Friday, January 11, 2013

Evolutionist, You Are the Man!

More Religious Hypocrisy

After David arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so he could have Uriah’s beautiful wife, Nathan the prophet told David a parable of a rich man who stole a poor man’s cherished little lamb. David had no difficulty in identifying the wrong, but how shocked he was when, in the very next moment, he realized the story was about him. “You are the man!,” exclaimed Nathan. How easy it is for us to exercise our reason and judgment when we are removed from the picture. And so how surprised atheists will be when they realize that, while accusing others of mindless fideism, it is they who “are the man.” Atheists accuse others of holding to comforting but vacuous and misleading religious beliefs. But that is a perfect description of themselves and their religion.

In this week’s Sunday Review Susan Jacoby issued all the usual hypocrisies. Religious believers enjoy the “comfort of their faith” but atheists like her are not religious. And that frees Jacoby and religion-free thinkers like her of the “theodicy problem.”

That was after Jacoby explained that she chose atheism because God wouldn’t allow so much suffering. Here is the money paragraph:

Now when students ask how I came to believe what I believe, I tell them that I trace my atheism to my first encounter, at age 7, with the scourge of polio. In 1952, a 9-year-old friend was stricken by the disease and clinging to life in an iron lung. After visiting him in the hospital, I asked my mother, “Why would God do that to a little boy?” She sighed in a way that telegraphed her lack of conviction and said: “I don’t know. The priest would say God must have his reasons, but I don’t know what they could be.”

Eight years later that little boy died but by that time Jacoby no longer had to ask the questions, for she was a committed atheist:

I do not have to ask, as all people of faith must, why an all-powerful, all-good God allows such things to happen.

It is true that theists are left with this question of why an all-powerful, all-good God allows such things to happen. But atheists such as Jacoby are left with questions of why such things ought not to happen in the first place. Such questions, as Whitehead so well observed, “appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming.”

And one of those things atheists are assuming is that God wouldn’t do it that way. As P.Z. Myers exclaimed to world he is:

pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

Pretty certain God wouldn’t have made this world? While Myers criticizes others for their religious beliefs, Myers’ notion of how the universe would and would not look if such an all-powerful being created it is, itself, a religious belief.

Perhaps Myers’ certainty is at the 99% level. How did he arrive at such a value? You see whether Myer’s certainty is 99%, 98%, 90%, or whatever, does not matter. For in any case, it is a religious claim. There is no scientific experiment or evidence to back up Myers’ belief. There is no logic or rationale to which Myers could appeal.

Myers concludes with atheism, but his very atheism undermines his religious claim. If atheism were true, then no religious claims could be known to be true. One could claim there is a 99% chance God would or would not do this or that, but such a claim would be worthless.

Now Jacoby repeats this illogical exercise yet again. She claims freedom from theodicy not realizing she is a captive. Jacoby did not obviate religion as she imagines, she swallowed it. Jacoby no longer asks such questions not because they are no longer relevant to her, but rather because she has committed to them.

She has decided that God wouldn’t do that to a little boy and so, she concludes, there is no God. Not only is her premise a religious belief, but her conclusion makes it vacuous.

At this point atheists dig themselves even deeper with their standard, F6, response that they are “just testing your belief.” If that were the case then there would be no basis for their conclusion. For all that they would have proved is that people who believe that (i) God created this world and (ii) God would not create this world, are wrong.

When Myers states that God probably would not create this world and Jacoby says God would not do that to a little boy, they are expressing their religious beliefs. For atheists, it’s all about God. You Are the Man.

254 comments:

  1. The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g

    "One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks",,,"
    Eric - UD Blogger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of semi-related note:

      Both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day and shared many strange similarities in their lives, but the one common thing they shared that separated the two men drastically was the way they choose to handle the evil that happened in their lives. Darwin, though drifting away from God for a long while, was permanently driven away from God because of the 'unjust' death of his daughter:

      Whereas Lincoln, on the other hand, was driven from his mild skepticism into a deep reliance upon God because of the death of his son:
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/#comment-443197

      Delete
  2. PZ Myers himself is really good evidence for accumlating genetic accidents and human-chimp common ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A theodicy need only imply that teleological beings find their TOTAL existence worthwhile. For it's obvious that we can all think of short durations of our existence that would have rendered suicide rational if those durations were typical of our TOTAL existence.

    It's not hard to think of a theodicy that accounts for that. Even Judaeism and Christianity can posit a theodicy-satisfying universalism beyond some finite time of prophetic fulfillment, etc.

    There are many religious eschatologies that don't satisfy such theodicies. But that doesn't mean there is no conceivable theodicy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hypothetical question. If God created man as a perfect and good being, and also created a tree that produced fruit that if eaten, would start the process of sin and death throughout all creation, is it God's fault that sin and death entered His good and perfect creation? Even if he told the man not to eat of the tree of good and evil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar, God did not create robots.

      Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA

      “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell."
      - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

      Ravi Zacharias - How To Measure Your Choices - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Op_S5syhKI

      You must measure your choices by the measure of
      1) eternity
      2) morality
      3) accountability
      4) charity

      Moreover, it was shown in the following paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will (or conscious observation) as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics!

      Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012
      Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,,
      ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random.
      http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

      Delete
    2. Held- Natalie Grant - music video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_y9204TBM

      Delete
    3. If a teacher gives you a simple test, but also gives you the right answer to the test and you put down the wrong answer, whose fault is it that the student fails?

      Delete
    4. If the teacher created the student and knew exactly in advance what the student would do in the test, how can he blame the student for doing only what he or she was designed to do?

      Delete
  5. If you meet an atheist, and there aren't many out there, you should always keep in mind that on the inside they are in serious pain. They may not show it, but it is the pain that they feel that warps their point of view. The proper response to a person in pain like this is compassion. So, although they criticize us, we must remember that they harbour a deep invisible pain, and we must show them our Christian love because they need it more than most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am curious, Peter, how would you know that an atheist is in serious pain on the inside?

      For that matter, I am an atheist and I do not experience any discomfort, let alone serious pain. Perhaps this is a matter of too wild imagination on your part?

      Delete
    2. No brain, no pain, oleg- and here you are.

      Delete
    3. Why is Joe G allowed to run around unsupervised on this blog?

      Delete
    4. Because of losers like you, oleg. Someone needs to tend to the trash and I volunteered.

      Delete
    5. CH, why did you title this OP

      "Evolutionist, You Are the Man!"

      Then go on a rant that has nothing to do with evolution?

      Are you just pushing the tired old Creationist lie again that all those who accept evolutionary theory must be atheists?

      Delete
    6. Joe G, the garbage man. What a great idea for a business card.

      Delete
    7. And YOU are the garbage- A better idea for your business card.

      Delete
    8. I don't have business cards, Joe. We professors have no need for them. But for you it could be a good investment. And "garbage man on a creationist blog" will also look great on a résumé.

      Delete
    9. oleg

      And "garbage man on a creationist blog" will also look great on a résumé.


      He can put it alongside all his other "accomplishments" like Iraqi war hero, fighter pilot, Olympic caliber athlete, biology research scientist, genetic algorithm programmer, top secret cryptographic expert. Ones he's claimed over the years.

      Oh, and toaster repairman. Can't forget the actual one.

      Delete
    10. Why is thorton such a lying momma's boy wussy?

      Delete
    11. oleg:
      I don't have business cards, Joe.

      Garbage doesn't need them

      Delete
    12. I'm with Joe. Atheists do not deserve love from Christians. Why? For the same reason that David did not give Goliath a gentle hug but decapitated the a-hole. LOL.

      Delete
    13. Louis, Jesus taught us to love everyone, even those that offend us or are against us. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with them or avoid criticizing their ideas. We are in the New Testament age, not the old.

      Delete
    14. Neal, the scriptures teach us that God does not change. He's the same forever. David was a man after God's own heart. Obviously, neither Christians nor atheists understand the message of Jesus. God also loved Moses, Abraham and Elijah. Those three did a lot of a-hole killing in their days, sometimes at the direction of God himself.

      And, BTW, I didn't see Jesus showing any love to the hypocritical Pharisees. He called them names such as snakes, vipers and whitewashed tombs filled with filth and rotten corpses. Atheists and evolutionists are just as self-righteous and hypocritical as the Pharisees, if not more.

      Delete
    15. Oleg,

      "We professors have no need for them."

      Gee, every professor I know has them.

      Delete
    16. Louis Savain,

      "And, BTW, I didn't see Jesus showing any love to the hypocritical Pharisees. He called them names such as snakes, vipers and whitewashed tombs filled with filth and rotten corpses. Atheists and evolutionists are just as self-righteous and hypocritical as the Pharisees, if not more."

      "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,..." Jesus, Matthew 5:44

      So tell me Louis, is Christ consistent in his teachings or not? According to you he is not. That being the case, I would like you to explain to me exactly how Christ's criticism of the Pharisees is unloving.

      If Christ is God, and God is unchanging, and Christ teaches us to love our enemies, where do you get off saying we do not need to love evolutionists and atheists?

      You've got a problem with consistency here, and I'm interested in how you're going to resolve it.

      Delete
    17. What if Christ isn't God and the whole trinity thing is a fabrication?

      And how did God love His enemies in the Old testament?

      Talk about a problem with inconsistency...

      Delete
    18. Joe G,

      "What if Christ isn't God and the whole trinity thing is a fabrication?"

      Both concepts are basic to Christian theology. You've clearly stated you're not a Christian, so such questions should be irrelevant to you.

      "And how did God love His enemies in the Old testament?"

      Read the OT and find out. Be sure you do not confuse judgment with being unloving.

      Delete
    19. Hi Nic-

      I was brought up a christian and went to Catholic schools. I know quite a bit about it. Newton was a unitarian precisely because the trinity was made up.

      And I have read the OT. And I can do without that type of "love".

      Delete
    20. Nic the confused Christian says:

      "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,..." Jesus, Matthew 5:44

      You're quoting out of context. What Jesus really said is this: you (humans) say, love your friends and hate your enemies. But I (Jesus) say, love your enemies.

      You're not Jesus, Nic, and neither am I. He could do it but you can't, even if you think you can. And guess what, when he comes back, it's arse-kicking time, all over again. Jesus was simply alluding to the fact that he came to pay for the sins of humanity and only the ones that he chooses because of their faith. The others? Well, they die forever. Atheists and evolutionists have about as much faith as a Higg boson.

      So tell me Louis, is Christ consistent in his teachings or not? According to you he is not. That being the case, I would like you to explain to me exactly how Christ's criticism of the Pharisees is unloving.

      Jesus is consistent, alright. It's your understanding that is faulty. I just don't think that calling somebody a hypocrite is a loving gesture. Jesus hated the Pharisees. Why? because of their hypocrisy but more so because they had no faith even after seeing the miraculous works.

      Delete
    21. Joe G:

      What if Christ isn't God and the whole trinity thing is a fabrication?

      I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the trinity doctrine. But I believe in a duality: left hemisphere/right hemisphere type of thing.

      Delete
    22. Louis Savain,

      "You're quoting out of context. What Jesus really said is this: you (humans) say, love your friends and hate your enemies. But I (Jesus) say, love your enemies."

      Jesus Matthew 5:43-48; “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45: that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46: If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47: And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48: Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

      There it is in context, Louis. Show me how I took it out context.

      "You're not Jesus, Nic, and neither am I. He could do it but you can't, even if you think you can."

      I pity you, Louis. You are completely missing the very clear message given by Christ. No, you and I are not perfect and we will not love everyone all the time and that is not what Christ is expecting. He is expecting that this should be our goal. If we approach life in this way we will gain many blessings as a result.

      If we do what you imply and love only those that love us we are no better than tax collectors and pagans. Is that your goal in life Louis, to be no better than a tax collector and a pagan? If so, I pity you.

      By trying to argue Christ was referring to himself in the passage you're guilty of committing eisegesis, ie. reading into the passage that which is not there.

      "Jesus hated the Pharisees."

      You're truly a piece of work. You'd be a real hoot in a biblical exegesis class. Christ hates no one, not even the Pharisees. What Christ hates is the mind set and the hypocrisy practiced by the Pharisees as a whole, not the individuals.

      I suggest you retire from this blog for a while and get some education on what the Bible actually teaches.

      As for you views on the doctrine of the trinity, I would suggest you review some scholarly work on the subject.

      The Bible clearly teaches there is only one God. (Deuteronomy is a good start.) It also refers to Christ as God and the Holy Spirit as God. If there is only one God, what is the logical conclusion?

      Delete
    23. Joe G,

      "And I have read the OT. And I can do without that type of "love".

      Yeah, I can see that in the loving way you relate to others on this blog. Sad, really quite sad.

      Delete
    24. Neal,

      Louis, Jesus taught us to love everyone, even those that offend us or are against us. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with them or avoid criticizing their ideas. We are in the New Testament age, not the old.

      While we disagree,it is a pleasure to see someone understand Christ's message and live by it

      Delete
    25. LOL, Nic. Haysoos Martinez, man! Wow! Now I know why so many thinking people are turned off on Christianity. It's because of Christians like you. Evolutionists are just revolting against people like you. If I have to believe in your nonsense in order to be a Christian, I'd rather not be one. I, too, am a rebel and I think Christianity is ripe for a revolution within its own ranks. It's really pathetic.

      Get thee hence, Satan! LOL.

      Delete
    26. Louis,

      And, BTW, I didn't see Jesus showing any love to the hypocritical Pharisees. He called them names such as snakes, vipers and whitewashed tombs filled with filth and rotten corpses. Atheists and evolutionists are just as self-righteous and hypocritical as the Pharisees, if not more.

      He without sin cast the first stone, and getting yelled at hardly compares to being hacked to death with your children.

      Delete
    27. Louis can do the impossible,make Joe look reasonable.

      Delete
    28. Louis Savain,

      "If I have to believe in your nonsense in order to be a Christian, I'd rather not be one. I, too, am a rebel and I think Christianity is ripe for a revolution within its own ranks. It's really pathetic."

      "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16

      So tell me, Louis, what are your fruits? What has you attitude resulted in? You hurl insults towards me and others and it gains you what? What does it do for Christ and the Gospels? You seriously need an attitude check.

      "The price must be paid, no matter what."

      It has been paid. Remember 1 Peter 3:18?

      Delete
    29. "And I have read the OT. And I can do without that type of "love".

      Nic:
      Yeah, I can see that in the loving way you relate to others on this blog.

      Well in the OT God KILLED His enemies. So are you saying taht I should do the same and that would be more acceptable then what I am doing?

      Or you serious? Dude I feel very bad for you

      Delete
    30. Joe G,

      "Well in the OT God KILLED His enemies."

      So that's all you got from your reading of the OT, that God kills his enemies? That explains a lot about your attitude.

      I really don't need your pity, thank you very much.

      Delete
    31. I don't pity you, Nic, I just feel very bad from you.

      So that's all you got from your reading of the OT, that God kills his enemies?

      No Nic, but THAT is the CONTEXT of the discussion- how God treats His enemies. Please do TRY to keep up.

      Delete
  6. Why is oleg such a momma's boy wussy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wussiness is time-honored tradition among evolutionist. It was started by none other than Darwin himself. Nobody hates God more than an atheist. The bozos think they're hurting God by being atheists. LOL.

      Delete
    2. It must be an evolved wussiness....

      Delete
  7. It is a fact that thinking people must conclude.
    In the face of evil/suffering
    there is either no God
    or a god or is not a good guy
    or his hands are tied.
    As a evangelical cHristian we know its the third.
    All evil comes from Satan and Satans influence on mans will.
    God is always working to help us and save us but justcie demands he can't stop everything.
    Simply physics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is faulty reasoning, Byers.

      God does not help most humans because of the law of Karma, which is a spiritual law. It says that every sin must be paid for, whether by God or by the sinner. God cannot overrule the law of Karma. It is as unbreakable as the law of conservation of energy. So God, in his love, paid for the sins of those he chooses to save. Why? Because he thinks we're hot and he's in love.

      People see little children suffer and they either curse God or deny his existence. What they fail to see is that the same spirit that is in a baby is the same spirit that is in him when he commits a heinous crime at 20. The spirit does not change. It's the spirit that is evil, not the body.

      And don't think you're any better: if you can steal an egg or a penny, you can steal a horse. We are all guilty and desperately bad even before we are born. It's a spiritual thing having to do with the nature of the human species; it's not a physical thing. Animals don't sin because they have no spirits. This is why we humans need salvation in order to live forever. The price must be paid, no matter what.

      Have a good weekend.

      Delete
    2. Louis,
      God cannot overrule the law of Karma. It is as unbreakable as the law of conservation of energy. So God, in his love, paid for the sins of those he chooses to save

      Of that which is no greater. Your God seems to fail that test,I can imagine a God not bound by the law of karma,

      Delete
    3. Alright, Byers. After reading your comment a few times, I now realize that my first interpretation of it was probably mistaken. I apologize. I only disagree with you that evil comes from Satan exclusively.

      Delete
    4. Eat your own excrement, velikovskys. How about that?

      Hopefully, this comment won't be deleted by an administrator. LOL.

      Delete
    5. Louis,

      "God does not help most humans because of the law of Karma, which is a spiritual law. It says that every sin must be paid for, whether by God or by the sinner. God cannot overrule the law of Karma."

      WOW! Just plain WOW! Where do you come up with this stuff? It certainly isn't Biblical, but it is certainly heretical.

      "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."
      2 Corinthians 5:15

      "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit," 1 Peter 3:18

      There's two verses which directly challenge everything you said. There's several more. I would suggest you dust off your Bible and refresh your memory.

      "Eat your own @#$%^*@, velikovskys. How about that?"

      You should be ashamed of yourself, Louis. This is totally uncalled for. I suppose you think Christ finds this acceptable simply because velikovskys does not agree with you and therefore is not worthy of your respect. Here's a shocker for you Louis, Christ died for vel every bit as much as he died for you. Your actions here are an embarrassment to him and to those who follow him. Shame on you.

      I sure hope CH deletes this comment. Even better, you should delete it yourself and apologize to velikovskys. Demonstrate a little Christian love and tolerance. It would be good for you.

      Delete
    6. Louis,

      Eat your own excrement, velikovskys. How about that?

      Hopefully, this comment won't be deleted by an administrator. LOL.


      As I said,easily entertained.

      Delete
    7. velikovskys,

      Louis Savain: "Eat your own @&%#$#@, velikovskys. How about that?"

      Please don't judge all Christians by the actions of Louis. I'm embarrassed by his comments and offer my apologies for whatever that's worth.

      Delete
    8. Nic

      You should be ashamed of yourself, Louis. This is totally uncalled for. I suppose you think Christ finds this acceptable simply because velikovskys does not agree with you and therefore is not worthy of your respect. Here's a shocker for you Louis, Christ died for vel every bit as much as he died for you. Your actions here are an embarrassment to him and to those who follow him. Shame on you.

      Thank you Nic, I still believe He died for my sins if that is possible.

      Since it is common knowledge that Louis is unbalanced and anything can set him off, I take some responsibility for his behavior. Sorry Louis

      Delete
    9. Nic:

      I suppose you think Christ finds this acceptable simply because velikovskys does not agree with you and therefore is not worthy of your respect.

      To tell you the truth, I think that Jesus and his angels would probably laugh their you-know-what out, if they read this exchange. I do believe they have a sense of humor, just like us. Well, I'm not so sure about the angels and some of us. They are a different kind of aliens. :-D

      Delete
    10. Nic,

      Though I don't show it I am still technically a Catholic,a lapsed Catholic to be sure ,but one confession and a boatload of Rosarys away from being in the arms of Mother Church. With the exception of Notre Dame I like Christains

      Delete
    11. veli: Though I don't show it I am still technically a Catholic

      I could have sworn that you were an evolutionist. Now you tell us that you believe in the Trinity and the mysteries of the Church of Rome? You sure fooled me.

      Louis

      Delete
    12. Much much of what the Catholic Church espouses is a mystery to me, I never said I was a good Catholic.I was explaining the transubstantiation recently, I must admit it does strain one's credibility . Point of fact,the Catholic Church accepts the ToE mechanism.

      Louis ,
      You sure fooled me


      You did all the work

      Delete
    13. Robert Byers January 11, 2013 6:19 PM

      [...]

      All evil comes from Satan and Satans influence on mans will.


      That sounds like a convenient argument for avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions. "Yes, I killed all those people but it was Satan as made me do it."

      God is always working to help us and save us but justcie demands he can't stop everything.

      Then God is not working hard enough. According to Christian doctrine he certainly has the power to stop everything if He wanted, so why doesn't he?

      Simply physics.

      Physics has nothing to do with it. If God created the Universe then He created physics along with it. It is His creation but He is not bound by it.

      Going back to Satan, though, who created him if not God? And if God created Satan then God created evil. So why would you worship a being that created all evil?

      Delete
    14. Ian,

      Going back to Satan, though, who created him if not God? And if God created Satan then God created evil. So why would you worship a being that created all evil

      Ever visit the SkepticalZone? They have a problem of evil thread. It is interesting.

      Delete
    15. LoL! Leave it to vel to think that a strawman is interesting...

      Delete
    16. velikovskys

      Ever visit the SkepticalZone? They have a problem of evil thread. It is interesting.


      Joe G can't post at TSZ anymore. That's the place he was permanently banned from for posting links to porn.

      Delete
    17. Thorton,


      Joe G can't post at TSZ anymore. That's the place he was permanently banned from for posting links to porn.


      I am aware of some of Joe's resume. I've visited his blog, I remain curious what underpins it.

      Delete
    18. Psychopath Spedding:

      Going back to Satan, though, who created him if not God? And if God created Satan then God created evil. So why would you worship a being that created all evil?

      Wow. I don't know who's more stupid, Spedding, Thorton, velikovskys or Nic. LOL.

      The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. He can only create physical stuff such as matter, DNA and living organisms; and living organisms are not evil. Evil is a spiritual concept that has nothing to do with physics.

      Spirits are eternal; they are neither created nor destroyed. God only creates the body. Your spirit is your own. If you are an evil jerk, don't blame it on God, you pathetic jackass. LOL.

      Delete
    19. Louis,



      Wow. I don't know who's more stupid, Spedding, Thorton, velikovskys or Nic. LOL.


      I think so far you have the overwhelming majority of votes

      Delete
    20. veli: I think so far you have the overwhelming majority of votes

      I'm trembling like a leaf. Not!

      Delete
    21. Louis,

      I'm trembling like a leaf. Not!

      Don't worry I think it is a lock

      Delete
    22. velikovskys January 12, 2013 9:15 AM

      [...]

      Ever visit the SkepticalZone? They have a problem of evil thread. It is interesting.


      Yes, I have and it is.

      Delete
    23. Louis Savain January 12, 2013 10:10 AM

      [...]

      The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. He can only create physical stuff such as matter, DNA and living organisms; and living organisms are not evil. Evil is a spiritual concept that has nothing to do with physics.


      When I belonged to the church, Christian doctrine held that God was the Creator of literally everything, including Satan, evil and spirits (didn't say anything about beer, though)

      Are you saying God didn't create everything, that He is not all-powerful? Are you saying that there is another invisible god out there, hiding away in the shadows, a sort of divine eminence grise doing a bit of creation when no one else is looking?

      It's an interesting concept theologically but it ain't Christianity.

      Spirits are eternal; they are neither created nor destroyed. God only creates the body. Your spirit is your own. If you are an evil jerk, don't blame it on God, you pathetic jackass. LOL.

      Does that mean I can't blame you on God, either?

      Delete
    24. Spedding:

      When I belonged to the church, Christian doctrine held that God was the Creator of literally everything, including Satan, evil and spirits (didn't say anything about beer, though)

      Are you saying God didn't create everything, that He is not all-powerful? Are you saying that there is another invisible god out there, hiding away in the shadows, a sort of divine eminence grise doing a bit of creation when no one else is looking?

      It's an interesting concept theologically but it ain't Christianity.


      I don't know what you mean by "another invisible god out there". There are certainly many gods (aliens). Even Yahweh acknowledged that.

      But what is modern Christianity? Isn't it a messy and arrogant institution controlled by a succession of arseholes? I am asking this question as a Christian, mind you. Christianity, too, is in for a rude awakening. They've been asleep at the wheel for too long and allowed a bunch of idiots to run around making up one ridiculous BS after another.

      What the scriptures teach is that the Elohim (plural word meaning the masters) created the heavens (plural word meaning a crystal-like expanse) and the earth (normal physical matter). Nowhere does it say that God created the spirits of humans or angels or any of the other aliens that are out there. If the masters could create spirits (souls), we would not be having this exchange because everything would be hunky dory.

      The entire concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God that can create anything he pleases is pure hogwash created by mediocre minds. It does not fit within my understanding of Christianity. I want to reiterate that the true teaching of the ancient manuscripts is that there are many powerful creator gods (Elohim) out there. Some are more powerful than others. Many of them took part in the creation of life on earth and many meddled in the affairs of the nations of the earth over the millenia.

      Me: Spirits are eternal; they are neither created nor destroyed. God only creates the body. Your spirit is your own. If you are an evil jerk, don't blame it on God, you pathetic jackass. LOL.

      Spedding: Does that mean I can't blame you on God, either?

      Absolutely. I'm an arsehole just like you. LOL. The main difference between you and me is that I believe my karmic debt has been paid for. ahahaha...

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Luis

    "You sure fooled me."

    Why? It is not an uncommon position among the Catholics and sure not in contrast to the official position of the Church in Rome. Many Catholic scientists work on ToE and are still inside the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, in that case, the Church of Rome can kiss my asteroid orifice.

      Delete
    2. Louis,

      I googled Haysoos Martinez, you have quite a resume yourself, this blog must be very constricting on your vocabulary.

      Delete
    3. I am what I am. I am certainly not hiding behind some sanctimonious, holier-than-thou face like some Christians I know.

      Delete
    4. Louis,


      I am what I am. I am certainly not hiding behind some sanctimonious, holier-than-thou face like some Christians I know.


      I am not fond of hypocrites either. The question is how do you know they aren't sincere?

      Delete
  10. The way this thread is going, atheists are sure having good laugh at us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis is hardly the exemplar of a believer in Christ in my opinion, just proof that it is foolish to dismiss anyone's opinion based on a prejudice alone. It forces one into an echo chamber and second it is boring. You have to even admire Louis in a way, he is honest about his disinterest in others opinions or conflicting data.

      Don't worry atheists provide plenty of fodder for humor,any " true believer " does.

      Delete
    2. That's OK Eugen. I laugh at them on an hourly basis.

      Delete
    3. Atheists won't laugh for long. Their days in the sun are numbered. But then again, the same is true for those holier-than-thou, smack-me-on-the-other-cheek-please Christians. Morons. ahahaha...

      Delete
    4. When's the world going to end, Louis? Seen any good predictions lately? :D

      Delete
    5. oleg, who said anything about the world ending, moron? All I know is that the alien creator God Yahweh will soon return to earth. However, an arse-kicking dude named Elijah must first be sent to prepare a path for his coming. Elijah will be nobody's bitch, that's for sure. He is prophesied to restore all things. LOL.

      Delete
    6. Sounds like the plot to The Fanastic Four- The Silver Surfer. By any chance is there any invisible girls involved in yours Louis? I know that Thorton has the hots for Jessica Alba,he might convert.

      Delete
    7. veli:

      Sounds like the plot to The Fanastic Four- The Silver Surfer. By any chance is there any invisible girls involved in yours Louis? I know that Thorton has the hots for Jessica Alba,he might convert.

      Don't worry, God has a flair for both the dramatic and the comic. I'm sure he's a fan of Hollywood movies. There'll be lots of dogs and bitches running around. And I agree, Jessica Alba is hot. Oops! Did I just lust after a woman? LOL.

      But that aside, where are the smart and slutty Christian women hiding anyway? That's what I want to know. I want to discuss the mysteries of evolution and creation with them.

      Delete
    8. Louis shows he is in fact not a robot ,

      But that aside, where are the smart and slutty Christian women hiding anyway?

      From you,if I had to guess

      That's what I want to know. I want to discuss the mysteries of evolution and creation with them.

      Never heard it described like that before.

      Delete
    9. Louis Savain

      But that aside, where are the smart and slutty Christian women hiding anyway? That's what I want to know. I want to discuss the mysteries of evolution and creation with them.


      Women:

      - smart
      - sexy
      - Christian

      Pick any two. :)

      Delete
    10. Thorton,

      None are mutually exclusive, in my opinion

      Delete
    11. thorton is mutually exclusive

      Delete
  11. Eugen, if you think atheists (the quintessential exemplars of the most extreme credulity and arbitrariness) are competent (i.e., rational) judges of the subject matter of this site, you are worrying yourself over nothing. If you want to argue your side of a matter, do so. But you ought never base your inferences on how atheists "judge" them. Nothing could be more foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eugen

    The way this thread is going, atheists are sure having good laugh at us.


    Not just atheists, and not just this thread. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen is on to something. But as Thorton said, that applies to more than just thread. :)

      One of the delicious ironies of this thread is that in it Cornelius bashes atheists, rather than evolutionists. Joe G, who claims to be non-religious (and is thus a self-described atheist), seems completely unaware of this.

      Delete
    2. Atheists accuse others of holding to comforting but vacuous and misleading religious beliefs. But that is a perfect description of themselves and their religion.

      This atheist holds that the enduring appeal of religion lies in the benefits it provides to people, both individually and in society.

      For a society, religion can strengthen the bonds which hold it together. For the individuals who make up that society, religion provides a comforting sense of belonging to a supportive and protective community.

      More specifically, religious belief can be a source of enormous strength in times of personal crisis, those times when we feel at our most weak, helpless and vulnerable.

      For example, when facing the loss of a loved one, there is great comfort in the belief that death is but a temporary parting of the ways, a gateway to an afterlife where we will all be reunited in due course.

      Or, when contemplating the vastness of the universe and realising how, in comparison, just how tiny and insignificant we are, there is comfort and reassurance in the belief that we are a special creation of the Creator of all that and that our lives have special meaning and purpose.

      I have seen from personal observation, just as others have I'm sure, how much faith can mean to the believer and I can almost envy them that resource. When I lost my belief in God, I lost all that along with it.

      This is why it is absurd to try and cast atheism as just another belief. Atheism is not just a lack of belief in a god or gods it is an abandonment of all the advantages and trappings that go along with religion and it can offer nothing to replace them. If anything is, it is the very antithesis of faith and it is why atheism will never supplant religion while the human race is as it is.

      Delete
    3. Eugen

      But maybe you need to clarify what you means as "us"?

      Christians, peoples that don't accept ToE, or other?

      Delete
    4. oleg:
      Joe G, who claims to be non-religious (and is thus a self-described atheist), seems completely unaware of this.

      Being non-religious does not make one an atheist.

      Also, unlike you, I understand Cornelius and when he says "atheists" he means "materialists" and when he says "evolution" he is referring to "evolutionism".

      You have to know the author, but that would mean that you would have to pull your head out of your arse.

      Delete
    5. So what does being non-religious make you? A Muslim? :D

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      You have to know the author


      True. We know one fat moron Creationist who constantly says "your side has no evidence!" when he really means "I'm an ignorant tool who can't support my IDC fantasies so I'll cowardly try to change the subject".

      You have to know the author.

      Delete
    7. LoL! thorton sez that he knows himself!

      Delete
    8. oleg:
      So what does being non-religious make you?

      Makes me free from religion, duh.

      Delete
    9. Joe G,

      Merriam-Webster defines atheism as
      a : disbelief in the existence of deity.
      b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

      If you don't qualify as an atheist then you must be that extremely rare non-religious specimen who believes in deity. :D

      Delete
    10. Thorton,


      True. We know one fat moron Creationist


      Why is Joe's weight a relevant factor to the validity of his " arguments"?

      Delete
    11. It provides gravitas.
      (* Rimshot *)

      Delete
    12. velikovskys

      Why is Joe's weight a relevant factor to the validity of his " arguments"?


      It has no relevance to any scientific arguments, but Joe hasn't made any scientific arguments. I do it merely to remind Joe that's one more thing he was caught blatantly lying about which has relevance to his almost nonexistent level of honesty.

      Delete
    13. Thorton,


      It has no relevance to any scientific arguments, but Joe hasn't made any scientific arguments. I do it merely to remind Joe that's one more thing he was caught blatantly lying about which has relevance to his almost nonexistent level of honesty.


      Seems reasonable, you can never beat a dead horse too much

      Oleg,

      That is funny

      Delete
    14. The creationist's argument: God did it.
      The evolutionist's argument: Dirt did it.

      Which one is more scientific? They both sound religious to me.

      Delete
    15. Louis,

      The creationist's argument: God did it.
      The evolutionist's argument: Dirt did it.


      Maybe because one has a proposed mechanism to create the it. Is the belief your car is built religious?

      Delete
    16. veli: Maybe because one has a proposed mechanism to create the it.

      Yeah, you mean a mechanism that is nowhere to be observed and makes as much sense as the flat earth hypothesis. You want to know the mechanism by which intelligent agents created life? It's very simple, really. It's called engineering, or more precisely, molecular and genetic engineering. What's so hard for you to understand? Are you stuck on stupid or something?

      Is the belief your car is built religious?

      Only if you believe that dirt did it. LOL.

      Delete
    17. Louis,

      . You want to know the mechanism by which intelligent agents created life? It's very simple, really. It's called engineering, or more precisely, molecular and genetic engineering. What's so hard for you to understand? Are you stuck on stupid or something?

      Stuck with stupid if anything, engineers use mechanisms to manipulate matter, evolution use mechanism to manipulate matter, your designer design,which doesn't manipulate anything until a mechanism is involved,or does the designer violate cause and effect?



      Only if you believe that dirt did it. LOL.


      The same matter as dirt in a different form

      Delete
    18. oleg:
      Merriam-Webster defines atheism as
      a : disbelief in the existence of deity.
      b : the doctrine that there is no deity.


      So what? Even acceptance of a deity does not make one religious.

      You are just happy to prove that you are ignorant- bless you.

      Delete
    19. Oooh, you are an interesting specimen, Joe. Which deity (or deities) do you believe in?

      Delete
    20. So you ARE happy to be ignorant- kewl

      Delete
    21. Indeed, I am ignorant in this specific area—which deity you believe in. So enlighten me.

      Delete
    22. Pull your head out of your ass if you want to be enlightened.

      Delete
    23. Joe,

      I am sure the owner of this blog will appreciate your efforts to keep the place civil.

      Delete
    24. I think Joe has no ability to keep things civil. He ends up banned from pretty much every single blog.

      Delete
    25. oleg-

      Go get stuffed. If he wants a civil blog then all he has to do is rid it of punks like you, troy and thorton.

      Problem solved...

      Delete
    26. I am pretty sure it will be you, Joe, who will be banned. Want another bet? You owe me $10k already.

      Delete
    27. Why me? I just respond to your BS. If your BS wasn't here then I wouldn't be saying what I do.

      IOW once again you prove that you are a dickless wonder.

      Nice job.

      get rid of me and your shit is still here stinking up the place. get rid of you and my responses will be cleaned up as a result.

      Again, problem solved correctly.

      Delete
    28. Awww, Joe is getting upset! After he gets mopped up from this place, the rest of us will carry on.

      Don't despair, Joe, there is always your personal blog. No one reads it except Rich, and he only does that for giggles. But hey, at least no one insists on civility!

      Delete
    29. LoL! oleg is having another lying/ fantasy tardgasm.

      Pointing out the facts is not getting upset.

      BTW I get over 100 hits a day and they ain't from Rich. And Rich giggles because you are tonguing him.

      As for civility, you have no idea what that is either. Your ignorance runs very deep.

      Delete
  13. Eugen

    "The way this thread is going, atheists are sure having good laugh at us."

    depend. If you refer to the large sectarian divisions among the Christian field, it is sure possible. But I have observed also atheist groups that are intolerant against Christian scientists considering ToE like a monopoly of an atheistic Wetltanschauung.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree.

      I'm encouraged to see that there are still Christians who uphold the principles of charity, compassion, tolerance and love that I was taught when I was a Christian, that not all are firebreathing fundamentalists.

      And, yes, there are atheists who would do well to keep in mind that if we are really on our own in all this vastness then we need each other more then ever. Giving up belief in God does not mean abandoning the principles I referred to above. If anything, we need them more then ever.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Ian: Giving up belief in God does not mean abandoning the principles I referred to above. If anything, we need them more then ever.

      Jeff: That's where you're wrong. "Principles" that are believed to be neither explicable nor intuitive are not acted off of when suffering kicks in. You said it right in your post above. Atheism CAN'T produce the motivation to social good that benevolent theism can't.

      Atheists know they are being arbitrary precisely because they can't explain anything non-arbitrarily once they remove maximal long-term satisfaction from normative criteria, epistemological or otherwise. And once you use long-term satisfaction as a normative epistemological criteria, benevolent theism wins hands down.

      And this is, in part, why benevolent theism, per se, will not be totally eradicated. It's the only NON-arbitrary approach. And as it does diminish in human populations, so does civility, resulting in the collapse of civilizations. And then the whole cycle starts over again. Polyannaism is a species of arbitrariness.

      Delete
    4. Jeff,

      Jeff: That's where you're wrong. "Principles" that are believed to be neither explicable nor intuitive are not acted off of when suffering kicks in. You said it right in your post above. Atheism CAN'T produce the motivation to social good that benevolent theism can't.

      What about theism that is non benevolent, such as Louis's? Better or worse than atheism? You might also need to define social good, I doubt that is universal.

      Delete
    5. V, anything OTHER view than benevolent/competent theism has the same epistemological normativity problems. As for social good, the only way I can conceive of it being universal is if God, despite the misuse of freedom, renders the existence of all worthwhile in the long-term. This requires post-mortem experience. It's an ad-hoc hypothesis, but benevolent/competent theism allows for finite ad-hoc hypotheses. Other views don't.

      The only way I can conceive of why God is suffering the on-going insanity of the world is because volitional love is still occurring and provides a species of divine pleasure that renders the long-suffering ultimately worth it to God. This involves no theodicy problem so long as the existence of all is rendered worth it in the long-term.

      Delete
    6. Jeff,

      So if I come up to you and smack you on the head, it is no big deal as you, as a God-fearing Christian, will eventually end up in heaven. Right?

      Delete
    7. Jeff,

      V, anything OTHER view than benevolent/competent theism has the same epistemological normativity problems. As for social good, the only way I can conceive of it being universal is if God, despite the misuse of freedom, renders the existence of all worthwhile in the long-term

      A new term,what constitutes competent theism? If it is not universal,how is social good determined? Just trying to completely understand your point,it sounds interesting

      Delete
    8. V, what I'm saying is that a theodicy requires, IMO, that one's long-term existence must be worth it. Short-term suffering is experience by every human baby there is just to learn how to walk, etc.

      So either benevolent/competent theism is inconsistent with pain, per se, or benevolent/competent theism is teleological in nature requiring that one's long-term existence is worth it.

      This latter, IMO, must be universal. But it doesn't rule out short-term moral merit and demerit, on the other hand. Indeed, humans seem to find it difficult to doubt that we are designed TO adjudicate morally and act accordingly to the extent possible.

      Delete
    9. As for the term "competent," V, I only mean that benevolent intent must be backed by "competence" to accomplish the intended ends if the benevolent intent is to correspond to a doable theodicy.

      Delete
    10. Jeff January 12, 2013 9:26 AM

      Ian: Giving up belief in God does not mean abandoning the principles I referred to above. If anything, we need them more then ever.

      Jeff: That's where you're wrong. "Principles" that are believed to be neither explicable nor intuitive are not acted off of when suffering kicks in. You said it right in your post above. Atheism CAN'T produce the motivation to social good that benevolent theism can't.


      Agreed, atheism on its own is just a lack of belief in, or categorical rejection of, the existence of a god or gods. It makes no normative claims or prescriptions about human social behavior.

      Atheists know they are being arbitrary precisely because they can't explain anything non-arbitrarily once they remove maximal long-term satisfaction from normative criteria, epistemological or otherwise. And once you use long-term satisfaction as a normative epistemological criteria, benevolent theism wins hands down.

      The fact that religion produces long-term social benefits and creates long-term satisfaction does not, of itself, mean that any of the claims of religion are true. The fact that people feel better believing in a benevolent God and an afterlife does not mean that they exist.

      And this is, in part, why benevolent theism, per se, will not be totally eradicated. It's the only NON-arbitrary approach.

      The authority of Christian morality is based in the claim that it is decreed by God. Yet nowhere in the Bible does God provide detailed arguments for His moral prescriptions and commandments. For all we know, they could be entirely arbitrary.

      Delete
    11. Ian

      "Giving up belief in God ..."

      Now that you said it I have to ask. What made you do it? How person justifies such thing? You mentioned you were Christian before.
      (You don't have to answer if it's too personal.)

      To me universe doesn't make sense without Creator, it would be completely unnecessary purposeless nonsense.

      Delete
    12. Eugen January 12, 2013 7:26 PM

      Ian

      "Giving up belief in God ..."

      Now that you said it I have to ask. What made you do it? How person justifies such thing? You mentioned you were Christian before.


      Yes, I was raised as a Christian. I believed God existed without question because that is what I was taught. He was as much a part of the natural order of things as the Sun or gravity or air.

      There was no sudden conversion event, though. Over time, I developed an interest in science-fiction. Many of my childhood heroes were fictional scientists or represented a scientific approach to life, Professor Quatermass, Sherlock Holmes and Mr Spock, for example. That led naturally to an interest in science itself, what we actually knew about the world.

      Turning back to religion, I became aware of the theological and philosophical problems with my faith. There was nothing original in it. I just worked through the same arguments that people have been hashing over for thousands of years - the presence of evil in the world, unanswered prayers and so on. I gradually came to the conclusion that what was taken as evidence for the existence of God was no longer more persuasive than the evidence against it.

      For a long time, I described myself as agnostic and in terms of epistemology I still am. I don't know that there is no God and, depending on the nature of the god we are talking about, it may not be possible to know.

      However, I realized that, for all practical purposes, I was acting as if there were no God which I suppose makes me a sort of pragmatic atheist.

      To me universe doesn't make sense without Creator, it would be completely unnecessary purposeless nonsense.

      I quite agree that, without a Creator, the universe does appear to be unnecessary, purposeless and nonsensical. As I've argued elsewhere, it's why atheism is unlikely to ever supplant religion while humanity is as it is. What it offers is an appallingly bleak prospect compared to the visions of faith.

      The problem for me is that, apart from the Bible, we have no reason think that this universe was created to suit us. It is an awe-inspiring place to be for sure, filled with deep mysteries, but it is also incredibly dangerous. Our cozy little planet may have its problems, like hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and so on, but they are as nothing compared to the titanic forces out there that could obliterate us in an instant if we were too close.

      The physicist Paul Davies has written that he has no conventional religious belief but that he suspects that buried in the deep mysteries that underlie this universe there is something more than just absolute randomness. I'm inclined to agree. I have no idea what it might be. If there's anything at all it'll probably turn out to be weirder and more counter-intuitive than quantum theory at its most baffling. Maybe it's the Tao, maybe it's The Force, maybe it's The Matrix, who knows? But maybe there's something.

      Delete
    13. Thanks for explanation Ian, busy today I'll reply later.

      Delete
  14. "I have observed also atheist groups that are intolerant"

    Oh yes. On Jerry Coyne's blog they call us theists "chew toys".

    Maybe we'll have to get Diogenes drunk, steal his lamp and look for moderate, reasonable people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to steal the lamp, Eugen. We're right here. I am not a militant atheist. Open your eyes.

      Delete
    2. "not a militant atheist."

      I know, I watched your discussions here. I would have beer or shot of vodka with you. (preferably Tito's vodka)


      Overall, this is a good place. There are lots of positive and interesting, discussions, topics, arguments etc on this blog. I learned a lot.

      Delete
    3. Eugen,
      I know, I watched your discussions here. I would have beer or shot of vodka with you. (preferably Tito's vodka)

      Distilled hereabouts

      Delete
  15. Just to clear some things up:

    (1) God did not create man perfect. If man were perfect, then he would be like God. That man needed to 'eat' shows that he was not completely self-sufficient. Etc.

    (2) God created the Devil = Lucifer = " the bearer of light." The Devil rebelled and rejected God, and took other rebellious angels with him, whom we call demons.

    It helps if you have the right starting points.

    And, of course, all this cross-talk about what Christians ought to be like, and what atheists are like-----and, in the meantime, the whole point that CH makes is pushed to the background (which I'm sure the evolutionists would like).

    Here's a starting point: Does God exist? There are two answers: 'yes', and 'no'.

    Why is answering 'yes' make you religious, or answering 'no' make you irreligious. Religion has to do with a specific belief in God and a way of honoring the God of your belief.

    But the basic question: Does God exist? is, rather, a philosophical one.

    One can adduce evidence for either side of this question; ultimately, we make some kind of decision.

    For me, I began believing in God when I was 5. I became aware of my existence. And I reasoned that my father and my mother existed at prior time when I didn't exist. That meant that at some point in time I didn't exist. You can push the chain of being back to an original man and woman using material causation, but then the question becomes: Who created the man and the woman? That is, who brought them into existence.

    When I asked my Dad who made the first man and woman, he answered, "God."

    This is simple logic, not faith.

    Dr. Hunter has shown that atheists do the very same thing; they take the very same step that believers take.

    In the case of Susan Jacoby, her logical step-taking was:

    (1) A young boy is suffering.
    (2) God created the young boy.
    (3) God has the power to save the young boy from suffering, and doesn't.
    (4) God is supposed to be good.
    (5) Allowing a young boy to suffer needlessly (apparently) is not good.
    (6) God must not exist.

    Two logical processes leading to two very different conclusions.

    Why is one "religious", and the other "not"?

    Darwin, and many of his followers, use the presence of evil as an argument in favor of NS. They are making an religious argument. But then criticize their critics as being "religious."

    The Darwinist can't seem to see their hypocrisy.

    Meanwhile, cyctochrome c is needed for cell division to take place, and the odds of it arising by chance exceed the UPB. So who's guilty of fideism? It's the Darwinist who cling to their belief in materialistic forces bringing living things from non-living things.

    Boy, now there's a whopper!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So much nonsense in a singe short comment. Where to begin?

      You can push the chain of being back to an original man and woman using material causation, but then the question becomes: Who created the man and the woman? That is, who brought them into existence.

      When I asked my Dad who made the first man and woman, he answered, "God."

      This is simple logic, not faith.


      No, it's a logical error. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. How does it follow there must have been a single pair of humans that were the ancestors of all humans alive today?

      Delete
    2. Lino,

      Meanwhile, cyctochrome c is needed for cell division to take place, and the odds of it arising by chance exceed the UPB.

      Is the theory that is arose entirely thru chance?

      Delete
    3. Lino,

      Thru what mechanism did the designer convert his design of cytochrome c into matter? Is cytochrome c the only way cell division can or could take place?thanks

      Delete
    4. troy:
      You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. How does it follow there must have been a single pair of humans that were the ancestors of all humans alive today?

      LoL! Given that the alleged fusion (chromosome 2) only occurred in ONE organism, it is obvious taht modern humans would trace their ancestry back to that ONE.

      By troy's logic there must have been billions upon billions of humans that started teh human race.

      What a moron...

      Delete
    5. Lino D'Ischia January 12, 2013 11:32 AM

      [...]

      (1) God did not create man perfect. If man were perfect, then he would be like God. That man needed to 'eat' shows that he was not completely self-sufficient. Etc.


      God is also held to be omniscient. That means he knowingly created imperfection. Why?

      He not only knew He created imperfection but He knew exactly how that imperfect creation would act from the beginning to the end of its existence. He knew that it would get things wrong, do things He thought it shouldn't. How then, in all fairness, can He blame it for being what He designed it to be?

      This also raises the deeper philosophical questions of, first, whether a necessary and perfect being can create imperfection at all and, second, why would a being that is, by definition, entirely self-sufficient bother to create anything at all?

      For me, I began believing in God when I was 5. I became aware of my existence. And I reasoned that my father and my mother existed at prior time when I didn't exist. That meant that at some point in time I didn't exist. You can push the chain of being back to an original man and woman using material causation, but then the question becomes: Who created the man and the woman? That is, who brought them into existence.

      When I asked my Dad who made the first man and woman, he answered, "God."

      This is simple logic, not faith.


      Actually, there is no logic in that answer at all. It is just a claim, an unsupported statement of belief.

      Logic is a valuable tool but it is only a tool. It is a set of rules or procedures for constructing a valid argument but it is not a guarantee of truth. If the premisses of an argument are good and its structure is sound then the conclusion will be good. But it is perfectly possible to construct valid arguments that are complete nonsense.

      Dr. Hunter has shown that atheists do the very same thing; they take the very same step that believers take.

      In the case of Susan Jacoby, her logical step-taking was:

      (1) A young boy is suffering.
      (2) God created the young boy.
      (3) God has the power to save the young boy from suffering, and doesn't.
      (4) God is supposed to be good.
      (5) Allowing a young boy to suffer needlessly (apparently) is not good.
      (6) God must not exist.

      Two logical processes leading to two very different conclusions.

      Why is one "religious", and the other "not"?

      Darwin, and many of his followers, use the presence of evil as an argument in favor of NS. They are making an religious argument. But then criticize their critics as being "religious."

      The Darwinist can't seem to see their hypocrisy.


      And you, apparently, are unable to see that you and CH are committing the fallacy of equivocation by conflating two meanings of the word "religious".

      In English usage, If I am described as having a religious belief it could mean one of two things: either it could mean that I belong to a particular faith and believe in its doctrines or it could mean I have an opinion or belief about the claims of a religion without being a member of that faith. In both cases, I could be described as having a religious belief or making a religious argument.

      The fact is, as an atheist, I can have an opinion about Christian beliefs without myself being Christian. As an atheist, I can make argument against some claim of Christianity, which can be described as a religious argument, even though I do not belong to any religion.

      Meanwhile, cyctochrome c is needed for cell division to take place, and the odds of it arising by chance exceed the UPB. So who's guilty of fideism? It's the Darwinist who cling to their belief in materialistic forces bringing living things from non-living things.

      Boy, now there's a whopper!


      No, that's an argument from incredulity. The fact that you find it incredible does not mean that it didn't or couldn't happen.

      Delete
    6. Joe G:

      LoL! Given that the alleged fusion (chromosome 2) only occurred in ONE organism, it is obvious taht modern humans would trace their ancestry back to that ONE.

      No. Only a small part of the current human genome can be traced back to that ONE. Recombination has mixed up most of our genome since then.

      Joe, you are just too stupid and ignorant to participate in serious discussions.

      Delete
    7. troy:
      Only a small part of the current human genome can be traced back to that ONE.

      the whole of human ancestry can be traced back to that one.

      Joe, you are just too stupid and ignorant to participate in serious discussions.

      Coming from someone as ignorant and pathetic as you, that is a compliment.

      Delete
    8. Troy:

      No, it's a logical error. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. How does it follow there must have been a single pair of humans that were the ancestors of all humans alive today?

      So, by your logic, I must have about 10 billion great-great-great-great-great . . . . grandparents (2^32=[approx] 10^10). So, just 32 generations ago (approx. 800 years ago), I had 10 billion grandparents. Is that your point?

      You have, nor any Darwinist, hasn't any knowledge whatsoever if there were two original parents or not. But certainly you're familiar with Mitochnodrial Eve---science using genetics and determining that we all have descended from one "Eve." This is science. Do you want to dispute it?

      I stand by my statements. It was valid for a 5-year old, and it is just as valid today.

      But, atheists being who they are, now tell us that "something can come from nothing." This is logical "nonsense", not what I stated above.

      But, again, we digress.

      I used logic to arrived at a decision about God just like Susan Jacoby did. ID doesn't say: "God exists, and we have the Bible, and therefore we know how everything came about." It says: "Biological phenomena exhibit hallmarks of intelligent design. Life, therefore, is very, very likely the result of a designer, not random processes."

      Others, Darwinists, say, "Oh yeah, look at these parasites that destroy people's lives and do horrible things. Oh yeah, right, God exists." And this argument they use to buttress their claims. It's the Darwinists who indulge in the religious language, not ID, and not critics of Darwinism.

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joke G

      the whole of human ancestry can be traced back to that one.


      Evidence please.

      Go ahead Chubs, show us how ignorant you really are by bringing up Mitochondrial Eve again.

      Delete
    10. LoL! Chromosome 2, thorton. Only ONE got that fusion you dimwit and now ALL have it.

      Pretty basic actually...

      Delete
    11. velikovsky:

      Is the theory that is arose entirely thru chance?

      You tell me. The ball is on your side of the court.

      Fred Hoyle, an atheist, used this calculation to show the unimaginable odds that Darwinism has to overcome. In his mind, this simple calculation was enough to tell him, intellectually, that Darwinism cannot answer the questions about the origin of life. You can say, "Oh, yeah, but that's origin of life. That's a separate question." But, if you want to posit only material causes, then the utter inability to explain origin of life requires something other than material causes---such as formal causes. And now the same formal causes can come into play regarding diversity of species.

      Delete
    12. Fred Hoyle was not well versed in biology. He was an astrophysicist. And, by the way, he denied the Big Bang till his death.

      These are hardly credentials of someone whose opinion on biology should be taken seriously.

      Delete
    13. PaV Lino

      But certainly you're familiar with Mitochnodrial Eve---science using genetics and determining that we all have descended from one "Eve." This is science. Do you want to dispute it?


      OK, PaV races Chubby Joe to the bottom of the stupid pit.

      Mitochondrial Eve data doesn't mean there was only one woman alive 200K years ago. It means there was one woman alive out of the whole population at that time which all living humans today can trace their maternal lineage to.

      Mitochondrial Eve

      Damn but we have some ignorant Creationists around here.

      Delete
    14. oleg:
      Fred Hoyle was not well versed in biology.

      Then it is very interesting tat not one biologist gas stepped up and demonstrated that he was wrong.

      And if biologists can't even support their own claims wrt evolutionism, why should they be taken seriously outside of their own specified fields?

      Delete
    15. thorton,

      Stuff it- your position can't explain humans, women nor mitochondria.

      Delete
    16. Chubby Joe G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!


      LOL! The standard whine of the Fatboy when called again on his ignorance and stupidity.

      Delete
    17. Joe,

      Then it is very interesting tat not one biologist gas stepped up and demonstrated that he was wrong

      You mean other than this one Joe?

      Ian Musgrave ...Dr Musgrave is a molecular pharmacologist/toxicologist who works at the University of Adelaide, Australia

      "These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
      They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
      They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
      They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
      They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
      They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]"

      Delete
    18. velikovsky:

      Is the theory that is arose entirely thru chance?

      You tell me. The ball is on your side of the court.

      Looking at the quote above I would say the a probability is as good as the premises it is based on

      Or this
      " The universal probability bound assumes that the event one is trying to measure is completely random, and some use this argument to prove that evolution could not possibly occur, since its probability would be much less than that of the universal probability bound. This, however, is fallacious, given that evolution is not a completely random effect (genetic drift), but rather proceeds with the aid of natural selection"

      But why conflate the origin of life with the origin of CC? I am deep out of my league but it seems that all bacteria do not have cytochrome c? The probabilty of CC would seem to be an evolutionary issue not abiogenesis issue.

      But, if you want to posit only material causes

      Material causes have been observed to manipulate matter, what are the observed immaterial causes and how do they manipulate matter? What is the interface between the immaterial and the world of energy and matter?

      , then the utter inability to explain origin of life requires something other than material causes

      This means that immaterial causes are the default premise unless material causes can explain a phenomenon to Lino.

      And this argument they use to buttress their claims. It's the Darwinists who indulge in the religious language, not ID, and not critics of Darwinism

      Now it is true I haven't been to church for sometime,but I assume writing such an obvious falsehood is still a lie,or at least ,to be kind,a statement not meant to be factually accurate.

      Delete
    19. Then it is very interesting tat not one biologist gas stepped up and demonstrated that he was wrong

      You mean other than this one Joe?

      "Dr Musgrave is a molecular pharmacologist/toxicologist who works at the University of Adelaide, Australia"

      He ain't no biologist. And he cannot account for ANY proteins.

      Try again...

      Delete
    20. thorton's ignorance and stupidity:

      Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on another one of Cornelius Hunter's blog posts Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Thorton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Delete
  16. Troy: No, it's a logical error. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. How does it follow there must have been a single pair of humans that were the ancestors of all humans alive today?

    Jeff: Yes, but to a 5-yr old, who doesn't posit un-caused events, the designer explanation is as good as any he/she can think of, not to mention most parsimonious. Once that kid learns that stars, that certain life-forms depend on, ultimately burn out, then those who posit causes for all events have some explaining to do. Positing UCA is not only non-explanatory, it's less of an analogical extrapolation than SA.

    And to the extent that UCA is conceived of as part of an over-all atheistic world-view, it can't even account for a non-arbitrary epistemology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but to a 5-yr old, who doesn't posit un-caused events, the designer explanation is as good as any he/she can think of, not to mention most parsimonious.

      This is irrelevant. Lino claimed he deduced the existence of an original pair. He was wrong about that. Agreed?

      Delete
    2. How was he wrong, troy? Make your case, if you can. I dare you

      Delete
    3. You dare me? Or what?

      Explain why here has to be an original pair.

      Delete
    4. LoL! MAKE YOUR CASE YOU COWARD

      Delete
  17. Jeff

    Yes, but to a 5-yr old, who doesn't posit un-caused events, the designer explanation is as good as any he/she can think of, not to mention most parsimonious


    I see. Creationists who have the scientific understanding of a 5-year old are the ones who embrace ID. That certainly explains your views.

    Good thing we don't have any 5-year olds or Creationists in charge of scientific research to better understand the natural world. If we did, scientific learning would come to a dead stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moronton,

      When you UCA'ists can actually EXPLAIN UCA as opposed to just BELIEVE in it like Santa Claus, come back and tell us what you got.

      Delete
    2. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      When you UCA'ists can actually EXPLAIN UCA as opposed to just BELIEVE in it like Santa Claus, come back and tell us what you got.


      Already been done LFJJ.

      Interactive Tree Of Life

      When you get beyond a 5-year old's understanding level you may be able to grasp it. Until then keep with the philosophical blithering, it's more your speed.

      Delete
    3. I'm flabbergasted. The fossil evidence and the genetic evidence point to a UCA. How does it point to SA?

      Delete
    4. troy:
      The fossil evidence and the genetic evidence point to a UCA.

      Just because you say so that doesn't make it so. The fossil evidence definitely doesn't help you. And genetics doesn't come close to helping you.

      Delete
    5. LoL! The interactive tree of life nonsense again!

      Please tell us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan with new body parts? where is that in your link?

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      Please tell us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan with new body parts?


      Why does it matter?

      How many space aliens were contacted by your pyramid antenna before they were reincarnated?

      Delete
    7. Please tell us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan with new body parts?

      child molester thorton:
      Why does it matter?

      Without that you don't have any science- but we all know you don't have any science anyway.

      But then again you don't know anything about science, and it shows.

      Delete
    8. Logic is a formal operation of the mind. It is not in need of science to function.

      And science tells us that there is a Mitochondrial Eve. That is NOT what evolutionists were expecting. So they don't talk about it much.

      So, it seems the 5-yr. old got it right, while the ones with advanced degrees got it wrong.

      You know, "out of the mouth of babes."

      Delete
    9. PaV Lino

      And science tells us that there is a Mitochondrial Eve. That is NOT what evolutionists were expecting. So they don't talk about it much.


      PaV, on the other thread you said the fossil animals found in the Cambrian age strata 500+ MYA were the original created 'kinds'.

      Which of the Cambrian fossils was the original created human kind?

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. Lino:

    So, by your logic, I must have about 10 billion great-great-great-great-great . . . . grandparents (2^32=[approx] 10^10). So, just 32 generations ago (approx. 800 years ago), I had 10 billion grandparents. Is that your point?

    No, you're overlooking inbreeding. My point was that you can't deduce the existence of on original pair. If you disagree, please show how that is a logical conclusion.


    You have, nor any Darwinist, hasn't any knowledge whatsoever if there were two original parents or not. But certainly you're familiar with Mitochnodrial Eve---science using genetics and determining that we all have descended from one "Eve." This is science. Do you want to dispute it?

    Yes, the mitochondrial DNA of us all can be traced back to a single female. But the same is not true for the rest of our genome. Each gene has a different common ancestor. So there is no common pair that gave rise to us all. Do you want to dispute that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Troy, the data doesn't tell us whether there was a common pair of humans or not. Your approach involves lots of circular reasoning in the form of over-simplistic assumptions made on the assumption of speculative common ancestry.

      No rational person is under any rational obligation to make over-simplified assumptions. Because such over-simplified assumptions are the logical equivalent to the positing of ad-hoc properties to kazillions of past events.

      Until you can deduce the relevant phenotypes from relevant initial conditions in the relevant time-spans using some set of non-speculative event regularities, you've explained precisely NOTHING naturalistically.

      Your approach is actually a post-hoc teleological approach where you're the designer imposing ad-hoc properties on past events. I'm flabbergasted. Even God can't do that.

      Delete
    2. As for fossil data, Troy, it has huge gaps that haven't been "bridged" by any naturalistic causal theory at all.

      Moreover, not only are known stratigraphic ranges NOT known to be actual stratigraphic ranges, but actual stratigraphic ranges are NOT known to be existential ranges.

      The fossil data is of no relevance to HOW organisms come about except in the sense that they impose time limitations for YOUR view--limitations you have NOT even remotely demonstrated can be satisfied naturalistically.

      Delete
    3. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Troy, the data doesn't tell us whether there was a common pair of humans or not.


      Sorry LFJJ, but the data does conclusively show no single original pair of humans.

      Heck, even a high school textbook could explain that to you. But since you're stuck at a 5-year old's level of scientific understanding then I guess you're out of luck.

      Delete
    4. Troy, the data doesn't tell us whether there was a common pair of humans or not.

      Yes, it does. It tells us there wasn't. That's what the experts say anyway.

      Delete
    5. Yes, they do say it, Moronton. So what? They're experts in positing ad-hoc hypotheses. There's no intellectual virtue in being more credulous or speculative than is necessary. Try again, Moron.

      Delete
    6. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Yes, they do say it. So what?


      So tell us: why we should value your ignorant layman's opinion over the experts who have spent their whole careers studying it?

      There's no intellectual virtue in being more credulous or speculative than is necessary.

      How much intellectual virtue is there in you continually offering your ignorance based personal incredulity in lieu of a valid scientific argument?

      Delete
    7. Moronton,

      Can you actually ARTICULATE a valid scientific argument in favor of UCA that appeals to actual data and inductive criteria? Didn't think so.

      Delete
    8. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Can you actually ARTICULATE a valid scientific argument in favor of UCA that appeals to actual data and inductive criteria?


      Yes. It's already been done for you multiple times. Not my problem that you with your 5-year old's understanding of science are too stupid to understand it.

      Delete
    9. No, bald assertions are not scientific and all you have are bald assertions

      Delete
    10. Moronton thinks saying, "But my priests say ...," is an articulated argument for UCA that appeals to actual data and inductive criteria. That's how utterly moronic he is.

      Delete
    11. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      "But my priests say ...," is an articulated argument for UCA that appeals to actual data and inductive criteria.


      LFJJ you've already proven you're too stupid to understand the scientific explanations and references you were given. No need to belabor the point.

      Delete
    12. Troy:

      My point was that you can't deduce the existence of on original pair. If you disagree, please show how that is a logical conclusion.

      It's quite simple, isn't it?

      There are billions of humans now. There were a whole lot less thousands of years ago.

      Ultimately, you have two parents who mated.

      This is just like one bacteria cell that keeps dividing and forms hundreds of millions of descendants. All of the descendants come from the one bacteria. This seems obvious. Why isn't it obvious to you? What do you see in its place?

      Yes, the mitochondrial DNA of us all can be traced back to a single female. But the same is not true for the rest of our genome. Each gene has a different common ancestor. So there is no common pair that gave rise to us all. Do you want to dispute that?

      To state that "each gene has a different common ancestor" is to state something I've never heard before, and which, really, cannot be true.

      You're failing to see the import of Mitochondrial Eve: it was NOT what was expected by the Darwinists---who expected see 'several' such eves, assuming that human kind developed in various areas of the world. M-Eve tells us that there was ONE ovum from which mankind flowed.

      Delete
    13. PaV Lino

      You're failing to see the import of Mitochondrial Eve: it was NOT what was expected by the Darwinists---who expected see 'several' such eves, assuming that human kind developed in various areas of the world. M-Eve tells us that there was ONE ovum from which mankind flowed.


      No it doesn't PaV you idiot. It merely says there was one female out of the hundreds of thousands alive 200K years ago that we're all maternally related to.

      Are you really so dense you still misunderstand that? Apparently so.

      Delete
    14. Lino,

      My point was that you can't deduce the existence of on original pair. If you disagree, please show how that is a logical conclusion.

      It's quite simple, isn't it?
      There are billions of humans now. There were a whole lot less thousands of years ago.

      Ultimately, you have two parents who mated.


      Yes,your father and mother. Both of which came from two parents. Which is the line of direct descent? Mother or Father?

      This is just like one bacteria cell that keeps dividing and forms hundreds of millions of descendants. All of the descendants come from the one bacteria. This seems obvious. Why isn't it obvious to you? What do you see in its place?

      There are not boy and girl bacteria

      Delete
    15. Lino,

      To state that "each gene has a different common ancestor" is to state something I've never heard before, and which, really, cannot be true.

      Pretty arrogant statement. It's nevertheless true that in sexual species (almost) every gene has a different most recent common ancestor. This is well-known.

      You need to brush up your knowledge of Coalescent Theory, based on stochastic models known as Branching Processes, and mainly developed by 'Darwinist' professor John Kingman. So this statement of your is false:

      You're failing to see the import of Mitochondrial Eve: it was NOT what was expected by the Darwinists.

      You might find this a useful site. Quote:

      The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or "first couple".

      Delete
    16. Moronton, a subjective hunch per se (and that's all UCA'ists over-simplistic assumptions amount to) is not a scientific prediction nor an analogical extrapolation. You don't know the difference. And your priests are counting on you being just that moronic, you little fideistic moron, you.

      Delete
    17. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      a subjective hunch per se (and that's all UCA'ists over-simplistic assumptions amount to) is not a scientific prediction nor an analogical extrapolation.


      LFJJ you've already proven you're too stupid to understand the scientific explanations and references you were given. No need to still belabor the point.

      Delete
    18. Troy: Pretty arrogant statement. It's nevertheless true that in sexual species (almost) every gene has a different most recent common ancestor. This is well-known.

      Jeff: "Almost every" is not "each." Thus, there is nothing arrogant about Lino's statement. And therefore it is you who is arrogant.

      Troy: The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or "first couple".

      Jeff: The question is not whether CA is falsifiable. It isn't. It's an hypothesis without an explanatory theory that predicts the relevant data.

      The question is whether the data can be explained naturalistically in terms of CA using event regularities in operation today such that an a "first couple" is ruled out? And since we don't have ANY such naturalistic explanation of the data in terms of CA of the degree you posit, we certainly don't have one with greater specificity in it's implications (like "there was no 'first couple' of humans").

      Get an explanation first. Then we can look at the implications of it. Without an explanation, you're shooting in the wind.

      Delete
    19. Ignore what Stephen Myer says about ID being the "best explanation." He' wrong. To date, it's the ONLY explanation unless you think you can cause the past to be what you wish it was by storytelling in terms of over-simplified assumptions that amount to positing ad-hoc properties for kazillions of past events. Adding on atheism just adds another infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses.

      Delete
    20. Jeff:

      The question is whether the data can be explained naturalistically in terms of CA using event regularities in operation today such that an a "first couple" is ruled out?

      The answer is yes. We know how genes are passed on from parents to offspring, and we know recombination rates. This knowledge can be fed into mathematical models that predict a range of likely times to coalescence of genealogies. These models predict that Mitochondreal Eve lived a lot longer ago than Y-chromosomal Adam. The reason is very simple: the effective population size of human males is smaller than that of human females, since males can monopolize females. Some males get to have sex with many females and quite a few get to have no sex at all.

      Delete
    21. ID is not only not the best explanation, it's not even an explanation. At best, it's a conjecture.

      ID answers the question of how life, the universe and everything came about by proposing it was created by an Intelligent Designer yet steadfastly refuses to infer or even speculate anything about the nature of that Designer. In other words, in answer to the question of "how" it answers with a label not an explanation. The term "Intelligent Designer" does not entail anything in the way of a description. At best, it implies something vaguely analogous to a human designer.

      As for the rest, it amounts to criticisms of the shortcomings - both real and imagined - of current evolutionary theory, expressions of incredulity that various complex biological structures could have sprung into existence de novo and shaky estimates of the probability of same.

      Regardless of the above, however, the test of whether ID is a better scientific theory than evolution is pragmatic. Does it explain everything that the theory of evolution explains but better, in greater detail? The answer is no, it doesn't. It offers no step-by-step explanations of how things came about although that is exactly what ID proponents demand of evolutionary biologists. Does it explain more than the theory of evolution in the way, say, that relativity theory explained things that Newtonian mechanics could not? Hardly, since it is unable to explain even as much as evolution. Does it open up fruitful new lines of research that would not be possible without it? We haven't seen any so far.

      I doubt if ID will ever go away entirely since essentially it is an attempt to express religious creationism in the language and trappings of science and religion is not going away any time soon either.

      Delete
  20. I've been thinking about the problem of evil. It seems to me that the if the Bible said that God was bad, then there would be no problem. The problem is that the existence of evil seems to contradict conventional theology, that holds that God is good. Evil doesn't contradict God's existence. Some pagans believed in gods that were nasty and vindictive. They didn't have a problem of theodicy. So the conclusion that there is no God because of evil is illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If we are going to lame God for the evil in the world, then it is only fair that we thank God for all the gratuitous goodness. For example, I like to look at sunsets. It makes me happy. That is a kindness that I don't need to survive, but it's nice. I can't think of any evolutionary explanations for why I like sunsets. I can think of a lot more examples of gratuitous goodness. I wonder what the evolutionist would have to say about them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If we are going to blame God for the bad things, then it is only fair that we thank God for the good. For example, I enjoy watching sunsets. Sunsets make me happy. I can't think of any evolutionary explanation for why that is the case. It is just pure kindness. I can think of a lot of other examples of gratuitous goodness. I wonder what the evolutionist have to say about this.

    ReplyDelete