tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2415893828129968841..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design: The Banality of Evolution, Part 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50343164242852185932011-08-24T01:39:41.608-07:002011-08-24T01:39:41.608-07:00TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbol...TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).<br />"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.<br />NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.NeoSUFI.Tatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090233313869415998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63002059711728832392010-09-15T22:53:24.551-07:002010-09-15T22:53:24.551-07:00There’s a new posting at physicsworld.com by Hamis...There’s a new posting at physicsworld.com by Hamish Johnston that brings up the issue of the potential damage caused by this to the cause of science funding in Britain:<br /><br />This morning there was lots of talk about science on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme — but I think it left many British scientists cringing under their duvets.<br /><br />Hawking explained that M-theory allows the existence of a “multiverse” of different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. We exist in our universe not by the grace of God, according to Hawking, but simply because the physics in this particular universe is just right for stars, planets and humans to form.<br /><br />There is just one tiny problem with all this — there is currently little experimental evidence to back up M-theory. In other words, a leading scientist is making a sweeping public statement on the existence of God based on his faith in an unsubstantiated theory…<br /><br />Physicists need the backing of the British public to ensure that the funding cuts don’t hit them disproportionately. This could be very difficult if the public think that most physicists spend their time arguing about what unproven theories say about the existence of God.<br /><br />http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/by_hamish_johnstonstephen_hawk.htmlEspagnathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349385556589100225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12656123762544829972010-09-15T10:15:32.162-07:002010-09-15T10:15:32.162-07:00Pedant, I never said that believing in God is requ...Pedant, I never said that believing in God is required to experience genuine love. I was only trying to point out that there must be an author of such things.M. Holcumbrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990210619615973402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37331381138106956112010-09-13T16:40:49.701-07:002010-09-13T16:40:49.701-07:00Thanks for your trouble, Mike, but you’re just not...Thanks for your trouble, Mike, but you’re just not getting it, and I’m not about to buy the argument that I have to believe in your god in order to live a life of love, generosity and sacrifice with my wife, my children, and the rest of humanity.<br /><br />I read the Klinghoffer piece you linked to and it just reinforces the case you’ve been making for the necessity of your god by citing some quotations that are meant to be scary from people whose opinions don’t matter to me.<br /><br />I think you and I have given this matter a fair shake, and I wish you well. Perhaps you will take the trouble to investigate further the arguments counter to your moral argument for god, as I suggested earlier. You might gain a better appreciation of the fact that people don’t need adhere to a particular religious belief in order to behave themselves in a way that their parents would be proud of.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84859925326744703132010-09-13T07:57:37.279-07:002010-09-13T07:57:37.279-07:00Pedant said: "If someone does not posit a mor...Pedant said: "If someone does not posit a moral law, but believes that respect for the rights of others, empathy, and generosity, are worthwhile attitudes, is she dishonest?”<br /><br />Okay, she is either dishonest or she simply hasn’t thought about it long enough. If you consider these things "worthwhile", you are automatically positing moral law. Or in other words, such a statement is a proclamation. You are DEFINING such things as "virtuous". Now, if you say this is not the case, that such behavior is simply “reasonable”, then you need to explain WHY it is reasonable or rational to "respect the rights of others", and as soon as you attempt that, you take yourself down into a rabbit hole of circular reasoning and/or relative morality. Eventually you end up having to nail down a moral imperative that stands by itself (unless you disregard morality altogether). <br /><br />This is exactly why the common man will simply say "That's just plain WRONG!" when he sees indecent or wicked behavior, or is slighted. He is placing the behavior into a category, based on what he “knows” to be true. We just know it when we see it. The thinking man might be unsatisfied by this, but like I said, any attempt to figure out WHY it's wrong will only lead to frustration. It's just wrong, and that's all there is to it. This concept is encapsulated in the US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident...”<br /><br />Pedant said: “If someone thinks that disrespecting the rights of others is wrong, why is that “transcendent”? Why is it not a reasonable and pragmatic approach to living in society, including one’s family, on purely rational grounds?" <br /><br />It is transcendent simply because these “laws” do indeed seem to stand by themselves, and they defy any attempt to explain them away through logic or reason, or to explain them as a result of the physical world around us. Either they are just there, or they are an illusion. Take your pick. <br /><br />Pedant said: “If a person does not posit an objective moral law, then she does not require a lawgiver”<br /><br />This is true, but if you decide to nail down certain behaviors as either “right” or “wrong” per definition, then you are indeed positing a moral law that stands or falls by itself. And if you posit moral law, you posit justice. And both of these lead inexorably to a law giver and a punisher.<br /><br />Dr. Hunter Likes to end his pieces with the words “religion drives science and it matters”. The morality issue is exactly why it matters. Read this and tell me what you think:<br /><br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/darwinian_morality_how_the_tru038001.htmlM. Holcumbrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990210619615973402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42086867729717502012010-09-12T07:14:48.722-07:002010-09-12T07:14:48.722-07:00Mike,
Thank you for your replies. I agree with m...Mike,<br /><br />Thank you for your replies. I agree with much of what you wrote, but regarding:<br /><br /><i>ALL of us, if we are honest with ourselves, posit a moral law, and that on a day-to-day basis.</i><br /><br />You have a tendency to make blanket statements. I someone does not posit a moral law, but believes that respect for the rights of others, empathy, and generosity, are worthwhile attitudes, is she dishonest?<br /><br /><i>But it shouldn’t be too hard to see that the things we deem as “wrong” transcend our own say in the matter.</i><br /><br />If someone thinks that disrespecting the rights of others is wrong, why is that “transcendent”? Why is it not a reasonable and pragmatic approach to living in society, including one’s family, on purely rational grounds?<br /><br /><i>And if we are ultimately not the law giver, then who is?</i><br /><br />If a person does not posit an objective moral law, then she does not require a lawgiver. For further information, you might Google “moral argument for god.”Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3898180256221705552010-09-12T06:35:01.848-07:002010-09-12T06:35:01.848-07:00---continued---
You were sticking with what you a...---continued---<br /><br />You were sticking with what you assumed to a “conventional meaning of evolutionist.” Is there a <i>conventional</i> meaning, or is it sometimes a pejorative, like “Darwinist,” or “Socialist,” or “Keynesian”? Is there a journal entitled “Evolutionism”? A Google search for “evolutionist" turned up a Wikipedia article on “evolutionism,” which states:<br /><br /><i>In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, and so it is not used.</i><br /><br />So why do you use such terms? Wikipedia goes on to explain:<br /><br /><i>To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.</i><br /><br />How apposite to the theme of this blog, <i>Darwin’s God</i>.<br /><br />In light of the above, my answer to your question:<br /><br /><i>So when evolutionists say god wouldn't make this world they don't really mean it?</i><br /><br />is to refer to what I said concerning Hawking’s statements about God in the context of his field, cosmology, but putting it now in the context of biology. <b>You will not find God-related statements in the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature, because such concepts are beyond the purview of science.</b>Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22052726722960778042010-09-12T06:32:23.683-07:002010-09-12T06:32:23.683-07:00Hunter, you asked:
So when evolutionists say god ...Hunter, you asked:<br /><br /><i>So when evolutionists say god wouldn't make this world they don't really mean it?</i><br /><br />You then quoted Pedant:<br /><br /><i>===<br />The term “evolutionist” being subject to disambiguation, I will assume arguendo, in light of your original post on this thread, that you are referring to Stephen Hawking in this case and labeling him an “evolutionist.”<br />===</i><br /><br />And you replied:<br /><br /><i>No, I was sticking with what I assumed to be a conventional meaning of evolutionist (ie, those asserting biological evolution as fact) on your part.</i><br /><br />Are you now saying that Hawking is not an “evolutionist”? Are you retracting the claim of your original post, that Hawking used “evolutionary thought” to commit a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>? Are you contradicting yourself? Surely biologists don’t make claims about a god making this world, and cosmologists don’t go around making pronouncements about biological evolution in the peer-reviewed literature. <br /><br />----to be continued---Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35909491810266751272010-09-12T02:12:23.273-07:002010-09-12T02:12:23.273-07:00First of all, this is an especially slovenly post ...First of all, this is an especially slovenly post from Dr. Cornelius. He clearly hasn't read Hawking's book. (Nor have I, but I didn't trash it dishonestly.)<br /><br />Hunter's description of Hawking as an "evolutionist", his claim that theories from astrophysics(!) are "evolutionist" too, and his claim that "evolutionary thought" has influenced astrophysics, are pure bunkum. <br /><br />Cornelius is now using Kent Hovind-type creationism, full of horrible phrases like "evolutionary geology" and "evolutionary physics" and "evolutionary astronomy". <br /><br />This language is used because creationists need to explain why no real scientists from any field (not just biologists) believe the universe is 6,000 years old, geological strata were not laid down in Noah's Flood, and so on.<br /><br />And just like Ken Ham, we get outright claims of theories disproven, strangely not backed up by facts:<br /><br />>>In fact, several of the distant planets have contradicted evolutionary theories.<br /><br />...The finding of others, given that [atheist] religious premise, proves that planetary systems can evolve (in spite of the empirical evidence). <<<br /><br />OK, Cornelius, WHICH "empirical evidence" shows planetary systems cannot evolve, as you claim?<br /><br />WHICH distant planets "contradicted evolutionary theories"?<br /><br />References, please.<br /><br />(He'll never say. It's Cornelius: fart and dart.)Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22040720659084361772010-09-11T22:38:08.818-07:002010-09-11T22:38:08.818-07:00I said: "And you can’t say that we have “esca...I said: "And you can’t say that we have “escaped our genes” through the use of rational thought because the Spartans certainly came to a different rational conclusion that we would have, wouldn’t you say?"<br /><br />vun Kannon said: “No, I wouldn't say. I'd make a guess that Spartan parents loved their children, even those born with deformities, as much as we love ours. But the society could not support and care for those children to the same level we can today. The result was infanticide. We also have our limits, and allow caregivers to "pull the plug".”<br /><br />As far as I understand it, it wasn’t just that they weren’t able to care for the child, as if all they needed was an incubator to lower the bilirubin count. I don’t know what the criteria was that they were looking for, but rest assured the elders were presented with a living, breathing child that would no doubt survive if tended to. The pronouncement was not “well, look, this kid’s gonna die soon anyway, so let’s throw him to the pit”, because many of them were taken away to be slaves if not “fit” enough. But this kind of behavior should not be too surprising, given the fact that mothers in our country, before it was banned, would suck the brains out their unborn baby’s skull to abort them easier. These children would have certainly survived if delivered (instead of killed for the sake of convenience).<br /><br />vun Kannon said: Either as individuals or as societies, you can't claim that a necessary condition for this transcendance is accepting Jesus as your personal Savior.”<br /><br />I’m not sure why you brought that up, but I would agree with you. Issues such as “right and wrong” are written in the hearts of men.<br /><br />vun Kannon said: “Besides, the issue is not that we sometimes fall to the level of brute utility, it is that we so often rise above it.”<br /><br />Brute utility is one thing, and is much less wicked than some of the other reasons we do what we do. But as far as rising above it: all our righteousness is but filthy rags (lit. bloody tampons) in the sight of God. Our very best is always polluted with pride, greed, men pleasing, self-interest, self-righteousness, social obligation, sloth, grumblings, envy, etc., etc. And since you brought it up, this is exactly why we should seek his righteousness. Ours simply will not do.M. Holcumbrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990210619615973402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9134433509821580442010-09-11T22:33:46.258-07:002010-09-11T22:33:46.258-07:00Pedant said: “Right and wrong, love and hate, are ...Pedant said: “Right and wrong, love and hate, are words that describe judgments and feelings. To think that they represent entities that have some kind of existence “out there” is to commit the fallacy of reification”<br /><br />Love and hate are two categories by which we can classify the desires, longings and lusts of our heart, or soul, or being, or whatever you want to call it. They help to define who we are. And I would certainly not call these “concrete” or “material” things, and I think I have made it clear that I believe them to be very abstract indeed.<br /><br />But for being so abstract, they are the very impetus behind every single thing we do, and a lot of times it’s not very pretty. Lust can drive a man to abandon his family, so that he can maximize his free time to solicit sex, or stare at pornography. Greed can drive a man to kidnap infants and pimp them out to those who would pay to have sex with them. Revenge can cause men to do countless and unbounded horrible things to each other. I could go on endlessly here, but the point is, for such “abstract things”, they cause some very concrete results.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br />I said: “It simply cannot be explained by evolutionary processes or rational thought.”<br /><br />Pedant said: “Really? And you know that because you have studied all of the literature on evolutionary processes and rational thought?”<br /><br />Has anyone studied ALL the literature on evolutionary processes and rational thought? Is it a requirement to study ALL the literature before making an assertion? There’s a lot of literature out there, you know. <br /><br />I’m sure there is no end to the attempts to explain these things away with naturalism, but at the end of the day, any time we see a horrible injustice, especially when perpetrated against us, there is something within all of us that cries out “THAT’S WRONG!”, and we desire it to be made right. <br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br />Pedant said: “You’re the one positing laws and lawgivers. Please give the rest of us a break.”<br /><br />ALL of us, if we are honest with ourselves, posit a moral law, and that on a day-to-day basis. Most of us make ourselves to be the moral law-giver, and a lot of times, we would certainly love to be the punisher. But it shouldn’t be too hard to see that the things we deem as “wrong” transcend our own say in the matter. We know them to be wrong whether we say so or not. And if we are ultimately not the law giver, then who is?M. Holcumbrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990210619615973402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14348576601633377012010-09-11T17:08:19.475-07:002010-09-11T17:08:19.475-07:00Pedant:
===
The term “evolutionist” being subject...Pedant:<br /><br />===<br />The term “evolutionist” being subject to disambiguation, I will assume arguendo, in light of your original post on this thread, that you are referring to Stephen Hawking in this case and labeling him an “evolutionist.”<br />===<br /><br />No, I was sticking with what I assumed to be a conventional meaning of evolutionist (ie, those asserting biological evolution as fact) on your part.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6537647065445834252010-09-11T03:47:17.411-07:002010-09-11T03:47:17.411-07:00Hunter quoted me:
"If there were an 'evo...Hunter quoted me:<br /><br />"If there were an 'evolutionist belief system' you might have a point. In reality, there are biologists who use evolutionary theory as a tool in their work."<br /><br />And then asked:<br /><br /><i>So when evolutionists say god wouldn't make this world they don't really mean it?</i><br /><br />The term “evolutionist” being subject to disambiguation, I will assume <i>arguendo</i>, in light of your original post on this thread, that you are referring to Stephen Hawking in this case and labeling him an “evolutionist.”<br /><br />Kindly look at my quoted statement again. Is Hawking a biologist? (I think you were asked this question earlier in the thread, but I didn’t see an answer.) He is not a biologist. Does he use evolutionary theory (random mutation and natural selection, etc) as a tool in his work? No.<br /><br />Hawking is a cosmologist, cosmology being a discipline more distinct in its concepts and tools from biology than chalk is different from cheese. So it is a stretch to label him an “evolutionist.” But maybe you will in time provide the definition you have in mind that justifies this label and clarify this issue.<br /><br />As to his assertions about God and creation, surely you are aware of the difference between the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature and works intended for a non-peer (popular) audience. (It would be remarkable and newsworthy if you could find an hypothesis relating to a god in any of Hawking’s primary papers.) Given the freedom afforded by the medium of a popular book, a scientist may make statements in it that are <b>not scientific</b>. That is what Hawking did in this case. Whether he really meant it or not, is something between him and his god, but that point is not even tangentially related to the actual science of cosmology.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60443353554278015942010-09-10T21:55:10.859-07:002010-09-10T21:55:10.859-07:00Eocene said: "Keep in mind, he's not real...Eocene said: <i>"Keep in mind, he's not really your brother. He's certainly not mine."</i><br /><br />Good to know you can disagree with someone over the details of a doctrine and not hold a grudge. The funny thing is Eocene, that from all appearances, you are an annihilationist; surely you part ways with as many Christians over that doctrine as I do over evolution.<br /><br />A few parting quotes:<br /><br />"We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." -Saint Augustine<br /><br />Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - Saint AugustineDerick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85499884673100048492010-09-10T21:51:05.230-07:002010-09-10T21:51:05.230-07:00Eocene said: "Take special note that most all...Eocene said: <i>"Take special note that most all individuals (who believe in God) who argue the position that life only begotten from pre-existing life is a position viciously argued against by Derick "the professed god believer" Childress."</i><br /><br />Biological life is begotten from pre-existing biological life, <i>except for at least one time, obviously.</i> Really, is this so hard to understand? Assuming for sake of argument that Adam was created as a direct act of God from dirt, that would mean he <i>was not begotten from pre-existing biological life!</i> If God created each kind of life separately, then there are <i>at least</i> as many instances of abiogenesis as there were 'kinds'. Now, you might be thinking that you can play with semantics and say "God counts as life!" But unless you believe that God has DNA and is made out of meat too, and can substantiate that claim, don't bother.<br /><br /><i> "Notice how he took and opened his true nature by saying that life coming from non-life is a FACT, therefore "Abiogenesis" (a strictly Atheist position and invention) is also a fact."</i><br /><br />That doesn't even make grammatical sense. Did I say "Abiogenesis is a fact, therefore abiogenesis is a fact?" Life from non-life is the <i>definition</i> of abiogenesis, not a conclusion.<br /><br /><i>"Yet if he truthfully did believe in God (whom he insists is Jesus Christ), he would have given credit for the beginnings of life (even if he still believed evolutionary mechanisms were a god invention thereafter) to this god he claims belief in. But he doesn't." </i><br /><br />*Sigh* I <i>do</i> give credit to the Creator for the beginnings of life; please try to get it through your thick skull that I only disagree with you as to <i>how</i> He accomplished this task. Do I think God ordained the invention of the computer? Yes. Do I think He made the first one pop into existence from nothing? No. Do I think God ordained the origin of mankind? Of life? Yes and yes. Do I think he made either one of those forms pop into existence from nothing? No. At least, not until evidence suggests otherwise.<br /><br /><i>"Nor will he ever explain (typical M.O. with most all theistic-Evos) or prove how God set the whole evolutionary dung heap mechanism in motion in the first place."</i><br /><br />Again with the word 'prove'. Science doesn't prove things, You're thinking of math. (I believe that's the first time I've accused you of thinking) Science places things on a sliding scale of likeliness. That microorganisms cause communicable diseases is incredibly likely. That eruptions occur because the volcanoes are mad is incredibly unlikely.<br /><br />Continued below...Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28185333278870070842010-09-10T21:45:24.030-07:002010-09-10T21:45:24.030-07:00"But if you've noticed in following his p...<i>"But if you've noticed in following his postings, he is on record for continually bashing and making fun of the bible.</i><br /><br />Eocene, I do my best to <i>defend</i> the Bible against people like yourself who arbitrarily consider some parts of it 'silly,' (like you said about a 144-hour creation week) who make a mockery of the text by twisting it to fit their folk science, and who perpetuate the notion that Christianity lags behind science by a few centuries. I don't consider any part of the Bible silly; but some <i>interpretations</i> are, especially ones that don't line up with what we know about reality, or ones that aren't even <i>internally</i> consistent. Eocene, I know you are one who gets bent out of shape when you think someone has made 'false accusations' against you. <i>Please,</i> out of curiosity, point out one example where I've <i>ever</i> made fun of the Bible. You're projecting. (though, I have ridiculed ridiculous <i>interpretations</i> of the Bible)<br /><br /><i>"How do I know for a fact he inadvertently is revealing his atheism ?? Take a look here. When debating the origins/beginnings of life from an atheistic "Virgin birth" concept version called "Abiogenesis", he unknowingly reveals/exposes himself as an atheist through and through by this bold statement of record. Derick Childress admitted his Atheism:<br /><br />{Derick said:} "Eocene, unless you believe that biological life has always existed, abiogenesis isn't a 'story'; it's a fact. There is now biological life in the universe, and at one point in the past there wasn't. Biological life came into existence at some point, there is simply no denying that. Where the disagreement comes in is just in what caused the life to come into existence: Was it a 'miracle' or can it be explained in terms of cause and effect?"</i><br /><br />Eocene, that is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.<br /><br />You somehow conclude that I don't believe in God <i>at all</i> based on the fact that I believe that God brought about our world <i>differently</i> than you do? "Those darn atheistic protestants; rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation; Those darn atheistic Catholics with their rosary beads."<br /><br />I can't fathom how dense one would have to be to not realize abiogenesis is a <b>FACT</b> if they don't also believe that life has <i>always existed.</i> I would usually like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my explanation as to why that is the case, but you <i>quoted it,</i> so I know that is not the explanation. I'll try once more to say this as simply as I can: At some point in the past, there was no biological life. At some later point, there <i>was</i> biological life. That is all abiogenesis means; that biological life came from biological non-life. (like 'dust of the ground') If you believe that God made Adam out of clay, that is positing 'miraculous abiogenesis'. If you believe that God assembled the DNA of the first cell, and that evolution proceeded from there, that positing guided abiogenesis. If you believe that life arose as a consequence of natural chemical laws, that is positing naturalistic abiogenesis. One more time: <i>Every single person</i> who doesn't think that biological life has existed eternally believes in abiogenesis, as an <i>inescapable consequence of logic.</i> The question is: What caused the abiogenesis; was it due to a miraculous intervention or was it carried out by natural causes that were set in motion aeons before?<br /><br />And by the way, you keep referring to an event that you consider to be made up nonsense as "the atheistic <i>virgin birth</i> as if the idea of a virgin birth is nonsense. So, in your book, is the virgin birth as 'silly' as a 144-hour creation?<br /><br />Continued below...Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42792782512649000302010-09-10T21:39:34.908-07:002010-09-10T21:39:34.908-07:00Eocene splurted: " He (Derick) like other th...Eocene splurted: "<i> He (Derick) like other theistic evolutionists never truthfully explain in any type of straight forward manner why they believe in God or any other god for that matter..."</i><br /><br />Eocene, I've lost count of how many times I've made it clear to you not only that I believe in God, but even more specifically, that I believe Jesus was God incarnate, and that He was resurrected after being executed. In the same way that a paragraph or two in a blog post is insufficient to explain every detail of why I accept evolution, or plate tectonics, or relativity, it's also insufficient to explain every detail of why I accept the existence of God and the Deity of Christ. I can only do my best to counter objections one at a time and provide references to more thorough arguments. I don't think that I could make the case for my Faith any better than C.S. Lewis does in "Mere Christianity." (Eocene, I suppose you may consider Lewis an atheist because he accepts evolution: "The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, the circulation of the blood..." (p.62) and he even uses biological evolution to illustrate spiritual transformation) If I had to give the cliff notes version, I would start by saying that using a null hypothesis is helpful in examining any claim that goes against everyday experience. In the case of unicorns, a null hypothesis might be something like "Unicorns don't exist; they are simply figments of people's imaginations." For me, the evidence surrounding unicorns is consistent with the null hypothesis. When I evaluate the things I see and experience in nature, (the fact that the universe exists, that it has the properties it does, subjective personal experiences, to name a few) to me, those things are <i>not</i> as consistent with the null hypothesis of God as they are with the alternative hypothesis. But, since some of those things are subjective, I don't hold to my position dogmatically; unlike some other Christians I don't view atheist as irrational in the least; I just think they draw a different conclusion from the data. But that's o.k., because like I said, some of it is personal or subjective to begin with. I disagree with Dawkins: I think that the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, design, purpose, and intent.<br /><br /><i>"...and never explain where to find the proof from the bible where it explains in even simplistic terms how God used evolution to accomplish this task." </i><br /><br />And I also never explain where to find the 'proof' from the Bible where it explains even in simplistic terms what relativity theory is, what x-rays are, how to build a space station, how computers work, how new stars form, who's buried in Grant's tomb, or even the fact that planets in our solar system orbit the sun; because guess what, those things aren't in there. Your sentiment that "If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true," is so far beyond ridiculous it deserves no further elaboration here.<br /><br />Continued below...Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22130165433142249292010-09-10T16:53:01.778-07:002010-09-10T16:53:01.778-07:00Pedant:
"If there were an 'evolutionist ...Pedant:<br /><br />"If there were an 'evolutionist belief system' you might have a point. In reality, there are biologists who use evolutionary theory as a tool in their work."<br /><br />So when evolutionists say god wouldn't make this world they don't really mean it?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71153384094713272922010-09-10T14:34:55.101-07:002010-09-10T14:34:55.101-07:00Mike:
You cannot escape the fact that qualities s...Mike:<br /><br /><i>You cannot escape the fact that qualities such as right and wrong, love and hate transcend the physical world that we live in.</i><br /><br />Right and wrong, love and hate, are <i>words</i> that describe judgments and feelings. To think that they represent entities that have some kind of existence “out there” is to commit the fallacy of <b>reification</b> (Google it).<br /><br /><i>It simply cannot be explained by evolutionary processes or rational thought.</i><br /><br />Really? And you know that because you have studied all of the literature on evolutionary processes and rational thought?<br /><br /><i>And if you are going to posit a moral law, you automatically posit a moral law giver, and if you posit a moral law giver, you automatically posit just punishment for any infractions against that law.</i><br /><br />You’re the one positing laws and lawgivers. Please give the rest of us a break.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36515958698097964572010-09-10T14:15:42.235-07:002010-09-10T14:15:42.235-07:00Gary:
Understandably, evolutionists are outraged ...Gary:<br /><br /><i>Understandably, evolutionists are outraged by challenges to their belief system.</i><br /><br />If there were an "evolutionist belief system" you might have a point.<br /><br />In reality, there are biologists who use evolutionary theory as a tool in their work. Understandably, they are annoyed when persons who are motivated by religious prejudice and ignorant of science and its methods object to the existence of that tool, because it threatens their beliefs.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31493318827430393082010-09-10T13:50:22.310-07:002010-09-10T13:50:22.310-07:00Mike said:
"And you can’t say that we have “...Mike said:<br /><br />"And you can’t say that we have “escaped our genes” through the use of rational thought because the Spartans certainly came to a different rational conclusion that we would have, wouldn’t you say?"<br /><br />No, I wouldn't say. I'd make a guess that Spartan parents loved their children, even those born with deformities, as much as we love ours. But the society could not support and care for those children to the same level we can today. The result was infanticide. We also have our limits, and allow caregivers to "pull the plug".<br /><br />Besides, the issue is not that we sometimes fall to the level of brute utility, it is that we so often rise above it. Either as individuals or as societies, you can't claim that a necessary condition for this transcendance is accepting Jesus as your personal Savior.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3248469003633374912010-09-10T10:39:52.171-07:002010-09-10T10:39:52.171-07:00Is no one here willing to directly answer my quest...Is no one here willing to directly answer my question on whether morality is arbitrary or not? Is it wrong, no matter what culture or era you are in, to throw weak or deformed babies into a chasm for the sake of society?<br /><br />You can’t say anything about what’s best for society here, because how to you define “best”? And you can’t say that it is an evolutionary development to care for children because animals in the wild abandon their young all the time. Is it that human evolutionary development is a little behind? Have we regressed? Have we not developed the desire to discard the unhealthy (well, some of us have). The only reason you would want to keep a crippled baby is for the love of the child itself, which would seem to transcend the “needs of society”. Do you deny that?<br /><br />And you can’t say that we have “escaped our genes” through the use of rational thought because the Spartans certainly came to a different rational conclusion that we would have, wouldn’t you say? Is it just that our thought is more rational? Why is it more rational to keep the child then? Is it more rational to love the child? Oh, there’s that pesky transcendent “love” thing again.<br /><br />And you certainly can’t say that morality is arbitrary in this case, because then you would look like a rotter. But if it’s not arbitrary, then what is it that makes it wrong to throw a crippled baby into a deep, dark hole in the ground?<br /><br />You cannot escape the fact that qualities such as right and wrong, love and hate transcend the physical world that we live in. It simply cannot be explained by evolutionary processes or rational thought. And if you are going to posit a moral law, you automatically posit a moral law giver, and if you posit a moral law giver, you automatically posit just punishment for any infractions against that law.M. Holcumbrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990210619615973402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30805581448743591632010-09-10T10:30:37.513-07:002010-09-10T10:30:37.513-07:00David said...
Understandably, theists are out...<i>David said...<br /><br /> Understandably, theists are outraged by challenges to their belief system.</i><br /><br />Understandably, evolutionists are outraged by challenges to their belief system.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81515288412788690072010-09-10T06:23:10.008-07:002010-09-10T06:23:10.008-07:00David said: "FWIW, I think you are misreading...David said: "FWIW, I think you are misreading Darren. He's calling you a professor because you "profess" to be a believer in the Christian God."<br /><br />That is a good observation David, it may well be the case. To me, his wording suggested that he is referring to someone besides me as 'professor': "<i>I dont "witness" to a professor but rather rebuke. From reading your posts, maybe I should be witnessing to you.</i>" I read that to mean: "...to you <i>also</i> but I may have interpreted it incorrectly. Your interpretation does make more sense of "<i>I'm not going to argue evidence of God to a professor, now thats just silly.</i>" I suppose only he could clarify what he meant.<br /><br />Darren, if I misunderstood what you meant by 'professor', I apologize. <br /><br />But, if you did mean 'professor' and 'believer' interchangeably, why would it be 'silly' for two believers to discuss what is or is not evidence for God? If I thought that the fact that the doors of a grocery store opened automatically was evidence for God's intervention in human affairs, why should you not point out to me that that is <i>idiotic</i>, and that it only makes my position look foolish?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13504130241514941792010-09-10T04:43:00.620-07:002010-09-10T04:43:00.620-07:00Derrick said:
"Darren, It seems that you cho...Derrick said:<br /><br />"Darren, It seems that you chose the word 'professor' because it represents higher education and intellectualism in general, else you could have used a word like 'evolutionist' or 'atheist' instead, or at least specified what kind of professor."<br /><br />FWIW, I think you are misreading Darren. He's calling you a professor because you "profess" to be a believer in the Christian God. If you substitute 'believer' for 'professor' in his message it is much clearer why he thinks you don't need witness, but rebuke.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.com