save this trouble, you could go away and read your bible yourself, and then let me know what you think?

  190. Geno Says:

    evanscent,
    I would like to see that! Nowhere does it say that the animals and the birds were created AFTER man. That must be a British way of reading. What the text says;
    “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”

    There is nothing sequential to that statement. Does it say (from verse 18 to 19), “THEN” God created the animals – the answer is NO. It is reviewing chapter 1 and highlighting in greater detail that God had also created them from the dust of the earth just as he had Adam.

    Come on buddy, you really do need to do better than that. Read it in the original language and check out the grammar. NEXT!

  191. toni Says:

    WOW….you guys really like to talk….:) t

  192. D Says:

    I do love to talk, toni. It’s like a hobby.
    _________________________________________

    I read Genesis 1 and 2 the first time you said that, and it does not say that. Why use a link? You can take the words out of context yourself. Let me do the honor of presenting these verses from Genesis 2:

    “Gen 2:7-10 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (8) The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. (9) And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (10) Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.”

    That does say that God made trees after He made Adam, but it doesn’t say that those were the first trees He ever created. It also mentions nothing about animals except that Adam had to name all of them. It’s not that hard to look into.

  193. D Says:

    The section below the line was directed at evanescent.

  194. evanescent Says:

    This is the sixth day of creation from Genesis 1:

    1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    So, god creates all living creatures on the earth, and creeping things (presumably insects, even though insects predate all mammalian life).

    Then, god creates man and tells him to have in subjection all animal life on earth. So, just by reading this, let me ask you: which was created first? Animals or man?

    Genesis chapter 2:

    2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    God creates man and puts him in the Garden of Eden. I can accept that the garden was created after the other trees and plants because god created a garden especially for Adam. Fine.

    Next, god decides that it’s not good that Adam is alone, so he decides to create a helpmeet for him. So god creates all the living creatures in the sky, waters, and land.

    Notice, “Adam called EVERY living creature”. How could Adam name EVERY living creature unless he existed before EVERY living creature?

    You can twist your own bible any way you want, but reading it prima facie it says what it says: man was created and god saw Adam was lonely, so he created all the animals and Adam named THEM ALL. Then god created Eve eventually.

    So it appears that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other on the order of creation.

    Perhaps you’re right; perhaps I’m right, but the bible says what it says. Why is your interpretation correct and not mine? Couldn’t god have written it a little clearer?

    This is one of many disparities in the bible. I’d be glad to provide more if you like.

  195. D Says:

    Didn’t I already explain Genesis 2? I told you. Genesis 2 says that man was created, then some trees sprang up in a garden. That doesn’t mean that trees came to being after man. It just says that some trees grew. If I plant a tree and it grows, does that mean that trees were created after humans? Of course not.

    “How could Adam name EVERY living creature unless he existed before EVERY living creature?”

    How can I name every color unless I existed first?

    That’s about how ridiculous your question sounds. Just because Adam named all the animals doesn’t mean that he came first. Adam was smarter than all the animal, so he named them. Kind of a simple concept. It isn’t that hard to understand, and I don’t need to “twist my own Bible any way I want.” I only need to read it, and have an open mind in doing so. If you read it, then make childish assertions, you really aren’t having an open mind. Not to mention anyone who does that looks foolish. It isn’t that the Bible isn’t clear, it’s that it is often taken out of context then childishly accused of something stupid. It also comes in different translations, English being one of them. Because of this, it sometimes cannot be as understandable as it is in the original Hebrew or Greek, depending if you’re talking about the Old or the New Testament. God did not write the Bible. God spoke His word through ordinary humans that wrote it all down for future reference. Now if you would kindly cease hurling your false accusations at the Bible. If you’re going to try and attack Christianity, at least use the New Testament (the one Christians follow).

  196. Darren Says:

    Don’t Christians follow the Old Testament then? You know, the one with the cornerstone of human morality, the Decalogue?

  197. evanescent Says:

    This is Genesis 2:

    God creates man.
    God puts man in the garden of eden.
    God notices man is alone.
    God forms ALL the creatures of the earth and brings them to (the already existent) Adam, who names them.
    God creates Eve.

    That’s all there is to say.

    That is how a literal reading of the bible appears to me. Either it looks different to you, or you’d never accept a contradiction either way, who’s to say?

    I know that if I would have written the bible, I’d have done a better job.

    If you’re going to try and attack Christianity, at least use the New Testament (the one Christians follow).

    Aren’t you forgetting something?

    2 Tim 3:16:
    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

    Notice that Paul says ALL scripture? Or do you (like many theists) cherry pick the parts of the bible that you like?

  198. D Says:

    Darren,

    “Don’t Christians follow the Old Testament then? You know, the one with the cornerstone of human morality, the Decalogue?”

    Christians do not follow the Old Testament, but we do still study it. After all, very good descriptions of God are in the Old Testament. Besides, it is important scripture.

    Truthfully, though, I’m defending Judaism more than I am Christianity.

    __________________________________

    evanescent,

    You didn’t quote a thing. Genesis doesn’t say that. I remain by that statement until you give me a quote.

    I did not say that I don’t believe in the old testament. I do not want you to take the things such as sacrifices and attack Christianity with it. I don’t “cherry pick” parts of the Bible I like. I believe all of it, except that I know that Jesus came and now I need not follow many of the rules and guidelines of the Old Testament.

  199. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    You didn’t quote a thing. Genesis doesn’t say that. I remain by that statement until you give me a quote.

    Refresh my memory?

    I did not say that I don’t believe in the old testament. I do not want you to take the things such as sacrifices and attack Christianity with it.

    Tough. I’m sorry if your “holy” book is inconvenient for you at times but that’s not my problem.

    I don’t “cherry pick” parts of the Bible I like. I believe all of it, except that I know that Jesus came and now I need not follow many of the rules and guidelines of the Old Testament.

    Infanticide, genocide, murder, rape, hellfire. Sure you don’t cherry pick the parts you like. Sure.

  200. D Says:

    evanescent,

    Here’s your refreshment:

    “This is Genesis 2:

    God creates man.
    God puts man in the garden of eden.
    God notices man is alone.
    God forms ALL the creatures of the earth and brings them to (the already existent) Adam, who names them.
    God creates Eve.

    That’s all there is to say.”[/

    No verses at all in there. Tell me then, where in the Bible is this? Give me quote, and then I’ll listen.

    Tough. I’m sorry if your “holy” book is inconvenient for you at times but that’s not my problem.[/

    It isn’t inconvenient. I just said that Christians believe that we no longer have to perform all those sacrifices and whatnot. You’re starting to sound like a 1st grader (no offense).

    Infanticide, genocide, murder, rape, hellfire. Sure you don’t cherry pick the parts you like. Sure.[/

    Yep. Still no quote. I know that you cannot give me a quote from the Bible to back that up. All you can do is falsely accuse Christians without bothering to back up your information. Now you seem desperate.

  201. evanescent Says:

    I find it rather depressing that I have to explain to your own holy book to you. Even more so that once I do, you will ignore me and pretend I never did, and pretend this never happened. Still, for all the observers looking on, here goes. Note that all I’m doing is reposting what I wrote above, but since you either can’t be bothered to scroll up or have forgotten…

    This is Genesis 1:

    1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    I also went on to say this:

    So, god creates all living creatures on the earth, and creeping things (presumably insects, even though insects predate all mammalian life).

    Then, god creates man and tells him to have in subjection all animal life on earth. So, just by reading this, let me ask you: which was created first? Animals or man?

    Got that? Good. Now, Genesis 2:

    2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed EVERY beast of the field, and EVERY fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called EVERY living creature, that was the name thereof.

    2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    Notice the difference? Here is what I said next:

    God creates man and puts him in the Garden of Eden.

    Next, god decides that it’s not good that Adam is alone, so he decides to create a helpmeet for him. So god creates all the living creatures in the sky, waters, and land.

    Notice, “Adam called EVERY living creature”. How could Adam name EVERY living creature unless he existed before EVERY living creature?

    You can twist your own bible any way you want, but reading it prima facie it says what it says: man was created and god saw Adam was lonely, so he created all the animals and Adam named THEM ALL. Then god created Eve eventually.

    So a summary of chapter 2 from literal reading is:

    God creates man.
    God puts man in the garden of eden.
    God notices man is alone.
    God forms ALL the creatures of the earth and brings them to (the already existent) Adam, who names them.
    God creates Eve.

    It’s obvious! It’s not even unclear!

    You can’t escape it. Your own bible contradicts itself in chapters 1 of 2 of the very first book!

    Your continued inability to accept this is pretty embarrassing.

    D said:

    It isn’t inconvenient. I just said that Christians believe that we no longer have to perform all those sacrifices and whatnot. You’re starting to sound like a 1st grader (no offense).

    Can you show me a verse in the NT where it explicitly states that the OT law is irrelevant? (And not just some vague implication).

    What about the ten commandments? Aren’t they important to you, D? Aren’t they in the OT?? Where is your scriptural basis for rejecting the OT guidelines?

    I said:

    Infanticide, genocide, murder, rape, hellfire. Sure you don’t cherry pick the parts you like. Sure.

    To which D said:

    Yep. Still no quote. I know that you cannot give me a quote from the Bible to back that up. All you can do is falsely accuse Christians without bothering to back up your information. Now you seem desperate.

    *Sigh* It always amuses me when Christians say they don’t cherry pick their bible and believe it’s all inspired by god, yet reject the OT as a guide, and then show such sheer ignorance of the text.

    Before we go any further D, let me ask you a question: if I back up my claim about:

    “Infanticide, genocide, murder, rape, hellfire”

    …Will you recant your faith and reject Christianity? Yes or no?

    One more question: ever heard of the Midianites? Think carefully about your answer.

  202. D Says:

    I find it rather depressing that I have to explain to your own holy book to you. Even more so that once I do, you will ignore me and pretend I never did, and pretend this never happened. Still, for all the observers looking on, here goes. Note that all I’m doing is reposting what I wrote above, but since you either can’t be bothered to scroll up or have forgotten…

    Yeah. Not quite.

    I’m already aware of Genesis 1. You could have skipped that.

    What Bible version did you use? NIV? Here’s what my Bible says:

    Gen 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
    Gen 2:5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
    Gen 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
    Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
    Gen 2:8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
    Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    The Bible says that God made every tree grow that was pleasant to the eye and good for food. Last time I checked, that didn’t mean that God made every tree on the earth that ever existed. You misinterperet the Bible knowing that you’re just changing the meaning.

    Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

    Notice the way that verse was written. Instead of, “then God formed every beast and foul of the air,” it just says, “God formed every beast and foul of the air.” In other words, it didn’t tell you WHEN God created those animals. Another possibility is that God made the animals for the earth. Then after He put Adam in the Garden, God made them again and put them in the Garden. If there are other scenarios, you should look at them BEFORE you gloat.

    Can you show me a verse in the NT where it explicitly states that the OT law is irrelevant? (And not just some vague implication).

    Sure:

    “Mat 12:7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

    The words in all-caps were already in all-caps when I found them.

    Before we go any further D, let me ask you a question: if I back up my claim about:

    “Infanticide, genocide, murder, rape, hellfire”

    …Will you recant your faith and reject Christianity? Yes or no?

    Why should I? I’ve backed up my information. You’re too stubborn to turn from your beliefs. Therefore, why should I turn from my beliefs if you back up yours? To tell the truth, until I’ve been given solid evidence/logic that what I believe is wrong, I will continue to follow Christ.

    Yes, I have heard of the Midianites. The story sounded so unreal that it was almost fantastic. The Midianites; the ones who were about to attack God’s people, so God’s people fought back. Yeah I remember that story. Actually, there are many different places in the Bible where they are mentioned.

  203. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Notice the way that verse was written. Instead of, “then God formed every beast and foul of the air,” it just says, “God formed every beast and foul of the air.” In other words, it didn’t tell you WHEN God created those animals. Another possibility is that God made the animals for the earth. Then after He put Adam in the Garden, God made them again and put them in the Garden. If there are other scenarios, you should look at them BEFORE you gloat.

    That’s all well and good D, except, that’s not what the bible says is it? You are adding extra words and meaning to a text that doesn’t warrant them.

    Your explanation above is incredibly speculative and presumptious. It sounds like classic ad hoc rationalisation. Isn’t it great when the bible means whatever you want it to mean?

    You do know the penalty your own holy book gives for anyone who takes away or adds to the words in the bible don’t you??

    Genesis 2 says that god created man. It then says that god created EVERY animal and brought them to the man. That is how the bible reads. (This is, actually, one of the lightest problems to be found with Genesis!)

    I don’t honestly expect to prove my point conclusively, no more than I expect you to. But the point is: why the ambiguity? It is because Genesis 1 and 2 are two creation accounts, two mythical stories told and then placed together in the same book over many years.

    I’ve already parodied the creation accounts elsewhere in my blog, which point out the inconsistencies and problems with them. Of course, I would expect you to rationalise away ANY problem with the bible using your personal interpretation.

    You’re too stubborn to turn from your beliefs. Therefore, why should I turn from my beliefs if you back up yours?

    Well, first of all D, two wrongs don’t make a right. I’d be happy to believe in god for example whether you believed or not.

    I wouldn’t call myself stubborn either.

    Let me ask you: is there any evidence or argument in the world that would make you reject Christianity? Anything at all?

    Yes, I have heard of the Midianites. The story sounded so unreal that it was almost fantastic. The Midianites; the ones who were about to attack God’s people, so God’s people fought back. Yeah I remember that story. Actually, there are many different places in the Bible where they are mentioned.

    So, are you saying that the story is real or not??

    When you say the Midianites attacked God’s people (curious, since most of the nations in the OT were invaded by the Israelites as god was giving them a “promised land” and the other nations already lived there), did you mean the young boys, the woman, and the babies?

    Also, since “all scripture is inspired of god”, according to the NT, and since god himself says “I am Yahweh, I have not changed”, etc…can you tell me what the penalty is for name-calling one of god’s prophets for being bald?

  204. D Says:

    That’s all well and good D, except, that’s not what the bible says is it? You are adding extra words and meaning to a text that doesn’t warrant them.

    Need I remind you that you were the one adding the extra words. “Every tree that is pleasent to the eye and good to eat.” Last I checked, that didn’t mean, “every tree in the world.” I’m not adding words, you are. I quoted the Bible exactly.

    You do know the penalty your own holy book gives for anyone who takes away or adds to the words in the bible don’t you??

    Quite aware, actually. As I said, you added the words, not me. I quoted the Bible, and explained to you why it did not mean what you said it meant.

    Genesis 2 says that god created man. It then says that god created EVERY animal and brought them to the man.

    Actually, it says that God made every tree that was pleasent to the eye and good to eat.

    Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

    That was from Genesis 2:19. Does that mean that God made every animal AFTER Adam? No, it doesn’t. This is how the Bible introduced the animal-naming thing, and it just makes sense that it wasn’t refering to the time AFTER Adam came around. Mabye God created all the animals again, either way, you can’t just draw the conclusion you like best. You can’t just “cherry-pick” the parts of the Bible you like and then say the Bible is wrong.

    I don’t honestly expect to prove my point conclusively, no more than I expect you to. But the point is: why the ambiguity? It is because Genesis 1 and 2 are two creation accounts, two mythical stories told and then placed together in the same book over many years.

    1. Genesis 1 and 2 were written by Moses, who didn’t write them separately.

    2. The accounts are not mythical. They are just unbelievable, yet at the same time, they are the most logical explanations of the origin of the universe.

    I’ve already parodied the creation accounts elsewhere in my blog, which point out the inconsistencies and problems with them. Of course, I would expect you to rationalise away ANY problem with the bible using your personal interpretation.

    That’s your point of view. When you look at it my qay, you are the one trying to mix the meanings of the words in the Bible to say that it is wrong. From my point of view, I see that you’re desperately trying to say I’m wrong by using the words in the Bible to try and say Christianity is wrong.

    Well, first of all D, two wrongs don’t make a right. I’d be happy to believe in god for example whether you believed or not.

    Well, first of all, evanescent, I wasn’t aware that stubbornness was a sin.

    Let me ask you: is there any evidence or argument in the world that would make you reject Christianity? Anything at all?

    No evidence. Just logic. You can’t disprove God with science and you can’t prove science exists with science, so there is no scientific evidence that could disprove God. If anyone could logically disprove that God does not exist and tell me clearly, I would believe them; not at first, but after a serious period of thought (I’m stubborn in my beliefs, and I can only change my mind on my own, though I can be swayed).

    So, are you saying that the story is real or not??

    I’m a Christian. What do you think I’m saying? In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll tell you: I’m saying the story is true.

    When you say the Midianites attacked God’s people (curious, since most of the nations in the OT were invaded by the Israelites as god was giving them a “promised land” and the other nations already lived there), did you mean the young boys, the woman, and the babies?

    Yeah, that’s a tough one (yes, that was sarcasm). First of all, women were just as good warriors as men, they just didn’t have the rights. Second, are you aware of culture at that time? Every country that raided a town would kill everyone. Third, I have no memory of God directly commanding them to kill the women and children. I only remember Moses and the other leaders doing so.

    Also, since “all scripture is inspired of god”, according to the NT, and since god himself says “I am Yahweh, I have not changed”, etc…can you tell me what the penalty is for name-calling one of god’s prophets for being bald?

    Ummm…the penalty would be one angry, bald prophet. What are you talking about, anyway?

  205. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    You can’t just “cherry-pick” the parts of the Bible you like and then say the Bible is wrong.

    Of course. And you can’t pick the parts you like and say the bible is right!

    The difference is, you’re claiming the bible is god’s word, which means I’d expect NO errors or problems with it.

    If I find even one real problem with it, that invalidates the bible’s veracity.

    (And there are many problems. Genesis is the tip of the iceberg).

    I will leave aside commenting on your rationalisation of barbarism and cruelty, D, as your comments are very ethically worrying. I’d take a minute and re-read them if I were you.

    If anyone could logically disprove that God does not exist and tell me clearly, I would believe them; not at first, but after a serious period of thought (I’m stubborn in my beliefs, and I can only change my mind on my own, though I can be swayed).

    Glad to hear it. Very glad, in fact.

    I don’t intend to use science necessarily to disprove god (although you will pick and choose what parts of science you want to use which I find a bit dishonest), but rather I’ll use pure logic. I won’t proceed here, because this isn’t the article for it. Instead, if you wait a few days I will write an article especially for you with a logical argument to invalidate the biblical god.

    I could just do it here, but I planned to write it anyway, and that way there can be a proper discussion on the matter.

    I look forward to seeing your comments and you fulfilling your pledge above to accept logic wherever it leads…

  206. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    I look forward to seeing your comments and you fulfilling your pledge above to accept logic wherever it leads…

    I have a 50 that says the latter won’t happen.

  207. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Go ahead. Say it. “Oh, ye of little faith…” :)

  208. D Says:

    Of course. And you can’t pick the parts you like and say the bible is right!

    You’ve said that already. That’s why I quoted you on that. You shouldn’t tell me not to “cherry-pick” and then turn around and cherry-pick yourself.

    The difference is, you’re claiming the bible is god’s word, which means I’d expect NO errors or problems with it.

    If I find even one real problem with it, that invalidates the bible’s veracity.

    (And there are many problems. Genesis is the tip of the iceberg).

    There are no problems with it, and you haven’t shown a real problem yet.

    One thing I hate is when someone tells me that they’re right and I’m wrong, but they do nothing beyond that (for instance, you could give me an example of this supposed “problem).

    I will leave aside commenting on your rationalisation of barbarism and cruelty, D, as your comments are very ethically worrying. I’d take a minute and re-read them if I were you.

    Re-read them, and I see nothing “barbaric” or “cruel.” All I said was that God never directly commanded the killing of women and children. Yeah, that’s cruel. “Hey! That guy said not to kill the children! How cruel!”

    I also said that at that time, if a country raided another, they tended to kill everyone. This does not show that I’M cruel. It just shows the culture of that time period.

    None of this makes me cruel.

    I don’t intend to use science necessarily to disprove god (although you will pick and choose what parts of science you want to use which I find a bit dishonest),

    Thank you for that compliment and clearly thought out comment.

    but rather I’ll use pure logic

    Finally.

  209. evanescent Says:

    You’ve said that already. That’s why I quoted you on that. You shouldn’t tell me not to “cherry-pick” and then turn around and cherry-pick yourself.

    You’re forgetting though, I don’t believe the bible is god’s word, which means I take the whole thing and not just the parts I like.

    There are no problems with it, and you haven’t shown a real problem yet.

    Your inability to accept a problem doesn’t make it go away.

    Let me ask you, how old was Ahaziah when he began reigning as king? I’d be interested to see your answer.

    One thing I hate is when someone tells me that they’re right and I’m wrong, but they do nothing beyond that (for instance, you could give me an example of this supposed “problem).

    Order of creation conflict in Genesis. Ridiculous creation account. Contradictory texts. The list goes on. Save me listing everything here and you ignoring it, I may as well provide a link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

    Re-read them, and I see nothing “barbaric” or “cruel.” All I said was that God never directly commanded the killing of women and children. Yeah, that’s cruel. “Hey! That guy said not to kill the children! How cruel!”

    You don’t think that murdering thousands of men, women, and children is cruel? What about talking virgin girls as sex slaves? You don’t think that’s cruel, no? You think entire races of people are all equally evil and depraved and worthy of death, from young to old?

    These actions were commanded by god’s spokesman. In the OT, god punishes his people for the least little transgression, yet he has nothing to say on genocide, infanticide, and rape. Strange eh?

    I also said that at that time, if a country raided another, they tended to kill everyone. This does not show that I’M cruel. It just shows the culture of that time period.

    So, two wrongs make a right then?

    So, god’s answer to a cruel barbaric primitive culture is for his people to be just as bad as them? All this, from a god of love?

    Thank you for that compliment and clearly thought out comment.

    Oh come on D, wake up. You sit here using your computer in the 21st century. You might use a microwave oven, or fly across the world, or watch TV, or have your cancer or other disease cured. Or watch photos of galaxies billions of miles away, and thank biological science for all the wonders it’s done for humanity (based on evolution), but as soon as science says something that conflicts with your precious beliefs, then science is the enemy and has nothing useful to say.

    What is so different about science when it agrees with you than science when it disagrees with you?? Science stays the same. YOUR beliefs are the problem. This is pure intellectual dishonesty; you are being dishonest with yourself.

    Finally.

    I will easily prove logically that the biblical god can’t exist. I know, in advance though, that you will equivocate and make excuses for his behaviour and pretend there is no contradiction.

  210. D Says:

    I take the whole thing and not just the parts I like.

    Could’ve fooled me.

    Your inability to accept a problem doesn’t make it go away.

    What does that have to do with what I said. If you can’t present a valid problem, or if you present a problem but I defend it successfully, then there probably isn’t a problem.

    Let me ask you, how old was Ahaziah when he began reigning as king? I’d be interested to see your answer.

    A verse please? I’m not a Bible scholar; I’m just intelligent (or so I’m told).

    Order of creation conflict in Genesis. Ridiculous creation account. Contradictory texts. The list goes on. Save me listing everything here and you ignoring it, I may as well provide a link:

    Your inability to accept that Christians are right in their beliefs doesn’t make me wrong.

    You don’t think that murdering thousands of men, women, and children is cruel?

    When did I say that? Truthfully, I don’t think that it was considered cruel then. I also don’t think that someone saying, “Don’t kill them,” is cruel. As far as I know, God never said “Go kill everyone.” If He did, why is it cruel? Why do you think it is cruel? Just because it is? That’s not good enough. What would a child’s life be like if his/her father was killed in battle and the child was left with only his/her mother in an immoral, murderous society? Compare that to Paradise (children are innocent, therefore they go to Heaven if they die at that age). What seems better to you?

    These actions were commanded by god’s spokesman.

    Yes, but God’s spokesmen weren’t perfect, mind you.

    So, two wrongs make a right then?

    So you think that they shouldn’t fight back? You think that Israel should just let itself be conquered? What goes on in your mind? I never stated nor implied that 2 wrongs make a right. 3 rights make a left.

    So, god’s answer to a cruel barbaric primitive culture is for his people to be just as bad as them? All this, from a god of love?

    Just as bad? Are you aware that the Midianite culture was cruel barbaric and primitive in itself? War is not cruel barbaric or primitive. If America attacked a country after the other waged war, would you call America cruel, barbaric, and/or primitive? The best option is usually never the easiest.

    Oh come on D, wake up. You sit here using your computer in the 21st century. You might use a microwave oven, or fly across the world, or watch TV, or have your cancer or other disease cured. Or watch photos of galaxies billions of miles away, and thank biological science for all the wonders it’s done for humanity (based on evolution), but as soon as science says something that conflicts with your precious beliefs, then science is the enemy and has nothing useful to say.

    I have not shown this, nor do I think this way. I think many scientific theories are contradictory to science, therefore unscientific, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike science. When science fails to explain its own origin, what then should I do? Follow the same blind faith in science that too many do? Even atheistic beliefs are based on faith. I don’t think science is an enemy; science is our idea of how this world works; it is a reach toward better understanding. But when science fails to prove its own origin, I come up with my own answer, and then you come at me with insults and assertions that mean nothing because you follow the same idea I do, only you think that everyone came from chemicals that appeared out of nowhere and exploded. That’s more far-fetched than saying there is an intelligent, all-powerful, obviously unconditionally loving being out there.

    YOUR beliefs are the problem. This is pure intellectual dishonesty; you are being dishonest with yourself.

    YOUR beliefs are the problem. This is pure intellectual dishonesty; you are being dishonest with yourself.

    I will easily prove logically that the biblical god can’t exist.

    I’d like to see that.

    I know, in advance though, that you will equivocate and make excuses for his behaviour and pretend there is no contradiction.

    How could you be so arrogant and self-centered to assume the thoughts of others in advanced? Once again, I see your 1st grader argument coming back.

  211. evanescent Says:

    Could’ve fooled me.

    Given your beliefs, that doesn’t seem to be a problem. ;)

    What does that have to do with what I said. If you can’t present a valid problem, or if you present a problem but I defend it successfully, then there probably isn’t a problem.

    That’s correct. But you’re yet to defend any problem successfully, except to your own satisfaction.

    A verse please? I’m not a Bible scholar; I’m just intelligent (or so I’m told).

    Not a problem: 2 Kings 8:26 compared to 2 Chronicles 22:2.

    Which is it?

    Your inability to accept that Christians are right in their beliefs doesn’t make me wrong.

    But that has yet to be shown. The burden of proof is on you.

    When did I say that? Truthfully, I don’t think that it was considered cruel then.

    Are you saying that cruelty is time-specific? Was rape ok 3000 years ago, but evil now?

    I also don’t think that someone saying, “Don’t kill them,” is cruel. As far as I know, God never said “Go kill everyone.”

    Then you don’t know your own bible. God and his followers do directly demand murder and atrocity many times in the bible. Have you ever read the bible all the way through?

    If He did, why is it cruel? Why do you think it is cruel? Just because it is? That’s not good enough.

    No. It’s cruel because the word “cruel” means something. It has a definition. Genocide, infanticide, mass-murder, racism, rape etc are WRONG. They are always wrong. They are wrong whether I think so or not.

    Doesn’t your own morality tell you this?

    What would a child’s life be like if his/her father was killed in battle and the child was left with only his/her mother in an immoral, murderous society?

    Don’t you think that child still has the right to live? Or are you saying that if a parent dies, the child should also be killed as part of a mercy killing??

    Is this how you really think war should work? There are international conventions to protect the innocent from this kind of disgraceful barbarism.

    Compare that to Paradise (children are innocent, therefore they go to Heaven if they die at that age). What seems better to you?

    So it’s ok for children to be hacked to pieces by a sword, because they’ll just go to heaven anyway? Hmmm.

    Unfortunately, the doctrine of heaven wasn’t invented until the New Testament. The ancient Jews didn’t believe in an afterlife. This was a later invention by Christians.

    Yes, but God’s spokesmen weren’t perfect, mind you.

    Accepted. But did they speak for god or not? Maybe we should disregard everything they said? How do you know which parts they were right about and which parts they weren’t? And did god even punish his people for the atrocities they committed? No.

    So you think that they shouldn’t fight back? You think that Israel should just let itself be conquered? What goes on in your mind? I never stated nor implied that 2 wrongs make a right. 3 rights make a left.

    Hang on, how could Israel let itself be conquered?? Wasn’t Almighty God on their side? This makes no sense. God is allpowerful and allknowing isn’t he? Would he have allowed his people to be destroyed?

    Fighting back is one thing, deliberate systematic invasion, mass murder, and rape is evil. It is not self defence, no more than the Nazis were defending themselves from Jews (even thought is exactly what Hitler claimed!)

    Just as bad? Are you aware that the Midianite culture was cruel barbaric and primitive in itself? War is not cruel barbaric or primitive. If America attacked a country after the other waged war, would you call America cruel, barbaric, and/or primitive? The best option is usually never the easiest.

    If America attacked a country in war, would I call America cruel, barbaric and/or primitive? That depends on their actions!

    American invaded Iraq, and defeated its army. Now, can you give me a link to the news reports were Americans murdered all the civilian males, all the females, killed all the children and babies, but kept virgin girls as sex slaves for themselves??

    Would this even happen today? If America did that, you would be rightly disgraced and ashamed by their actions. Yet, when god’s people do it you don’t have a problem. Why is that?

    I have not shown this, nor do I think this way. I think many scientific theories are contradictory to science, therefore unscientific, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike science.

    I have a feeling the only scientific theories you have a problem with are those that disagree with your personal beliefs.

    When science fails to explain its own origin, what then should I do? Follow the same blind faith in science that too many do?

    I don’t know what you’re talking about here sorry.

    Even atheistic beliefs are based on faith.

    Really? An example, please? How can not believing in a myth be an act of faith?

    I don’t think science is an enemy; science is our idea of how this world works; it is a reach toward better understanding. But when science fails to prove its own origin, I come up with my own answer, and then you come at me with insults and assertions that mean nothing because you follow the same idea I do, only you think that everyone came from chemicals that appeared out of nowhere and exploded. That’s more far-fetched than saying there is an intelligent, all-powerful, obviously unconditionally loving being out there.

    First of all, I’ve never meant to insult you. Science has done a very good job explaining where life came from. Sure, some things are sketchy and we might never know, but at least we’re trying. Resorting to a myth for your answers is lazy.

    You’ve just admitted here when science gives an answer that you don’t like, you find your own explanation. Isn’t that just another way of saying “making stuff up”?

    Also, I don’t think that everyone came from chemicals that appeared from nowhere and exploded. That’s a strawman, and a common theistic tactic. Life and non-life was preceded by something very very similar but very very slightly less complex. If you trace these tiny changes back long enough (the universe is 15 billion years old) it is easy to see that there wasn’t and never has been one giant step from NOTHING to SOMETHING.

    YOUR beliefs are the problem. This is pure intellectual dishonesty; you are being dishonest with yourself.

    It’s all well and good parroting my words back to me D, but the point is, I accept the facts wherever they lead, and you don’t. I don’t pick and choose what I like about science, and I’m not bound by any belief system. I’ve already said I might be wrong and am prepared to be wrong, and I’d accept anything if the evidence was there. That is exactly what intellectual honesty is.

    I’d like to see that.

    Wait for my weekend article.

    How could you be so arrogant and self-centered to assume the thoughts of others in advanced? Once again, I see your 1st grader argument coming back.

    It’s not arrogance, D. It’s a prediction. I used to believe in god and I’ve debated with many believers, and I see the same trends all the time: the equivocation, the double-meanings, defending the indefensible, attacking science when it doesn’t suit you, the double-standards, the inability to accept that one’s beliefs are wrong… and the result is always the same.

  212. D Says:

    Are you saying that cruelty is time-specific? Was rape ok 3000 years ago, but evil now?

    I said no such thing. You fail to keep in mind that humans are imperfect. You also need to think of what would happened if Israel had just let people attack them. Would things be better?

    Then you don’t know your own bible. God and his followers do directly demand murder and atrocity many times in the bible. Have you ever read the bible all the way through?

    Did you even read my comments? I didn’t say that the leaders said to, I said God did not God command such. Listen, please.

    Genocide, infanticide, mass-murder, racism, rape etc are WRONG. They are always wrong. They are wrong whether I think so or not.

    I know they are wrong, but there are two things wrong with that coming from you.

    1. That is irrelaventt to this argument, because you can’t give an example of it; if you could, you would have by now.

    2. You’re an atheist, so you don’t believe that there is a real right and a real wrong. If you do believe there is a right and there is a wrong, where did this come from? If it came from some brain function, then it isn’t worth worrying about, since it can’t be trusted.

    Don’t you think that child still has the right to live? Or are you saying that if a parent dies, the child should also be killed as part of a mercy killing??

    Is this how you really think war should work? There are international conventions to protect the innocent from this kind of disgraceful barbarism.

    American invaded Iraq, and defeated its army. Now, can you give me a link to the news reports were Americans murdered all the civilian males, all the females, killed all the children and babies, but kept virgin girls as sex slaves for themselves??

    Would this even happen today? If America did that, you would be rightly disgraced and ashamed by their actions. Yet, when god’s people do it you don’t have a problem. Why is that?

    My question to you is this: When did God’s people commit such deeds with God’s approval?

  213. evanescent Says:

    I said no such thing. You fail to keep in mind that humans are imperfect. You also need to think of what would happened if Israel had just let people attack them. Would things be better?

    You must have completed missed my response to this, so I’ll restate it here:

    “Hang on, how could Israel let itself be conquered?? Wasn’t Almighty God on their side? This makes no sense. God is all-powerful and all-knowing isn’t he? Would he have allowed his people to be destroyed?

    Fighting back is one thing, deliberate systematic invasion, mass murder, and rape is evil. It is not self defence, no more than the Nazis were defending themselves from Jews (even thought is exactly what Hitler claimed!)”

    Did you even read my comments? I didn’t say that the leaders said to, I said God did not God command such. Listen, please.

    Well then, like I said you can’t know your own bible, as my post at the weekend will clarify.

    Which actions did the leaders do with god’s approval then? How do you know, because the bible doesn’t specify! How do you personally decide D which actions were approved by god or not?

    Remember this is a god who punishes his people for the slightest little thing. Apparently mass murder and rape aren’t worth his time and effort to punish!

    1. That is irrelaventt to this argument, because you can’t give an example of it; if you could, you would have by now.

    Wow. I had to re-read this sentence three times. Are you kidding? In my VERY LAST COMMENT I gave you the account of the Midianites!

    This is all going to look very embarrassing for you at the weekend when I post a long article all about god’s cruelty, and here you are saying that there are no such events!

    2. You’re an atheist, so you don’t believe that there is a real right and a real wrong. If you do believe there is a right and there is a wrong, where did this come from? If it came from some brain function, then it isn’t worth worrying about, since it can’t be trusted.

    We call that a non-sequitor.

    Again, I had to re-read this a few times because I couldn’t believe my eyes. Is this the first time you’ve ever debated with an atheist, D?

    You’ve actually said something very revealing here, D: YOU don’t think there is a right or wrong, unless god tells you!

    According to you, unless there’s a god then we can’t say what’s right or wrong. This makes YOUR morality meaningless.

    On the other hand, atheists KNOW right from wrong, and there are always rights and wrong.

    Causing unnecessary harm, violating, and exploiting people is WRONG. Don’t you think so?? Or are you saying that if your god doesn’t exist (which it doesn’t), you would hurt, violate, and exploit people??

    If you say yes, then you’re an immoral despicable individual. And if you say no, then you’re in the same position as atheists: deciding right and wrong for yourself based on how it affects other people.

    My question to you is this: When did God’s people commit such deeds with God’s approval?

    As my post at the weekend will show: god directly orders such atrocities and commits them himself.

    When his followers do it, does god ever punish them? In fact, since the bible is god’s word, where are all the verses denouncing the evil acts of the Israelites? Funny that god can have a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, but he can’t be bothered to smack the wrists of Moses when he orders genocide and rape. I guess god was having a busy day eh?

  214. D Says:

    I have a feeling the only scientific theories you have a problem with are those that disagree with your personal beliefs.

    According to you, a feeling isn’t enough. Of course I have a problem with a scientific theory that goes against both science and my beliefs. If a theory of science conflicts with both my beliefs and itself, I have a problem with it.

    I don’t know what you’re talking about here sorry.

    In order to be an atheist, you have to follow the blind faith that God doesn’t exist. You can’t disprove God’s existence, yet you say that there isn’t one. Your ideas are just a ridiculous-sounding as mine

    How can not believing in a myth be an act of faith?

    Atheism is a myth-based belief system that says, “We don’t know why this happened, but I refuse to accept that God did it.”

    Science has done a very good job explaining where life came from.

    Not good enough.

    Sure, some things are sketchy and we might never know, but at least we’re trying. Resorting to a myth for your answers is lazy.

    AT LEAST CHRISTIANS ARE TRYING HARDER THAN ATHEISTS. Atheists say, “I don’t know what happened, but I refuse the possibility that God did it,” and then you leave it at that. If you CAN’T figure out something, then narrow it down to the least amount of possibilities. I’ve narrowed it down to either the universe is eternal or God.

    You’ve just admitted here when science gives an answer that you don’t like, you find your own explanation. Isn’t that just another way of saying “making stuff up”?

    Yes I did, but you’re twisting my words. The reason I don’t like myths like the big bang (the so called “scientific” version) is that they contradict science, and they can’t possibly have happened the way you say it did. So I come up with a better explanation.

    That’s a strawman, and a common theistic tactic.

    Either you believe that or you believe the universe is eternal, and the universe can’t be eternal because time can’t be eternal. I become increasingly frustrated when you are trying to call my explanation of life a myth when your idea if far more unrealitic. You actually believe that DNA and atoms and all those complex things just came out of nowhere or were just always there? What kind of belief is that? I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept that the universe came around by chance; it just sounds stupid (no offense).

    It’s all well and good parroting my words back to me D, but the point is, I accept the facts wherever they lead, and you don’t. I don’t pick and choose what I like about science, and I’m not bound by any belief system. I’ve already said I might be wrong and am prepared to be wrong, and I’d accept anything if the evidence was there. That is exactly what intellectual honesty is.

    I parroted you to make a point. You’re beliefs sound just as ridiculous to me as mine do to you. I do not believe your statement that you’re ready to accept anything if the evidence was there. If Christianity turned out to be right and if it was explained in perfect sense to you, I believe (based on your actions so far) that you would just refuse to accept it and pretend to be the smarter one. In other words: I believe you to be intellectually dishonest.

    It’s not arrogance, D. It’s a prediction. I used to believe in god and I’ve debated with many believers, and I see the same trends all the time: the equivocation, the double-meanings, defending the indefensible, attacking science when it doesn’t suit you, the double-standards, the inability to accept that one’s beliefs are wrong… and the result is always the same.

    Those are your opinions, but that doesn’t make those statements true.

    Here’s the Midianite’s story’s aftermath:

    Num 31:19-24 And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. (20) Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goats’ hair, and everything made of wood.” (21) Then Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to the battle, “This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses: (22) “Only the gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead, (23) everything that can endure fire, you shall put through the fire, and it shall be clean; and it shall be purified with the water of purification. But all that cannot endure fire you shall put through water. (24) And you shall wash your clothes on the seventh day and be clean, and afterward you may come into the camp.”

    Moses commanded the raid, but they didn’t kill the women nor the children, but they kept them alive. Afterwards, Moses told everyone to clean everything and do all this purification stuff; through this he showed that he was guilty and ashamed of the war, but the war had to be fought. Then they split up the plunder and made sure that each family was placed in the care of Eleazar or the Levites or whomever they trusted.

    …Yeah, that sounds cruel.

    In the older times, rules and laws were thousands of times more strict, and everyone knew that if a person committed a serious wrong, that person must face the punishment. Today we are much more lenient, and we seem to have taken that for granted. In Deuteronomy, one leader commanded that they destroy everyone from a certain tribe, but later they changed their mind and there was that basic war where they give every survivor a shelter and a family. The only ones who didn’t survive were the ones who participated in the war through battle.

    Eze 9:6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

    This is taken from Ezekiel 9:6. This was during Ezekial’s vision and it was a test of his faith and stuff like that.

    The only other verses in the entire Bible that include the words women and children are about either another wicked king from another country that commanded the Jews to be killed or it was about something other than murder, such as the feeding of the 5,000 or the feeding of the 4,000.

  215. evanescent Says:

    There’s no evidence for god, so atheism isn’t an act of faith, or irrational. You’re being disingenuous using those words. Gods are invented by humans, not the other way around.

    Atheism is a myth-based belief system that says, “We don’t know why this happened, but I refuse to accept that God did it.”

    On the contrary, theism is: “we don’t know why this happened, therefore god did it.” You’ve admitted as much when science provides answers you don’t like, you say they’re not good enough therefore god it. Maybe god did it, maybe Allah did it, maybe Zeus or Vishnu did it? Or maybe none of them did?

    Atheism means lack of belief in god, that’s all.

    You actually believe that DNA and atoms and all those complex things just came out of nowhere or were just always there? What kind of belief is that? I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept that the universe came around by chance; it just sounds stupid (no offense)

    I don’t think DNA and atoms and complex things came out of nothing. Who told you that, or is that what you think atheists believe? You’re wrong.

    You equate unpurposed with blind chance. But atheists don’t. So, you’re attacking a strawman really; no atheist thinks what you just said.

    Also, if Christianity was proved true then I’d believe it. I’m not saying I’d follow it, because I don’t believe it’s the best way to live life, but to deny the facts would be illogical. Unfortunately for you, Christianity is no different to Judaism or Islam. (Except that Christianity probably has far more blood on its hands).

    Moses commanded the raid, but they didn’t kill the women nor the children, but they kept them alive.

    This contradicts what the bible says. Did you read the biblical account? You’re going against it.

    In Deuteronomy, one leader commanded that they destroy everyone from a certain tribe, but later they changed their mind and there was that basic war where they give every survivor a shelter and a family. The only ones who didn’t survive were the ones who participated in the war through battle

    Where are you getting this from? This isn’t what the bible says. The Midianite story is one of mass murder and sexual exploitation of young girls. That it happened a long time ago doesn’t make it right. And if you really thing the Israelites only killed soldiers in battle, then you’re in for a shock when you read my article at the weekend.

    The only other verses in the entire Bible that include the words women and children are about either another wicked king from another country that commanded the Jews to be killed or it was about something other than murder.

    I mean no offence D, but you’re setting yourself up for a huge fall here. Like I keep saying, my weekend article will address all this with many examples from the bible. The more you deny the bible, the more ignorant of it you appear.

    To give you a taster of what my article will be like, read this:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

    and this:

    http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html

    Before you come back and say that there are no atrocities in the bible committed by god or his people, take a long look at these articles.

  216. D Says:

    You must have completed missed my response to this, so I’ll restate it here:

    “Hang on, how could Israel let itself be conquered?? Wasn’t Almighty God on their side? This makes no sense. God is all-powerful and all-knowing isn’t he? Would he have allowed his people to be destroyed?

    Fighting back is one thing, deliberate systematic invasion, mass murder, and rape is evil. It is not self defence, no more than the Nazis were defending themselves from Jews (even thought is exactly what Hitler claimed!)”

    I believe I’ve already covered that. There was no “mass murder or rape” as you claim just to make Christians sound bad.

    Is this the first time you’ve ever debated with an atheist, D?

    No. It was, but I’ve been debating with 5 atheists simultaneously including you. Now I’ve got about 15 to deal with, but I’m taking a little more time off from the computer lately.

    You’ve actually said something very revealing here, D: YOU don’t think there is a right or wrong, unless god tells you!

    No I didn’t. You just twisted my words once again. I don’t think there CAN be a right or a wrong unless there is something that created it. Unless there is something far more intelligent than me that says there is a right and wrong, I wouldn’t believe there was. If there isn’t an all-powerful being out there, then morality is just a figment of our imagination, therefore you have no right to declare what is right/wrong.

    We call that a non-sequitor.

    And we call THAT a false accusation.

    Remember this is a god who punishes his people for the slightest little thing.

    No He doesn’t, nor did He. If someone commited something we humans call adultery (in any form), they had to be punished. I don’t have to explain myself on what you said next; I already have.

    According to you, unless there’s a god then we can’t say what’s right or wrong. This makes YOUR morality meaningless.

    lol. Now THAT’S a non sequitor.

    On the other hand, atheists KNOW right from wrong, and there are always rights and wrong

    No they don’t. That isn’t what I’ve heard from any other atheist. Your an odd-ball when it comes to atheists. Some of you make good points; one of them being that there isn’t a real right or a real wrong, rather that it depends on each individual person. I don’t believe this, but in the hypothetical scenario that God doesn’t exist, it makes perfect sense. You may argue among yourselves if you wish, but I’ll choose my side of the argument.

    Causing unnecessary harm, violating, and exploiting people is WRONG. Don’t you think so?? Or are you saying that if your god doesn’t exist (which it doesn’t), you would hurt, violate, and exploit people??

    If you say yes, then you’re an immoral despicable individual. And if you say no, then you’re in the same position as atheists: deciding right and wrong for yourself based on how it affects other people.

    If I weren’t a Christian, I would be much, much more rude and flat out disrespectful. I know this because I know my own nature, and the only thing holding me back is that I KNOW that there is a God out there far more intelligent and powerful than any being who loves me and He is a Father who tells the truth, and because I’ve grown attached to Him, I will try my hardest to be like Him, although I can never be as perfect, but I can try to be as moral as humanly possible (I’m not saying I succeed, but I do well). Be grateful I’m a Christian.

    When his followers do it, does god ever punish them?

    Absolutely. There are many verses in the Bible telling of the disrespectful and outright disobediant behavior of the Israelites.

    In fact, since the bible is god’s word, where are all the verses denouncing the evil acts of the Israelites?

    Funny that god can have a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, but he can’t be bothered to smack the wrists of Moses when he orders genocide and rape. I guess god was having a busy day eh?

    You know less of the Bible than I, and I’m younger than you (this I am sure of). There are way too many verses telling of the Israelites’ disobediance. For instance:

    Exo 6:5-9 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. (6) Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the LORD; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. (7) I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the LORD your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. (8) And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the LORD.’ ” (9) So Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel; but they did not heed Moses, because of anguish of spirit and cruel bondage.

    This is only a fraction of the verses mentioning the Israelites disrespect and disobedience.

    So far, you’re really giving me a good laugh therefore a good day. I appreciate that, and I mean absolutely no offense or disrespect. If I were in your position, I would look into the Bible more. Much more. You’ve accused the Bible, but you haven’t backed anything up well enough. Still, I applaud your efforts.

  217. D Says:

    There’s no evidence for god, so atheism isn’t an act of faith, or irrational. You’re being disingenuous using those words. Gods are invented by humans, not the other way around.

    You expect to win an argument with that? Atheism is more than an act of faith. It is an act of total ignorant refusal. The more I think about it, the more atheism seems to be such a ridiculous, stupid belief. The evidence for God is the fact that everything that exists, exists. You just have to look into it deep enough with a very open mind.

    On the contrary, theism is: “we don’t know why this happened, therefore god did it.” You’ve admitted as much when science provides answers you don’t like, you say they’re not good enough therefore god it. Maybe god did it, maybe Allah did it, maybe Zeus or Vishnu did it? Or maybe none of them did?

    What a sweeping assertion. Theism isn’t that; rather, a theist doesn’t know why something happened, but he knows that he should stick to the best answer. I don’t know if this next part will mean anything to you, but here’s a quote:

    “A philosopher is a blind man in a dark alley looking for a black cat that isn’t there. A theologist is a blind man in a dark alley looking for a black cat that isn’t there and thinks he’s found it.”

    In other words, theists are bold enough to come up with the best answer and stick to it while atheists just say that they don’t know the answer, but the theists can’t be right. That’s a 1st grade argument right there.

    Atheism means lack of belief in god, that’s all.

    Exactly. Atheism is just denial.

    I don’t think DNA and atoms and complex things came out of nothing. Who told you that, or is that what you think atheists believe? You’re wrong.

    You equate unpurposed with blind chance. But atheists don’t. So, you’re attacking a strawman really; no atheist thinks what you just said.

    I know what you believe. I knew you would say that; it is the common response that never fails (it’s quite similar to a scientific law; it never fails). If you don’t believe this, what then do you believe? It would be stupid to simply believe that there isn’t a God and just leave it at that. Do you believe the universe is eternal or something? If so, where did time come from and where did morality come from since you obviously are the only atheist in the world to believe in morality.

    Also, if Christianity was proved true then I’d believe it.

    No you wouldn’t (I know what you’re probably thinking at this moment, but I simply don’t believe that you would accept it).

    I’m not saying I’d follow it, because I don’t believe it’s the best way to live life,

    That’s just rude. Why isn’t it the best way to live life? Christianity teaches to spread the word, but at the same time Christianity teaches us to be kinder and understanding towards one another. Why is that bad?

    Except that Christianity probably has far more blood on its hands).

    Non sequitor. See? We’re learning.

    This contradicts what the bible says. Did you read the biblical account? You’re going against it.

    Of course I read it. I’m looking at it right now. I think I quoted it, but I might not have. Either way, unless you have a Bible out, I’m the only one looking at that passage.

    Where are you getting this from? This isn’t what the bible says. The Midianite story is one of mass murder and sexual exploitation of young girls. That it happened a long time ago doesn’t make it right. And if you really thing the Israelites only killed soldiers in battle, then you’re in for a shock when you read my article at the weekend.

    From the Bible itself. This is the account (or one of them) of the Midianites. I’m looking at it this very moment, and I searched the words “women and children,” but I never found anything that mentioned “rape.” As I said before, you need to look into a subject before attacking it.

    I mean no offence D, but you’re setting yourself up for a huge fall here. Like I keep saying, my weekend article will address all this with many examples from the bible. The more you deny the bible, the more ignorant of it you appear.

    Believe what you will. I know what the Bible says; I’m still looking at it. Just because you haven’t read the Bible doesn’t mean I haven’t.

    Anyway, have a nice day. God bless.

  218. evanescent Says:

    You expect to win an argument with that? Atheism is more than an act of faith. It is an act of total ignorant refusal. The more I think about it, the more atheism seems to be such a ridiculous, stupid belief. The evidence for God is the fact that everything that exists, exists. You just have to look into it deep enough with a very open mind.

    So, this is what Christianity comes down to? God created everything and the best evidence he can leave for his existence is, well, existence. Was he thinking: “well I’ll just create everything, make it LOOK like I did nothing, leave no evidence, leave overwhelming evidence of evolution, create a universe trillions of light-years across, and in all this, one tiny planet with unstable tectonics and inhospitable environment, then I’ll make over 80% uninhabitable to my one special lifeform, then I’ll trick them into a mistake, then punish them and their children for ever and ever for it.”

    Yeah, D. Atheism really is stupid isn’t it?

    What a sweeping assertion. Theism isn’t that; rather, a theist doesn’t know why something happened, but he knows that he should stick to the best answer. I don’t know if this next part will mean anything to you, but here’s a quote:

    We should all stick to the best answer.

    “A philosopher is a blind man in a dark alley looking for a black cat that isn’t there. A theologist is a blind man in a dark alley looking for a black cat that isn’t there and thinks he’s found it.”

    In other words, theists are bold enough to come up with the best answer and stick to it while atheists just say that they don’t know the answer, but the theists can’t be right. That’s a 1st grade argument right there.

    Lol, is that what the quote is saying?! Haha, it sounds to me like it’s saying that a theologist is a blind man who says he found something that isn’t even there! That sounds about right to me!

    Besides, some answers we do know. Some answers we don’t. If we know it’s because we have evidence. If we don’t know it’s because there isn’t enough evidence, yet. But we keep searching.

    Theists on the other hand filter everything they learn through their belief system. You know, like the time the church thought the earth was flat, or that the sun went around the earth, or that evolution was totally false, or that demons and spirits caused disease, and cats were the devil’s familiars. Eventually though, even theists (like the Catholic Church has had to do many times) have had to admit that their interpretations were wrong and, oh, guess what… science was right all along.

    Exactly. Atheism is just denial.

    Sometimes, but not always. Do you deny that Zogblog exists? How can you deny what means nothing? Some people have their own god and haven’t heard of yours, are they atheists too??

    I know what you believe. I knew you would say that; it is the common response that never fails (it’s quite similar to a scientific law; it never fails). If you don’t believe this, what then do you believe?

    Scientific laws very rarely fail, but so what?

    If I don’t believe this, what do I believe? Care to narrow that question down a bit?

    It would be stupid to simply believe that there isn’t a God and just leave it at that. Do you believe the universe is eternal or something? If so, where did time come from and where did morality come from since you obviously are the only atheist in the world to believe in morality.

    No I don’t think the universe is eternal. I think space and time had a beginning at the big bang. It makes no sense to talk of space or time before that point, at least not in terms we can relate to our physical universe.

    I don’t know what caused the big bang. And neither do you. Whereas I’m honest and say “I don’t know”, you say “ah, well that’s where my invisible friend comes in that a Jewish guy wrote in a book a few thousand years ago.”

    What you’ve said above is an Argument from Incredulity, and God of the Gaps fallacy. You don’t know, therefore ‘god did it’. It’s a mystery, therefore ‘god did it’. Illogical.

    Your statement “since you obviously are the only atheist in the world to believe in morality”, is the most stupid remark I’ve ever heard. This must be the first time you’ve ever argued with an atheist. I don’t know an atheist who DOESN’T believe in morality! Some atheists believe morality is subjective. I however believe it is objective.

    No you wouldn’t (I know what you’re probably thinking at this moment, but I simply don’t believe that you would accept it).

    That’s just ridiculous, if the evidence supported Christianity, I would believe that Christianity was true. It’s really simple. Atheists follow facts, not beliefs.

    That’s just rude. Why isn’t it the best way to live life? Christianity teaches to spread the word, but at the same time Christianity teaches us to be kinder and understanding towards one another. Why is that bad?

    That is ONE of the things that Christianity teaches. It also teaches that those who don’t believe are wicked sinners who will be burned alive forever. It teaches that humans are sinful and depraved and need constant forgiveness for the “crimes” of others. It treats humans as pawns in a silly cosmic battle of good vs evil, and it devalues human life because it says that death and afterlife are more important than the here and now. It teaches that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death, and it teaches that only people of ONE belief system can be saved.

    I don’t subscribe to those teachings. I think they’re unfair and devalue life. Life is too precious to spend it slaving for the approval of an invisible creature for the “crime” of being what you are, and constantly thinking there is something wrong with you and you should be different.

    Besides, you can’t be a Christian without accepting the god of the entire bible, and he is a vicious evil character that I’d rather die than serve. Fortunately, he’s not real.

    You said: “to be kinder and understanding towards one another”. Now, you tell me this: why do we need a religion to do this?? Why can’t we be kinder and understanding towards each other because it’s nice? Is the only reason you try to be nice is because god tells you to??

    I said: “Except that Christianity probably has far more blood on its hands).”

    D said: “Non sequitor. See? We’re learning.”

    Actually, it wasn’t a non sequitor! I said the only difference between Christianity and other religions is that Christianity is more bloodguilty than them. This wasn’t an argument it was a fact, so it cannot be a non-sequitor.

    From the Bible itself. This is the account (or one of them) of the Midianites. I’m looking at it this very moment, and I searched the words “women and children,” but I never found anything that mentioned “rape.” As I said before, you need to look into a subject before attacking it.

    You just don’t get it do you D? Read the account in Numbers that I quoted (twice) about the Midianites. Everyone was killed, even the young boys. But the young girls “were kept alive for yourselves”, that “had not known a man by lying with him”. They were kept for the soldiers own sexual purpose. If that’s not rape to you, what is?

    I said: “I mean no offence D, but you’re setting yourself up for a huge fall here. Like I keep saying, my weekend article will address all this with many examples from the bible. The more you deny the bible, the more ignorant of it you appear.”

    D said: “Believe what you will. I know what the Bible says; I’m still looking at it. Just because you haven’t read the Bible doesn’t mean I haven’t.”

    *Sigh* D, I have read the bible (which I’ve told you many times). The chances are, I’ve read it all the way through more often than you.

    Why don’t you just admit it: nothing I say will ever convince you that the bible is wrong, yes? Nothing at all! So what is the point of arguing?

    We both know that nothing could ever convince you that your beliefs are wrong. You would excuse and try to rationalise any problem or contradiction with the bible, so you’re going to keep on believing no matter what.

    By the way, did you look up the Ahaziah verses. What’s your answer?

  219. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    You said “Causing unnecessary harm, violating, and exploiting people is WRONG.”

    Without addressing what you think I believe (or others) can you tell me how you know this?

    I know that it sounds good, but I don’t see it in nature anywhere. In fact when children (say under 3) get together, they exhibit just the opposite behavior (they are selfish, cause unwarranted harm to others etc.) If, as Tobe once said that morality has “evolved” I would expect to see something that has been bred into the human race.

    Well, what I am asking is for you to explain how this got into your “knower” – without addressing religion.

  220. evanescent Says:

    Humans have evolved a conscience through our social development. There are things that most people instinctively know are right or wrong, but children still need to be honed. Just as humans have evolved to walk upright, children still need years of practice and learning to get walking down.

    Let me provide a counter-question which will illustrate morality extremely easily:

    Do you need your religion to tell you that causing unnecessary harm, violating, and exploiting other people is wrong?

    In other words, if you weren’t religious and/or didn’t believe in god, would you hurt, murder, steal, rape, violate, and not care for anyone??

    What is your answer, and why?

  221. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    I won’t answer your question until you completely answer mine.
    My question was “how do you know” and I guess I would add, “what if I “know” in my “knower” different that you do? Are we both right?

    Also, I would venture a guess that walking is instinctive and a child left to his own would still learn to walk. With no outside influence, do you think children would learn kindness and order on their own? I don’t think so – many surveys have been done asking today’s “civilized” people what they would do if they knew that they wouldn’t get caught. Not a pretty picture.

  222. evanescent Says:

    A lot of human behaviour is instinctive but a lot of it is learned too. Humans have evolved as social creatures which is where our altruistic behaviour comes from (something that animals have too). So your example of taking a child away from any external influences or interaction with other people is fallacious: that is exactly the kind of situation that we’re not talking about, and with no one to interact with it’s impossible to say how he’d treat other people.

    I don’t understand why you won’t answer the question; it was a perfect way to illustrate that some issues of morality are objective and therefore is it clear how we “know” them.

    So I ask you again: do you “know” rape is wrong? Why? Is it because god says so? Or is rape wrong anyway? If so, why?

    If you understand this then you will understand where atheists get their morality from. Frankly, your refusal to answer the question is puzzling!

  223. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    When I asked you the question in the beginning, I prefaced it by saying that I did not want you to predicate your answer on what you thought I believed. Instead of answering fully, you gave a half assed answer and then turned it on me. I was simply asking how you know that you know and what if I know something different.
    But since you can’t explain further than “I know because I know it” I guess we will proceed.

    Your question – “In other words, if you weren’t religious and/or didn’t believe in god, would you hurt, murder, steal, rape, violate, and not care for anyone??” Yes, maybe I would and maybe I wouldn’t. But it wouldn’t be because it was right or wrong. If I did not do it, it would be to keep a good orderly society. But if I chose to do all the things listed, you wouldn’t be able to say I was “wrong” – you could only say that I was “unfashionable”. You could say that you did not like my behavior, but you could not say that my behavior was wrong.

    Your last statement still leaves me quite confused – “If you understand this then you will understand where atheists get their morality from.”

    I still have no idea where atheists get their morality from. You just list what your morality is, but you never tell me where it comes from. Care to take one more shot?

  224. evanescent Says:

    You can leave the sarcasm at the door Geno, especially when you’re so far off the mark.

    ‘Wrong’ is defined as knowingly causing unnecessary harm to another being. That is what the word means.

    Therefore if I hurt someone else without cause, I am wrong. I know this.

    Asking how I “know” right from wrong is like asking how do I know the sky is blue or that the moon orbits the earth.

    It is a silly vacuous question. Morality comes from objective principles that exist independent of belief.

    However, I think you’ve said enough Geno:

    Yes, maybe I would and maybe I wouldn’t. But it wouldn’t be because it was right or wrong. If I did not do it, it would be to keep a good orderly society.

    So, let’s say your god doesn’t exist (which it doesn’t)…the only reason you wouldn’t kill and rape is to keep a good orderly society??

    Well Geno, please, keep on believing in your god! For the sake of everyone around you.

    You’ve just illustrated something about your personality and morality, and just how debase and evil Christianity is: you only think rape and murder are evil because of your religion.

    I KNOW they’re evil because hurting and violating people is wrong, because that is how wrong is defined, just like any other word.

    I think you’ve said more than enough Geno. No offence, but if this is really what you think about morality and human life, we have nothing more to talk about.

    You see, I’m an ethical person.

    (This article was about ID and it keeps going off track, so I think I will close it for now. I’m posting an article on morality in a few days so any comments on it can be made then.)


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: